Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 14, 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.

Visitors Present: Andy Ross, Michael and Brenda Carey, Joe and Karen Hickman, Dale and Barbara McCoy, Jason Adamkosky, Flo Hoffman, Seth Patton, Nick Schott, Steven Gaubert, Mark Clapsadle, Kent Maynard, Cynthia Cort, Ned Roberts, and Gwynyth Huff.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

 

Mr. Mitchell  made a motion to switch the order of Application #09-97 and Application #09-98 as it appears on the agenda.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

Roll Call Vote to amend the agenda: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  

Motion carried 4-0.

 

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, Michael and Brenda Carey, Joe and Karen Hickman, and Dale and Barbara McCoy.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-98:

Mr. Ryan clarified that the new proposal is a one story building with a bump out in the back.  Michael Carey, 332 North Granger Street, stated that this is the 5th time he has been before the Planning Commission regarding approval for a garage.  He thanked the Hickman’s and the McCoy’s for their help with the process and their participation with the BZBA in presenting this new plan.  Mr. Carey stated that this new plan has several advantages because it’s a head in garage which is easier to navigate in and out of.  He stated that the new plan offers him the same space as the old plan and is not as massive to the neighbors.  Mr. Carey stated that another advantage is that many details from the previous plan carry over into the new plan. 

 

Joe Hickman, 326 North Granger Street, stated that he is very appreciative of everyone’s time regarding the plans for Mr. Carey’s garage.  He stated that they wholeheartedly approve of this new garage and feel it would be a great addition to the neighborhood.

 

Dale McCoy, 338 North Granger Street, stated he agrees with Mr. Hickman and he would be very happy to see this new garage built.

 

Mr. Ryan asked if the required variances were approved by the BZBA and Ms. Terry stated yes.  She indicated that there was some concern by the BZBA regarding the approval of the footprint and whether or not there ought to be some requirements in place to allow for a story and a half or a one story.   Mr. Mitchell stated that the plan “looks wonderful to him.”  Mr. Burriss stated that the materials for the previous garage have been carried over for the new structure.  Mr. Johnson asked the color of the proposed roof.  Mr. Carey stated it will be gray. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-98 (Option 2):

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the removal of a dilapidated garage and replacement  with an updated structure is  in character with the Village. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by adding to the continued usage of the structure, this contributes to the District. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the consistency of historical details contribute to the physical surroundings. 

e)      Building Massing:  Mr. Mitchell stated that by moving the proposed structure  and reducing the height this in turn reduces the massing concerns.  Mr. Burriss stated that the new structure is subordinate to the primary structure.

f)        Use of Materials:  The Planning Commission determined that the Use of Materials are appropriate.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-98 as submitted with Option 2.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #09-98 is approved as submitted.

 

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, and Michael Carey

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-97:

(Please refer to application #09-98)

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-97:

 

                                                (a)        The location of the proposed structure will not create adverse affects on the property or on neighboring properties.  The removal of the structure shall not interrupt the continuous built edge of any adjacent street or right of way.  The Planning Commission agreed TRUE. 

 

(b)        The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  The Planning Commission agreed TRUE.

 

                                                (c)        The demolition of the proposed structure will in no way adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the neighboring properties or community in general.  The Planning Commission agreed TRUE.

 

                                                (d)        The proposed future construction plans for the demolished area meet the zoning requirements of the zoning district and are consistent with the existing structures, sizes, densities, and development styles of the surrounding areas, and that an implementation schedule is submitted and committed to by the applicant.  The Planning Commission agreed TRUE.

(Ord. 29-05.  Passed 9-7-05.)  Refer to Zoning Permit Application #09-98 for the review of a new detached garage.  See attached schedule submitted by the property owner.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend approval of Application #09-97 to Village Council.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #09-97 is recommended for approval to Village Council.

 

New Business:

 

West Broadway/Denison Fine Arts Campus – Granville Historical Society – Application #09-107

Village Institutional District (VID) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of an historical marker.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Seth Patton, and Flo Hoffman.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-107:

Flo Hoffman, 713 Friends Lane, stated that she represents the Granville Historical Society.  She stated that the location of the proposed marker was chose due to the location on the campus where women have always and continue to be educated.  She stated that the steps mark the entrance to the Charles Sawyer’s building in 1833 that schooled young women.  Ms. Terry noted that a variance is not needed to place more than one freestanding sign on the property and this was a mistake on the staff report.  She noted that there is only one freestanding sign on the property.  Ms. Terry stated that a variance is still needed for the sign due to the increase in colors and the proposed square footage of the sign.  Ms. Hoffman stated that Denison University is pleased to have the sign on their property.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant later wants landscaping around the sign would they need to come back to the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated yes.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-107:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE. 

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that this criteria is not applicable because the sign is an historical marker and will not yield a return of any kind.   

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the variance is not substantial.

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is a large piece of property with a large open space.  

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Burriss answered that zoning did not exist when this property was purchased.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE. 

 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-107 with the following variances:

1)      To increase the maximum number of colors from three (3) to six (6); and

2)      To increase the minimum square footage from twelve (12) square foot to thirteen point one two five square feet (13.125). 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #09-107 is approved with the above stated variances.

 

484 South Main Street – Ross Granville Market – Application #09-112

Suburban Business District (SBD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new 30 foot by 40 foot storage

building to be located behind the main building.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Andy Ross.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-112:

Andy Ross, 484 South Main Street, stated that they would like to clean up the rear of the property and they are in need of storage space for the store itself.  Mr. Ryan asked if there are windows at the top of the structure.  Mr. Ross stated yes.  Mr. Ross stated that there will not be any retail or traffic directed to the rear structure.  Mr. Ross stated that the existing gravel in the rear would lead up to the structure.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant is under the lot coverage requirements.  Ms. Terry stated yes and the applicant received several variances from the BZBA on September 10, 2009.  Mr. Mitchell asked if this will be a foundation or slab.  Mr. Ross stated it will be a slab. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-112:

a)      Building Massing:  Mr. Mitchell stated that building massing is not an issue.

b)      Building Style:  The Planning Commission stated that the structure is  appropriate in architectural massing and scale.

c)      Use of Details: The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the use of details is appropriate.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-112 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

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

 

Application #09-112 is approved as submitted.

 

 

664 West Broadway – Nick Schott – Application #09-114

Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C) and Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for a freestanding sign for a Guest House.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Nick Schott.

 

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-114:

Nick Schott, 660 West Broadway, stated that he would like to install a freestanding sign for The Broadway Guest House at 664 West Broadway which was approved in August as a conditional use by the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals.  Mr. Schott stated that he is proposing a black sign with gold lettering and it fits within the specifications noted in the Village Code for freestanding signs in the Suburban Residential District-C.  He added that he would like to add ground lighting and he would be willing to ensure that the light is turned off by 11:00 PM each night.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the sign will be on West Broadway or a side street.   Ms. Terry explained the location of the proposed sign and access to the property.  Mr. Schott stated that the sign would be located between the 664 West Broadway property and his residence at 660 West Broadway.  Ms. Terry stated that any TCOD property cannot have more than six (6) square foot total and the applicant is proposing and eight (8) square foot sign, four (4) square feet per side therefore a variance is required.  Mr. Ryan asked if the measurements of the sign are from the top and include the dead air space.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant could describe what the sign will be hung from.  Mr. Schott stated that the post will be the same design as the post located at Granville Veterinary Clinic’s retail store.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the picture of the post was not included as part of the submitted information and he asked that the picture be submitted as ‘Exhibit A.’  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission generally requests that sign lighting be camouflaged with some type of landscaping.  Mr. Schott indicated that he would be glad to add landscaping around the lighting fixture.  Mr. Mitchell asked the specifications of the lights Mr. Schott is proposing.  Mr. Schott stated they would be on a timer and the lights would not be too bright.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked the brightness of the lights.  Mr. Schott stated that it is his intent to use pinpoint lighting that focuses on the sign without a glare and to avoid any passer by or neighbor getting light pollution.  Mr. Mitchell asked the type of landscaping to be used to shield the ground lighting.  Ms. Terry suggested the use of an evergreen plant material.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-114:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that no special circumstances exist.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the sign is not excessively sized.  

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that the property sits back far from the road.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is a minimum size sign that is still visible.      

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the variance is not substantial.  Mr. Burriss stated that he likes how the proposed sign is broken into two separate signs.   

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.   Mr. Burriss indicated that the proposed sign is consistent architecturally with the neighborhood.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Each member of the Planning Commission answered TRUE.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Burriss.  Indicated that a variance is the most efficient way to handle this.

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE. Mr. Burriss indicated that the applicant has indicated that the proposed lighting will be subdued.

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that there are some conditions with the approval of the sign.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-114, as submitted with the following conditions:

1)         That the lighting of the sign will consist of ground lighting on a timer that will be turned off before 11 PM; and

2)         That the lighting fixture will be concealed with evergreen plant material; and

3)         That the application be approved with a variance to increase the proposed size from six (6) square feet to seven point five three (7.53) square feet.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #09-107 is approved with the above stated conditions an variances.

 

335 North Granger Street – Kent Maynard & Susan Diduk – Application #09-115

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

The request is for architectural review and approval to replace two (2) doors with two (2)

metal doors on the front elevation of the home.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Kent Maynard.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-115:

Kent Maynard, 335 North Granger Street, stated that he would like to replace two wooden storm doors with much better quality metal doors.  He stated that the door behind the storm doors are pane glass and historical and the new metal doors will allow better visibility of the historic panes of glass on the main doors.  Mr. Maynard stated that the old doors and the new doors have black trim. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-98:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the approval would be consistent with other approvals in the same zoning district. 

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 new doors would allow for better visibility of the existing main doors which are historically significant.   

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. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-115 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #09-115 is approved as submitted.

 

 

317 East Maple Street – Mark Clapsadle for Steven and Elizabeth Gaubert – Application #09-117

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new first floor addition.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Mark Clapsadle and Steven Gaubert.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-117:

Mark Clapsadle, Granview Road, stated that he is the architect for the proposed project.  He stated that the applicant, Mr. Gaubert, is wanting to install an addition to the front elevation of the home.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that all of the existing bathrooms in the home are “landlocked” and this addition will allow for better access.  Ms. Terry stated that the addition did receive a variance from the BZBA to reduce the front yard setbacks from thirty (30’) feet to sixteen (16’) feet.  Ms. Terry noted that a drawing by Mr. Clapsadle submitted at the meeting, depicting the elevations and final outcome, would be labeled as ‘Exhibit A.’  Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant is matching windows, siding, trim, roofing.

Mr. Clapsadle stated yes.  Councilmember O’Keefe inquired on the pitch of the roof.  Mr. Clapsadle showed her on the drawing that the new pitch will match the old pitch on the home.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that the house has been added onto multiple times and they are trying to create some type of continuity with the house. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-98:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposed changes would unify the look of the home.  

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that historically appropriate materials are proposed by the applicant.

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 proposed addition will screen, protect, and enhance. 

e)      Building Massing:  Mr. Burriss stated that the massing is appropriate. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-117 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #09-117 is approved as submitted.

 

317 West Elm Street – Jason and Christi Adamkosky – Application #09-96

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of exterior modifications to upper

story windows on the eastern side of the home. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Jason Adamkosky.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-96:

Jason Adamkosky, 317 West Elm Street, stated that they would like to propose the six over six paneled windows for the two attic triangular windows.  Ms. Terry stated that this application proposal would be an amendment to the original application. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-98:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that the amendment to the application is historically compatible.  

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 proposed changes are historically accurate. 

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 made a motion to amend Application #09-96 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

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

 

Application #09-96 is amended as proposed.

 

 

445 North Pearl Street – Ned Roberts for Gwynyth Huff – Application #09-119

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) and Transportation Corridor Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of an addition to the northern side of

the home.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, Gwynyth Huff, and Ned Roberts.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-119:

Ned Roberts, 317 Maholm Street, Newark, indicated that he is the contractor for the proposed project.  Mr. Roberts proceeded to go over the construction plans, and the Planning Commission stopped him because they stated that they are only able to review the part pertaining to the TCOD.  Mr. Ryan stated that the only reason the Planning Commission is reviewing this application is because it is located within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).  Ms. Terry agreed. 

 

Gwynyth Huff, 445 North Pearl Street, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  She stated that the pitch of the roof on a back covered porch is wrong and beams, causing water damage have had to be replaced twice. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-119 as submitted. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #09-119 is approved as submitted.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business:

Application #09-97: Michael Carey

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1162, Structural Demolition, and hereby gives their recommendation of approval to Village Council.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-97.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

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

 

Application #09-98: Michael Carey

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157, General Zoning, Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-98 as submitted by the applicant.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-98.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

 

New Business:

Application #09-107: Granville Historical Society

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-107 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-107.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #09-112: Ross Granville Market

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1175, Suburban Business District and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-112 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-112.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #09-114: Nick Schott

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-114 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-114.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #09-115: Kent Maynard & Susan Diduk

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village Residential District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-115 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-115.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #09-117: Steven and Elizabeth Gaubert

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 hereby gives their approval of Application #09-117 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-117.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #09-96 (AMENDED): Jason and Christi Adamkosky

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval for an amendment to Application #09-96 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-96.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #09-119: Gwynyth Huff

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 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-119 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-119.  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 August 11, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  10:00 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

September 28, 2009

Tuesday, October 13

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.