Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 11, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jeremy Johnson, Jack Burriss, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: One Vacancy.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, Village Law Director, Michael Crites.

Visitors Present: Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Sharon Sellito, Brian Miller, Charles and Eleanor Cohen, Brice Corder, Mel Bomprezzi, Chris Avery, Sabato Sagaria, Don Andrews, Michael and Brenda Carey, Joe and Karen Hickman, Dale and Barbara McCoy,

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to amend the agenda and hold ‘New Business’ before ‘Old Business.’  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Amend the Agenda as presented:  Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion Carried 4-0. 

 

New Business:

 

331 East Broadway – Charles and Eleanor Cohen– Application #09-105

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for approval of the installation of a generator.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Charles and Eleanor Cohen.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-102:

Ms. Terry showed the Planning Commission the location of the proposed generator.  She indicated that screening of the generator was not included as part of the application.  Ms. Cohen stated that the unit will be screened.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the screening needs to be an evergreen plant material or a fence.  Ms. Cohen stated it may be screened with a fence.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the generator could be screened with a fence if the screening is approved by Village staff prior to installation. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-105:

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by screening the generator – the application is compatible with other requests the Planning Commission has had for the installation of a generator. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is also agreeing to screen an existing air-conditioning unit along with the proposed generator. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the physical surroundings are improved and enhanced with these actions by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-105 with the following conditions:

1)         The generator and the existing air conditioner shall be appropriately  landscaped with evergreen plant material to screen it from Broadway and the eastern neighbor, at a height equal to or greater than the height of the generator at the time of installation; or

2)         The generator is screened by fencing approved by the Village Planner.  The fence shall be finished with paint or stain. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-105 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

Old Business:

123 South Prospect Street – Barbara Franks and Dan Rogers – Application #09-03 (Remanded by Village Council)

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for approval of a change in use from the Category “E: Retail Outlets”

designation to Category “D: Food, Drug and Beverage Businesses” designation.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Barbara Franks, Sam Sagaria, Christopher Avery, Don Andrews, and Dan Rogers.

                                                 

Discussion regarding Application #09-03:

A court reporter was present to transcribe the hearing.

 

Ms. Terry noted that Jeremy Johnson was not on the Planning Commission when this application first came before them.  She stated that Mr. Johnson was given the transcripts and application information to review so he would be permitted to vote on this application.  Mr. Johnson acknowledged that he has read the transcripts and reviewed all of the application information pertaining to Application #09-03.

 

Barbara Franks, 210 East Maple Street, stated that she has done away with some of the previously presented parking spaces per Ms. Terry’s request.  She indicated that she has five parking spaces and a patio is located where parking spaces 1 and 4 were previously located.  Ms. Franks stated that spaces 2 and 3 will remain as is and there is one additional space added that will overhang somewhat onto Park National Bank’s lot.  Ms. Franks stated that she feels she doesn’t want to deal with the parking issue any longer and she feels that the spaces she is referring to will accommodate compact cars.  Ms. Franks stated that what is of real importance to her is having the Planning Commission determine what is the classification of her barn.  She stated that she can provide evidence that 40-60 cars per day passed through the property while it was used for various businesses that were located there.

 

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street, encouraged the Planning Commission to take this one step at a time and to address whether or not the proposed space is ‘Retail.’

 

Don Andrews, stated that he is an attorney representing Ms. Franks and Mr. Rogers.  He suggested that the Planning Commission only address the matter regarding the classification of the building as it was remanded by Village Council to do.  He stated that the applicant would be willing to table the other matter pertaining to the health, safety, and general welfare of the application as it is presented.  

 

Sam Sagaria, wished to present a PowerPoint presentation to the Planning Commission concerning the ruling from Judge Spahr regarding he and the property owners of 121 South Prospect Street.  Law Director Crites indicated that the information pertaining to the ruling by Judge Spahr could not be heard unless it is the official written ruling.  Mr. Sagaria stated that this has not yet been prepared and released by Judge Spahr’s office. 

 

Chris Avery, Cedar Street, stated that he would like for Judge Spahr’s written decision to be heard by the Planning Commission.  He also stated that Linda Kovreg would like to present testimony and she wrote a letter to the Planning Commission and was not aware she needed to be present to have her testimony heard.

 

Mr. Mitchell stated that he believes the existing use of the structure (barn) is an accessory use. 

 

Mr. Burriss stated that from a safety standpoint he doesn’t feel that the proposed location for a restaurant is appropriate – both from a vehicular and pedestrian standpoint.

 

Mr. Johnson concluded that from what he has read in the presented testimony - the front and rear property acted in conjunction with each other, and whether it is storage or not – it has acted as an accessory structure to the front building. 

 

Each member of the Planning Commission concurred that the rear building was an accessory use/building. 

 

Don Andrews stated that the back lot is a separate lot from the front piece of property.  Ms. Terry indicated that although the property is divided into two lots, it has the same tax parcel ID with Licking County.  She presented a print out of the lot size and parcel number from the Licking County tax records.  Mr. Andrews questioned the definition of “parcels” versus “lots.”  He stated that the Granville Code makes reference to lots and not the parcels of land.  Ms. Terry clarified that the Code was updated with a 2009 version and there are new definitions for “accessory use” and “accessory building.”  Mr. Andrews questioned when exactly this came into affect and stated that the earlier definitions and Code that was in place when the application was submitted should be the only Code referenced. 

 

Dan Rogers indicated that he would like Judy LaVoie to come in to offer testimony on his behalf and he also feels he should have the ability to bring in other people to speak to the fact that the back lot has been used for retail purposes.

 

Mr. Mitchell stated that Ms. Franks testified that 40-60 cars utilized the driveway  and she wants to mix those cars now with pedestrian traffic which he sees as a safety issue.  Mr. Burriss stated that there are major maneuverability issues with the parking and use of the driveway for both vehicles and pedestrians.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the 40-60 cars Ms. Franks is referring to were primarily for businesses located at her address only.  Ms. Franks stated yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that realistically that number could be more when you consider Dr. Avery’s business too.  Ms. Franks stated that she is not proposing a business that invites people to drive there, but more encourage pedestrian traffic for carry out.

 

Mr. Burriss stated that he agrees it could be beneficial for the Planning Commission to have the official court ruling document from Judge Spahr as well as clarity of testimony from other witnesses.  Other member’s of the Planning Commission agreed.   

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #09-03.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-03 is Tabled.

 

332 North Granger Street – Michael Carey - Application #09-98 (Previously Tabled)

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new one-and-a-half story rear

detached garage. 

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Michael and Brenda Carey, Joe and Karen Hickman, and Dale and Barbara McCoy.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to remove Application #09-98 from the Table.  Seconded by

Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to remove Application #09-98 from the Table: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-98:

Mr. Mitchell indicated that he did listen to the tape and read the transcript from the previous meeting for Applications #09-97 and #09-98 for Michael Carey. 

 

Ms. Terry presented the information submitted by the applicant with the information requested by the Planning Commission.  She stated that she took measurements for the principle and accessory structures to get an average measurement of the footprint of homes in that neighborhood.  She went on to say that Bird and Bull used their surveying equipment to measure the principle structure heights.  Ms. Terry stated that the two issues at the last meeting entailed building height and building massing and she read aloud the Code pertaining to Height.  Ms. Terry reviewed the figures presented by Bird and Bull and she presented pictures she had taken of homes in the neighborhood - one to the south, two homes to the north, and two homes across the street.  Mr. Johnson asked which home has the twenty-four foot wide garage.  Ms. Terry stated that the yellow home across the street from the Carey’s has a twenty-four foot wide barn.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the homes presented by Ms. Terry are in the AROD.  Ms. Terry stated yes and that the homes to the west are in the Village Residential District (VRD) and the homes on the east are in the Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).

 

Mr. Burriss commended the applicant on the requested information he submitted for the Planning Commission.  He indicated that he is in support of the proposed structure to be placed on the property. 

 

Mr. Ryan questioned if the Planning Commission needs to go through the criteria in Section 1161.02 since they went through it at the last meeting.  Ms. Terry encouraged the Planning Commission to add any allow any comments to the criteria by Mr. Mitchell. 

Law Director Crites agreed.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked the depth of the old structure.  Mr. Carey indicated that the old structure is twenty feet deep and the proposed new structure is twenty-two feet deep. 

Mr. Mitchell asked if Ms. Terry’s conclusion on the footprint averages agrees with building massing in the Code.  Ms. Terry stated that this is to be determined by the Planning Commission.  She indicated that in foot print size it appears to be consistent with the Code if one looks at average height of 10% - the numbers fall in that 10% range. 

 

Joe Hickman, 326 North Granger Street, stated that with all things considered the applicant is proposing a very nice garage.  He stated that he finds it hard to believe when you look at the new structure versus the existing structure – one wouldn’t see the new structure as considerably larger than the old.  He went on to say that it would raise some concerns if you were living next to the newly proposed structure.  Mr. Hickman stated that the height of the school was not included in the calculations presented by Ms. Terry.  Mr. Hickman stated that the Village has indicated that they are not sure of the exact location of the one hundred foot boundary and he would like the Village to get it right.  Mr. Hickman stated that he has a problem if the numbers aren’t correct.  Mr. Hickman stated that during a work session the applicant talked about bringing the structure down by one foot.  Mr. Carey stated he was going to try to bring it down one foot, but he also feels that this could change the dynamics of it being a story and a half structure.  Mr. Hickman stated that Mr. Burriss is the only member on the Planning Commission that approved the McCoy garage and he has now changed his viewpoint with the approval of the Carey garage.  He indicated that this is not being consistent. 

Ms. Terry stated that Village staff was unable to find anything in the McCoy file indicating that a garage plan was not approved or disliked by the Planning Commission.   She also indicated that the building massing language in the Code has changed from when the McCoy garage was approved in 2000.  Mr. Hickman stated that the 24 foot barn that has been referred to is across the street and is 200-300 feet away from the Carey property.  He went on to say that the school is within 100 feet of the Carey property and was not included in the calculations to determine building massing.  Mr. Ryan stated that the school is not in the AROD district and the houses Ms. Terry used in her calculations are.  Ms. Terry clarified that the Code refers to properties within 100 feet and doesn’t specify the AROD district.  She questioned if the Planning Commission would want the 100 feet measured from the property line or from the physical structure because this is not specified in the Code.   

 

Barbara McCoy, 338 North Granger Street, read aloud a statement to the Planning Commission that is attached as part of these minutes.  Ms. McCoy stated that the job of the Planning Commission is to preserve the quaintness of the Village and their street does not have huge homes like other areas in the Village.  She stated that this was the reason their proposed garage was not allowed eight years ago.  Ms. McCoy indicated that they object to the proposed dormers by the applicant because it will overlook their family room.  Ms. McCoy also stated that their house has two different heights and she wondered which height was measured.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village Engineer did the measurement from the front elevation of the home and the height at the ridgeline.   

 

Dale McCoy, 338 North Granger Street, stated that he thinks he has figured out what has happened since 2000 when his garage was approved.  He stated he was told “there were no two story buildings allowed and that was it.”  Mr. McCoy stated that to be compatible with the Village his garage, as it currently is, is all he was allowed.  Mr. McCoy stated that the Planning Commission is looking at something by the Carey’s that is “grandiose and it doesn’t fit into our neighborhood.”  Mr. McCoy stated that he searched around the Village and he cannot find another building with a shed dormer.  He went on to say that the Planning Commission told the Carey’s that they couldn’t have a two story structure, but they allowed a big long shed dormer so the applicant has the space upstairs that he wants.  Mr. McCoy stated that another point he would like to make is that a structure such as this accessory structure ought to be placed in the rear of the property if you want to stay in the character of Granville.  Mr. Johnson asked Mr. McCoy the height of his garage and the height he would have liked to have made it.  Mr. McCoy stated sixteen feet (16’) is the current height and he would have liked to have had the building be twenty feet (20’) high, but he was told this wouldn’t fit into the character of the neighborhood.  Mr. McCoy indicated that if the accessory structure were to be in the back of the lot he could live with that. 

 

Mr. Ryan and Mr. Johnson indicated that at the last meeting each person indicated that they would rather have the accessory structure located in the current location rather than the back of the property.  Mr. McCoy stated that he just said he didn’t want it long ways and he would rather see it located clear at the back.  He stated that he could not speak for the Hickman’s. 

 

Karen Hickman, 326 North Granger Street, stated that she looked at the Auditor’s website and if you use their legend it is relatively easy to see what structures are located 100 feet away.  Mrs. Hickman stated that there needs to be a clear understanding if the 100 feet (for massing) is measured at the four edges of the property line, or 100 feet centered on the location of the new structure, or 100 feet from the existing garage. 

Mrs. Hickman also stated that the interpretation of the 10% is not clear and she questioned what the Ordinance says regarding this.  Mrs. Hickman submitted a Licking County website aerial photo of her property – Labeled Exhibit A.  Michael Carey indicated that he had the same questions regarding the height measurements and he asked Ms. Terry what is the worst case scenario.  He stated that he took all of his measurements from the height of any structure and this included all buildings including the school.  He stated that he tried to be conservative in the measurements and all of the height measurements in Ms. Terry’s calculations are larger than what he is encompassing.  Mr. Carey also indicated that he has a 3D PowerPoint view of the neighborhood if the Planning Commission would like to see it.  Mr. Carey stated that he doesn’t dispute that the new structure he is proposing is bigger and his point in building the structure is to make it larger.  He also stated that he is starting with a significantly small structure and he believes he meets all of the guidelines and this has been verified by Ms. Terry’s measurements.  Mr. Ryan asked Ms. Terry how she measured the 100 feet – from what point.  Ms. Terry stated that she measured from the property lines and she would be willing to measure the school if the Planning Commission would like that height included in her calculations.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that he doesn’t see it as appropriate to include the school in the calculations because it’s a different type of building and it should be interpreted differently.  Mr. Johnson stated that if 332 North Granger Street, 326 North Granger Street, and 338 North Granger Street were all measured in height (primary structure and accessory structure) that Mr. Carey’s structure is well within what the Code allows.  He added that if the height measurement were extended to 342 North Granger Street than it will be a benefit to the applicant.  Mr. Mitchell agreed that the structure will be an imposing change for the resident to the south and it would seem that a building that big should be further back on the lot. 

 

Mr. Ryan stated that the proposed location of Mr. Carey’s accessory structure was a short-lived discussion at the previous meeting and no one said they had a problem with the location until now.  Mr. Ryan stated that the problem is that Mr. Carey now has a variance from the BZBA for the current location.  Ms. Terry recalled that there was some discussion regarding not placing the structure further back because the applicant didn’t want his yard impacted.  She also questioned if the Hickman’s didn’t want it back there because of the location of their pool.  Ms. Terry stated that the ultimate decision was to put the garage in the location as proposed with no windows to the south side of the structure.  Mr. Mitchell asked if this was what was agreed to by the BZBA.  Ms. Terry stated yes, and the height was not known at that time and the BZBA did specify that it be a maximum of a 1 ½ story garage. 

 

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Carey how he is handling the draining from the gutters.  Mr. Carey stated that the downspout will point to the east and there will be a splash block.  Mr. Carey stated that this is currently how the water drainage is handled.   

 

Barbara McCoy asked that the Planning Commission look at the proposed dormer regardless of what they decide this evening.  Mr. Carey stated that he went with a shed dormer because it slopes down and he feels this would be better for building massing.  Mr. Carey stated that a normal dormer would project out more.  Mr. Carey stated that the shed dormer allows him to keep the building height down and still allows the space he would like inside the building.  He stated that in the research he did regarding a 1½ story building – one half of the space has to be at least seven feet tall in order to be considered a 1 ½ story.  Mr. Carey stated that if he allows the building height to go below 20 feet (20’) it would be considered a single story structure.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-98 again so Mr. Mitchell could add any comments.  The Planning Commission also reviewed this same criteria at their July 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.  (Please refer to the Criteria for Application #09-98 dated July 27, 2009 for additional comments.) 

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Mitchell concurred with the Planning Commission.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Mitchell concurred with the Planning Commission.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Mitchell concurred with the Planning Commission.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Mitchell concurred with the Planning Commission.

e)      Height:  Mr. Burriss felt the height of the proposed structure was appropriate.   Mr. Mitchell added that he has no basis for which to disagree that the height doesn’t conform.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Johnson concurred with these comments.

f)       Building Massing – Mr. Ryan stated that he has a concern over the size of the building – and the massing as it relates to the other buildings in the neighborhood, specifically 326 North Granger.  Mr. Ryan stated that with this being said there is a lot of landscaping and fencing that is shielding the garage that currently exists.  He stated that the new roof is higher.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he concurs with Mr. Ryan’s expressed concerns with the size of the structure and he stated that the massing would be more palatable further away from the main structure.  Mr. Johnson agreed.  

g)      Use of Details – Mr. Mitchell stated the use of detail is appropriate to the building.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is consistent use of detail throughout the structure.  Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Johnson questioned if there are still concerns regarding moving the building to the back of the property.  Mr. Hickman indicated that during the variance process when they agreed to the location of the proposed garage they did not realize the actual height of a 1 ½ story structure.  Mr. Johnson asked if there is any benefit to the Hickman’s if the structure were to be moved further back on the property.  Mr. Hickman stated probably not. Mr. Carey stated that he would be concerned that there would be too much coverage on his lot with concrete and if the move would require another variance.  Mr. Johnson stated that the structure can be moved back thirty-seven feet (37’) without a variance.  Mr. Carey agreed that moving the structure back would help the neighbor’s site line concerns, but it will also open up privacy issues for the Hickman’s.  Mr. Carey indicated that at one point the main concern was privacy and now it is site lines.  He stated that he chose the current location to address the neighbor concerns regarding privacy.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the applicant may very well need a variance for the additional lot coverage.  The Hickman’s and McCoy’s agreed that they would support a variance for the lot coverage if the building were to be moved back.  Ms. Terry indicated that a new variance application would have to be submitted.  Mr. Mitchell asked if not for the administrative issues, would the applicant be agreeable to moving the structure.  Mr. Carey stated that moving the garage back would take up more green space where he was going to put a garden and he would have to play with this and see.  Mr. Carey stated that he preferred to have a head in garage and that was not the chosen alternative by the neighbors.  He stated that if the garage were to be moved back he would like it to be a head in garage.  He added that this approval ought to be one process and it is very confusing to come to the Planning Commission and then the BZBA and go back and forth.  Mr. Ryan stated that one concern with the change in the location of the garage is the lot coverage.  Mr. Hickman stated that they would support the lot coverage variance.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is not sure what they are achieving by moving it completely. 

 

Mr. Johnson indicated that the Planning Commission has the ability to approve/disapprove the structure as presented by the applicant and they also have the ability to approve it contingent upon the applicant moving the building location. 

 

Mr. Burriss asked the applicant if the original alternative he presented at a Planning Commission work session – to drive straight back into the garage was still a consideration.  Mr. Carey indicated that he would be willing to compromise on the location of the garage but he has been told by his contractor that the Building Code may have some concern over the negative grade on his property.  He also indicated that he has some concerns over the lot coverage – and if this would be impacted due to Code regulations.  Mr. Carey asked the Planning Commission if they did agree on the structure itself.  He stated that he is hearing that the only concern that still needs to be addressed is the location of the structure.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Burriss both indicated that they did not have any issues with the proposed structure.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the building were to be moved back and the grade and fill issues were addressed it could potentially cause the building to be higher.  Ms. Terry read aloud the definition of the building height.  She stated that she could also foresee the need for a retaining wall due to the slope in the yard.  Mr. Carey agreed.

 

Mr. Ryan explained that the application can be voted on today as is or it can be tabled so the applicant can work with the neighbors on the location of the structure.  Mr. Burriss explained that if the application is tabled and Mr. Carey comes back with the same application then the Planning Commission would not have to readdress the structure – only the location.  He stated that if a whole new application is submitted then all of the discussion and the criteria will have to be re-addressed.  Mr. Carey clarified that if the application is tabled then the only area open for conversation would be the location of the building and everything else stays intact.   Mr. Carey stated that he would support tabling the application. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #09-98.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-98 is Tabled

 

332 North Granger Street– Michael Carey – Application #09-97 (Previously Tabled)

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of the demolition of a rear detached one-story

garage.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Michael and Brenda Carey, Joe and Karen Hickman, and Dale and Barbara McCoy.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to remove Application #09-97 from the Table.  Seconded by

Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to remove Application #09-97 from the Table: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-97:

(Please refer to application #09-98)

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #09-97 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote to Table: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-97 is Tabled.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #09-105: Charles and Eleanor Cohen

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville

Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and Chapter 1161,

Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application

#09-102 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-105.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the July 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for the July 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell (abstain), Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.  

 

Next meetings:

August 24, 2009 (Canceled)

September 14, 2009

September 28, 2009

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.