Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 12, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: Councilmember O’Keefe and Jeremy Johnson.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Ramond Bonner, Ken Rittenhouse, Roger Kessler, William Hanes, Russ Adams, Mark Schillig, Xue Gao, Doug Hooper, Sue Renner, Fred Abraham, and Bill Wilken. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

New Business:

462 South Main Street – New Phase Auto Detailing - Application #2010-28

Community Service District (CSD)

The request is for approval of a sandwich board sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Ramond Bonner.

Discussion:

Ramond Bonner, 5282 Fairmount Road, Newark, stated that he is the owner of the business and he would like to place a sandwich board sign at the corner of the building so people know what type of business exists there.  Mr. Bonner stated that he already has a wall sign for the business.  Ms. Terry stated that the sign will direct people once they get into the Ross Granville Market complex.  She indicated that a Variance is required because sandwich board signs are not allowed in this zoning district.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if this could be considered a directional sign.  Ms. Terry stated that this is an actual sandwich board sign that will be removed each night.  Mr. Mitchell asked if it will be at the corner of the parking space indicated in the drawing.  Mr. Ramond clarified that there are yellow painted lines so no one parks in the proposed area. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-28 

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.  Mr. Burriss stated that the location of the business does not have direct street frontage and the business does not have a direct and easy way to get to it, therefore, this is a unique proposal for this particular location.  Mr. Mitchell & Mr. Ryan agreed. 

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. Mitchell stated that the applicant already exists in this location and his business could be hurt by people not being able to find it easily.  Mr. Burriss & Mr. Ryan concurred.  

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated 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. Mitchell indicated that he did not feel that the neighborhood would be substantially altered.   

(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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.    

(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 that they did not feel that the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirements was compromised by granting a Variance.   

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

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 the applicant should put the proposed sign out when arriving to work and remove it at the end of the day when the business is closed.  Mr. Burriss indicated that this is consistent with other sandwich board signs approved by Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated that the sign meets the requirements for sandwich board signs that are permitted in other zoning districts.  

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-28 to allow for a sandwich board sign in the Community Service District (CSD) (which doesn’t currently allow sandwich board signs) as long as the sign is removed from the corner of the building at the close of business each day.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

317 East Maple Street – Steve & Elizabeth Gaubert  - Application #2010-30

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

The request is for architectural review and approval to remove an existing asphalt driveway and walkway and install new paver bricks on the driveway and to a stepping stone walkway in the same location as it exists currently. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Ken Rittenhouse. 

Discussion:

Ken Rittenhouse, 218 North Prospect Street, stated that he is representing John Klauder Landscaping who will be doing the work at 317 East Maple Street.  Mr. Rittenhouse stated that they would be removing an existing driveway and placing new rectangle and square pavers down.  He stated that the new walkway would be sandstone.  Mr. Mitchell asked the size of the sandstone.  Mr. Rittenhouse stated 4”x 3”.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the area that the pavers will be placed is in the same location as the asphalt.  Mr. Rittenhouse stated yes and this is just a change in materials.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal seemed appropriate.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-30: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is consistent with other projects approved 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 proposed materials and the use of materials are in keeping with the historical district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by keeping the structure upgraded.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this protects and enhances a structure which past generations lived. 

e)      Materials:  Pavers and Sandstone

f)       Plant Materials:  Witch-hazel, Little Henry, Variegated Lilly turf, Boxwoods, etc. (see staff report). 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-30 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

107 East Broadway – William Hanes/St. Luke’s Church  - Application #2010-33

Village Square District (VSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of wood shingles and replacement with Owens Corning Duration asphaltic shingles in Black Onyx.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, William Hanes and Doug Hooper. 

Discussion:

William Hanes, 530 West Broadway, stated that he is representing St. Luke’s Episcopal Church.  He stated that they are requesting the installation of asphalt shingles rather than replacing the wood shingles that are being removed.  He stated that they feel asphalt shingles is a better product that will add more life to the structure.  He also stated that they would receive a ‘Class A’ fire rating if they use asphalt shingles.  Mr. Hanes stated that the manufacturer of the wood shingles has indicated that they shouldn’t be applied to roof slopes less than 5/12 and their roof pitch is 4/12.  Mr. Hanes indicated that the church feels that the asphalt would be a much better solution overall and he added that Pilgrim Lutheran was given approval for asphalt shingles on their roof.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the alley next to the museum has a small roof with shingles.  Mr. Hanes stated that this is not what they will be using.  He went on to say that they will use an Owens Corning product.  Mr. Burriss commended St. Luke's for the financial undertaking to help preserve this structure.  He stated that the Planning Commission certainly encourages anything to lengthen the life of the building and keep it viable.  Doug Hooper, Marion, Ohio, stated that he is the contractor and they are trying to get ventilation to the roof using a cobra vent. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-33: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that there are other structures in the same district with similar shingles.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by improving one of the jewels of the Village’s historic district they are contributing to the historical character of the Village.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by keeping up with the maintenance of the structure.

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 improvements will protect and enhance this structure where past generations once congregated.

e) Materials:  Owens Corning Asphalt Shingles in Black Onyx. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-33 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Mr. Mitchell then amended his motion to state that the cap should have shingles that are the same colored shingles - whether it is a conventional cap or cobra cap roof.Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote on Amendment: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. Roll Call Vote on Amended motion for Application #2010-33: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

118 South Main Street – William Hanes/St. Luke’s Church  - Application #2010-34

Village Square District (VSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review of the installation of a security keypad on the left side of the northern park entry doorway.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and William Hanes. 

Discussion:

William Hanes, 530 West Broadway, stated that he is representing St. Luke’s Episcopal Church.  Mr. Hanes stated that the security system is needed as a result of an incident in the parish hall a few months ago.  He stated that they now lock all the doors and there needs to be an easier way for staff and visitors to come to the building.  Mr. Mitchell asked how the keypad would mount.  Mr. Hanes stated that it will be applied to the brick and surface mounted.  He stated that it will be on the door that faces Opera House Park.  

Bill Wilken, Chairman of St. Luke’s Preservation Committee, indicated that there are several layers of brick and the installer had to work though the wood near the doorway for electric access. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-34: 

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. Ryan stated that this proposal will ensure safety of the property.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvement.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the property is protected. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-34 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

121-127 East Broadway – Greg Ream  - Application #09-157 AMENDED

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of awnings over each of the business frontages, a modification to the doorway located at 121 East Broadway, and fypon trim along the top of the front of the structure. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Roger Kessler. 

Discussion:

Roger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, Kessler Sign Company, stated that he is representing the owner of the property, Greg Ream.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the amended version presented tonight is a big improvement to what was originally proposed.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Burriss concurred.  Ms. Terry asked about the trim piece at the top.  Mr. Kessler stated that this will be “L” shaped and a five inch (5”) cap painted the same color as the sign. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-157: 

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 amended proposal is more appropriate.  Mr. Mitchell agreed.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by enhancing the historical character of the building the entire district is upgraded.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal enhances the structure which past generations have used. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Amended Application #09-157 with the presented color sample of the awning as ‘Exhibit A’ with fypon trim at the top with a five inch (5”) reveal. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

121 East Broadway – Greg Ream  - Application #2010-35

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a thirty-eight and a half (38.5) square foot wall sign.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Roger Kessler. 

Discussion:

Roger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, indicated that he is representing the owner of the property, Greg Ream.

He presented ‘Exhibit A’ which is a high density polyurethane material as the sign and the proposed green lettering as ‘Exhibit B’.  Ms. Terry asked if the border will be a raised border like the proposed lettering.  Mr. Kessler stated that the green border and green lettering will be painted but the border will not be raised.  Mr. Burriss noted that some of the proposed signage for this building has three lights and some signs have two lights.  Mr. Kessler explained that they felt that this gives the building more balance because the signs with two lights are smaller.  Ms. Terry indicated that this application requires a Variance because the maximum size allowed for a wall sign is twenty-five square feet and the applicant is proposing thirty-eight & a half square feet.  Ms. Terry also explained that if the sign name were to change and the architectural style and color of the sign remains the same – this could be approved administratively with a sign permit.  Mr. Kessler indicated that the applicant is trying to fill an existing indentation in the brick with this signage to make the building more architecturally appealing and this is the reason for the Variance request.  Ms. Terry indicated that this application includes gooseneck lighting and she is not aware of any additional lighting requested by the applicant.  Mr.Burriss suggested that the applicant will want to have adequate lighting for when employees are leaving the building.  Mr. Kessler suggested that it may be appropriate to have all of the lighting off at midnight. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-35:

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.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is definitely an area for signage that is unique to this building.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Ryan agreed. 

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. Burriss stated that the building is clearly four separate units and it is reasonable for each tenant to be given their own sign.  Mr. Ryan stated that in the past this building has had signage for each of the tenants.  

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated 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 the proposed sign is architecturally and historical correct for the building.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Ryan agreed 

(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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Ryan noted that the owner is not present to answer this.      

(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 this is the best solution for this building due to the architecture of the building. 

(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 that they did not feel that the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirements was compromised by granting a Variance.   

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE and that this was an existing building. 

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.  

  1. 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 were no special requirements or conditions. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-35: 

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 proposal is stylistically compatible with similar requests in the Village. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is in keeping with the historical character of this structure.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal is in keeping with a restoration of an earlier presentation of the graphics on this building. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-35 with a Variance to increase the size of the sign to thirty-eight and one half (38.5) square feet with the condition that the lighting be turned off at 12:00 PM and that the color samples be as displayed in ‘Exhibit A’ and the lettering style and color as ‘Exhibit B.’ Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

123 East Broadway – Greg Ream  - Application #2010-36

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a thirty-three (33) square foot wall sign.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Roger Kessler.

Discussion:

Roger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, stated that he is representing the owner of the property, Greg Ream.  Ms. Terry indicated that the applicant is proposing increasing the allowable size of the size from 24.45 square feet to 33 square feet, so therefore a Variance is needed for the size.  She indicated that a second Variance is needed due to number of wall signs on the building. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-36: 

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 the building is unique and therefore the signage is unique.

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. Burriss stated that each tenant deserves their own signage in the building.

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated 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. 

(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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Ryan noted that the property owner probably did purchase the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction and he is bringing the building back to a more architecturally appropriate style. 

(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 noted that the proposed Variance for this building is the most appropriate architectural and historical method to deal with the signage. 

(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 that they did not feel that the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirements was compromised by granting a Variance.   

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE and that this was an existing building. 

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.  

  1. 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 the lighting should be turned off at 12:00 PM. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-36: 

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 proposal is stylistically 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 this is a restoration and upgrade to the property.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal is a restoration of an original sign detailing on the structure. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-36 with a Variance to increase the allowable size of the sign from 24.45 square feet to 33 square feet with a contingency that the applicant turn off the lighting at midnight.  He added that the color of the signage should be per ‘Exhibit A’, and the lettering and color should be per ‘Exhibit B’, and that there be a Variance to allow two wall signs on the building. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

125 East Broadway – Greg Ream  - Application #2010-37

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a nineteen (19) square foot wall sign.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Roger Kessler. 

Discussion:

Roger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, stated that he is representing the owner of the property, Greg Ream. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-37: 

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 TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that there are architectural elements that are specific to this building. 

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. Burriss stated that each tenant deserves their own signage in the building. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated that the Variance is not substantial.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the proposed signage is of consistent height with other signs already approved for this building 

(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 the character of the building is enhanced by the Variance.  

(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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Ryan noted that the property owner probably did purchase the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction and he is bringing the building back to a more architecturally appropriate style. 

(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 noted that the proposed Variance for this building is the most appropriate architectural and historical method to deal with this situation. 

(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 that they did not feel that the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirements was compromised by granting a Variance.   

a.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE and that this was an existing building.

b.         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.  

  1. 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 the lighting should be turned off at 12:00 PM. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-37: 

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. Burriss that the historical character of the village is enhanced and improved with this proposal.

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 #2010-37 with a Variance to increase the allowable size of the sign from 17.25 square feet to 19 square feet with a contingency that the applicant turn off the lighting at 12:00 PM.  He added that the color of the signage should be per ‘Exhibit A’, and the lettering and color should be per ‘Exhibit B’, and that there be a Variance to allow a third wall sign on the building. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

127 East Broadway – Greg Ream  - Application #2010-38

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a thirty-eight and a half (38.5) square foot wall sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Roger Kessler.

Discussion:

Roger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, stated that he is representing the owner of the property, Greg Ream. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-38:

c.         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 TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that there are architectural elements that are specific to this building.  

d.         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. Burriss stated that each tenant deserves their own signage in the building. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated that the Variance is not substantial.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the proposed signage is of consistent height with other signs already approved for this building.

(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 the character of the building is enhanced by the Variance.  

(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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Ryan noted that the property owner probably did purchase the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction and he is bringing the building back to a more architecturally appropriate style. 

(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 noted that the proposed Variance for this building is the most appropriate architectural and historical method to deal with this situation. 

(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 that they did not feel that the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirements was compromised by granting a Variance.   

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE and that this was an existing building.

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. 

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 the lighting should be turned off at 12:00 PM. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-38: 

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 proposed signage is stylistically compatible for the 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 proposed signage contributes to the historical character of the Village.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

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 #2010-38 with a Variance to increase the allowable size of the sign to 24.45 square feet with a contingency that the applicant turn off the lighting at 12:00 PM.  He added that the color of the signage should be per ‘Exhibit A’, and the lettering and color should be per ‘Exhibit B’, and that there be a Variance to allow for a fourth wall sign on the building. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

121-127 East Broadway – Greg Ream  - Application #2010-39

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of green awnings over each of the three rear entry doorways. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Roger Kessler.

Discussion:

Roger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, stated that he is representing the owner of the property, Greg Ream.  He indicated that they would like to place green aluminum awnings in the rear of the building and the color would match the signage - Color PMS 3435.  Mr. Burriss asked if the building will be painted tan.  Mr. Kessler stated yes.     

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-39: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that canopies of a similar presentation have been approved in this same district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the character is improved by the elevation of the awnings.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by proposal by the applicant.

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 #2010-39 with the condition that the building color will be per ‘Exhibit A’ and the awning color is green per ‘Exhibit B’ - PMS 3439. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

113 North Prospect Street – Russ Adams/Aaath Company - Application #2010-40

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)  Replacement window, changing from a single pane 8-lite wood window to two double hung vinyl windows with interior grids; and

2)  Adding a granite seal to the front steps. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Russ Adams. 

Discussion:

Russ Adams, 109 North Prospect Street, was present to address any questions by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss commended the applicant on the completeness of their application.  He also asked the applicant if they would be installing new window screens.  Mr. Adams stated yes.   Mr. Burriss asked if Mr. Adams had an example of the granite sealing for the steps.  Mr. Adams presented an example of the granite sealing to the Planning Commission.    

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-40: 

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 proposed improvements are stylistically compatible with other improvements in the same Village 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 by contributing to the architectural fenestration of the building it contributes to the character of the Village.

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 #2010-40 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

111 North Prospect Street – Russ Adams/Aaath Company - Application #2010-41

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a white storm door.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Russ Adams. 

Discussion:

Russ Adams, 111 North Prospect Street, stated that he would like to install a white storm door on the existing door.   The Planning Commission indicated that they thought it was a rear door and they do not prefer the look of the proposed door for the front of the structure.  Mr. Burriss stated that he felt as though the proposed door feels too much like a security door and that other doors on the property are more architecturally appropriate.

The Planning Commission suggested a full view glass door would compete less with the other doors on the building.  Mr. Adams agreed.  The Planning Commission asked that the full view glass door be reviewed and approved by the Village Planner prior to installation.    

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-41: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that a clear view door has been approved 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. Ryan stated that the storm door will aid in the maintenance of the building.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the door.

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 #2010-41 with the condition that the applicant use a white full view glass storm door subject to final review and approval by the Village Planner. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

109 North Prospect Street – Russ Adams/Aaath Company - Application #2010-42

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of changing the front window sill to a sloped window sill. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Russ Adams.

Discussion:

Russ Adams, 109 North Prospect Street, stated that he would like to replace the window sill with a sloped window sill.  Mr. Mitchell asked how sloped the window sill would be.  Mr. Adams stated that the existing sill is very flat and collects debris and it will be sloped enough to get the rain water to run off.  Mr. Burriss asked if the window boxes will stay.  Mr. Adams believed that he would be coming back to the Planning Commission for approval of smaller window boxes.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-41: 

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 proposed window sill is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposal.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the building will be protected by allowing water run-off. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-42 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

221 East Broadway – Landrum Cottage - Application #2010-43

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sixteen (16) square foot replacement wall sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Dana Landrum. 

Discussion:

Sue Renner, 4018 York Road, Pataskala, stated that she is representing Ms. Landrum who could not be here this evening.  Mr. Mitchell clarified that the new sign will be two feet shorter than what was in place for the Counting House.  Mr. Ryan asked if the new sign will have a black background with gold lettering.  Mr. Mitchell asked the material of the letters.  Ms. Terry stated wood.  Mr. Burriss asked if there is any signage proposed to indicate that the building is a bakery.  Ms. Renner stated no that the applicant may come back with a request for a sandwich board sign.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the sign should have a border.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the Counting House sign did not have a border and this was previously approved by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss stated that hopefully the applicant won’t be using the spacing of letters as indicated in the submitted drawing.  Mr. Ryan stated that essentially the Planning Commission is being asked to approve a sign that they have not seen.  The Planning Commission agreed that they would like to have a more detailed example & representation of what the sign would look like before they vote on the sign. 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #2010-43 until the next meeting. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #3010-43 is Tabled. 

127 East Broadway – Mark Schillig/Xue Gao - Application #2010-45

Village Business District-B (VBD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of a Change of Use for 1,900 square feet of space from Category “B”, Specialty Shops to Category “D”, Food, Drug and Beverage Businesses, specifically for a Chinese Restaurant. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Mark Schillig and Xue Gao.  

Discussion:

Mark Schillig, Ohio Equities Realty, 605 South Front Street, Columbus, stated that he is representing the applicant, Mr. Xue Gao.  Xue Gao, 188 Commonwealth Way, Pataskala, was also present. 

Ms. Terry explained that the property is currently zoned VBD-B (Retail) and the applicant is requesting a change to VBD-D (Food, Drug, Beverage business.)  She stated that this is a reduction in the number of spaces required with one per 200 square feet for the VBD-D use.  Mr. Mitchell clarified if the requested Change of Use is for 127 which currently houses  Crosswalk Cards.  Ms. Terry stated yes and she stated that the application meets the parking requirements and it is a permitted use.  Mr. Burriss stated that he did some recent research on the building and this particular space was a restaurant at one time.  Ms. Terry stated that the parking requirement is reduced and it is grandfathered.  Mr. Gao indicated that the name of the restaurant would be ‘Dragon Village.’  Mr. Burriss asked where exhaust fans would be located.  Mr. Schillig indicated that the applicant has not yet started this process because they wanted to see if the Change of Use went through first.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is not something he asks that would have a factor that would change his support or lack of support for this application and he is only interested in this for neighbors and the district as a whole.  Ms. Terry clarified that if the Planning Commission was to approve the Change of Use and there were any exterior modifications made to the building for exhaust, dumpster, etc. it would need to come before the board for approval.  Mr. Burriss stated that with other restaurant applications in this district they have required screening of dumpsters and oil containers/grease traps.  Mr. Burriss stated that he believes a restaurant will add to the vitality of the district by having it on this side of the street and it will be a greater balance and activity for the entire district. He indicated that he would be in favor of this proposed change of use for this specific location.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Mitchell indicated that they agree with Mr. Burriss.    

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-45 to establish the use as VBD-D for a Chinese Restaurant.  

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-28: New Phase Auto Detailing/Sandwich Board Sign

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 hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-28 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-28.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-30: Steve & Elizabeth Gaubert/Driveway and Walkway Replacement

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 #2010-30 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-30.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-33: William Hanes/St. Luke’s Church; Roof Replacement

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 of Application #2010-33 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-33.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-34: William Hanes/St. Luke’s Church; Security Keypad

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 of Application #2010-34 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-34.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #09-157 AMENDED: Greg Ream; Awnings, Doorway & Trim

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 of Application #09-157 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-157.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-35: Greg Ream; Wall Sign

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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-35 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-35.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-36: Greg Ream; Wall Sign

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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-36 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-36.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-37: Greg Ream; Wall Sign

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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-37 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-37.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-38: Greg Ream; Wall Sign

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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-38 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-38.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-39: Greg Ream; Awnings

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 of Application #2010-39 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-39.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-40: Russ Adams/Aaath Co.; Exterior Modifications

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 of Application #2010-40 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-40.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-41: Russ Adams/Aaath Co.; Exterior Modifications

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 of Application #2010-41 as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-41.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-42: Russ Adams/Aaath Co.; Exterior Modifications

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 of Application #2010-42 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-42.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-45: Mark Schillig/Xue Gao; Change of Use

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 1183, Parking and Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-45 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-45.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the March 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 3-0.  

Approval of Absent Commission Member’s:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to excuse Jeremy Johnson from the Planning Commission meeting on April 12, 2010.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 3-0.  

Adjournment:  9:35 PM

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.   

Next meetings:

April 26, 2010

May 10, 2010

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.