Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes July 12, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 12, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Dana Landrum, Mona Fine, Ryan Srbljan, John Cassell, Eric George, Don DeSapri, Mr. and Mrs. James Browder, Tim Klingler, and Dave Getreu. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-95

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the refacing of the existing 8.33

square foot freestanding sign and relocation of the sign in front of the building on

Broadway.  

 

Discussion:

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan )

 

Ryan Srbljan, DaNite Sign Co., stated that they are working with Huntington Bank on their new corporate logo.  He stated that they will not be increasing the size of square footage for the signage for this entire project and the proposed signage is the main identity signs for property.  Ms. Terry asked if the up lighting will move and she explained the current location of the proposed signage.  Mr. Srbljan indicated that the ground lighting will move with the relocated freestanding signage and he also presented the proposed paint samples for the signage.  Mr. Ryan inquired on the stars medallions.  Mr. Srbljan stated that the stars under the canopy will remain as is.  Mr. Srbljan stated that they want to update the overall image of the structure with the signage and they have found that a taller thinner sign causes less of a traffic obstruction.  He stated that the attempt is to increase aesthetics of the property, as well as update the signage.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the lime green is historically accurate.  Mr. Burriss agreed that he didn’t prefer the lime green color on the signage either, but he would have less of an objection if the lime green color were not used on the wall sign on the front of the building as proposed by the applicant.  He indicated that he would be ok with the lime green color as proposed on some of the other signage.  Mr. Ryan asked if the gray is the main color proposed for the signage and the green is only for the accent and logo. He agreed with Mr. Burriss and stated that the word ‘Huntington’ on the building ought to be gray.  Mr. Srbljan stated that anytime they use the ‘Huntington’ logo in a solid single word they use the color green.  He went on to say that if the board does not approve the green, he would obviously go back and request that this be changed by the Huntington representatives.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Johnson indicated that they too agree with Mr. Burriss.  Mr. Ryan asked if there were any concerns with moving the front sign to the other side of the sidewalk.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the lighting should be concealed with landscaping, as they have required with other applications. 

Ms. Terry asked if the lighting would stay on all night.  Mr. Srbljan stated that this lighting is on the same switch as the exterior lighting on the flag and it would remain on all night.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this application doesn’t require a Variance and he didn’t see any issues with requiring that the lighting be turned off since it is currently left on.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the applicant had any plans to bring further applications for signage before the Planning Commission.  Mr. Srbljan stated no.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-95:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated that they are consistent with other signs that have been approved in this District, especially because the wall sign would be a dark gray color; all members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that overall presentation is consistent with the historical appearance of this area; all members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the graphics and style are consistent and protect and enhance examples of physical surroundings in which past generations lived; all members concurred.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-95 with the condition that the lighting will be masked with landscaping.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-95: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-95 is Approved.

 

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-96

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the refacing of the existing 8.33

square foot freestanding sign on North Prospect Street.

 

Discussion:

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan)

See application #2010-96 for Discussion.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-96:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated that they are consistent with other signs that have been approved in this District, especially because the wall sign would be a dark gray color; all members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that overall presentation is consistent with the historical appearance of this area; all members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the graphics and style are consistent and protect and enhance examples of physical surroundings in which past generations lived; all members concurred.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-96 with the condition that the  lighting will be masked with landscaping.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-96: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-96 is Approved.

 

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-97

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the refacing of the existing 3.19

square foot wall sign on the front of the building facing Broadway.

 

Discussion:

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan)

See application #2010-97 for Discussion.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-97:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated that they are consistent with other signs that have been approved in this District, especially because the wall sign would be a dark gray color; all members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that overall presentation is consistent with the historical appearance of this area; all members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the graphics and style are consistent and protect and enhance examples of physical surroundings in which past generations lived; all members concurred.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-97 as proposed with the condition that the color of the sign will be changed to graymoor metallic (Per Exhibit A).   Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-97: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-97 is Approved.

 

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-98

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an existing 3.11

square foot incidental sign and replacement with a new 3.125 square foot incidental sign

in the parking lot area on North Prospect Street. 

 

Discussion:

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan)

See application #2010-98 for Discussion.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-98:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated that they are consistent with other signs that have been approved in this District, especially because the wall sign would be a dark gray color; all members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that overall presentation is consistent with the historical appearance of this area; all members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the graphics and style are consistent and protect and enhance examples of physical surroundings in which past generations lived; all members concurred.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-98 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-98: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-98 is Approved.

 

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-99

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an existing 4

square foot incidental sign and replacement with a new 3 square foot incidental sign in

the parking lot area on North Prospect Street.

 

Discussion:

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan )

 

Ryan Srbljan, DaNite Sign Co., stated that the Huntington Bank signage is for customer parking signs.  He stated that these will be replaced with smaller signage than currently exists and that the new signage will comply with current branding standards.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant needs a variance because the sign has a commercial message and commercial messages are not allowed on incidental signage.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed new signage is simpler, cleaner, and more consistent than the existing signage.    Ms. Terry read aloud the definition of a commercial message and incidental sign from the Village Code. She indicated that the variance is allowing a commercial message to appear on an incidental sign and increases the number of individual signs allowed on the property.  She stated that the sign would still be classified as an incidental sign.    

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application’s #2010-99:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is compatible with other signage approved in the same zoning district; all members concurred.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the consistency of a sign package it contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character; all members concurred.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the consistency of a sign package it protects and enhances the examples of the physical surroundings; all members concurred.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-99:

 

 

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 because of the unique situation with the parking area and the drive thru.           

 

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 bank would have a problem without the signage because other people would utilize their parking lot.  

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with         

knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the variance is the most common sense way to handle this request by the applicant. 

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE, the special conditions and circumstances do not 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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 #2010-99 with the following variances:

1)         To allow an incidental sign to contain a commercial message; and

2)         To increase the maximum number of individual signs per storefront from four (4) to five (5)."

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-99: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-99 is Approved.

 

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-100

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

The request is architectural review and approval of the removal of a 4 square foot

incidental sign and replacement with a new 3 square foot incidental sign in the parking

lot area on North Prospect Street.

 

Discussion:

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan )

 

Ryan Srbljan, DaNite Sign Co., stated that this ‘Huntington Bank’ sign will be attached to a pole.  Ms. Terry asked if a sign that is located behind the building in the parking area would be removed, since it was not indicated in this sign package.  Mr. Srbljan stated that this was apparently missed when they completed the initial survey. He indicated that this sign would be removed.  Ms. Terry asked that this be noted in the final approval given by the Planning Commission. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-100:

 

 

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is compatible with other signage approved in the same zoning district; all members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the consistency of a sign package it contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character; all members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the consistency of a sign package it protects and enhances the examples of the physical surroundings; all members concurred.

            (As discussed in the review for Criteria for Application #2010-99.)

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-100:

 

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 because of the unique situation with the parking area and the drive thru.           

 

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 bank would have a problem without the signage because other people would utilize their parking lot.  

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with         

knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the variance is the most common sense way to handle this request by the applicant. 

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE, the special conditions and circumstances do not 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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.

 (As discussed in the review for Criteria for Application #2010-99.)

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-100 on the condition that the sign on the northern edge parking lot be removed and with the following variances:

1)         To allow an incidental sign to contain a commercial message;

2)         To increase the maximum number of incidental signs on a zone lot from two (2) to three (3); and

3)         To increase the maximum number of individual signs per storefront from four (4) to six (6).

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-100: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-100 is Approved.

 

 

 

 

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-101

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an existing 3

square foot incidental sign and replacement with a new 1.66 square foot incidental sign in

the parking lot area on North Prospect Street.

 

Discussion:

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan )

 

Ryan Srbljan, DaNite Sign Co., stated that Huntington Bank

Mr. Ryan asked the location of the proposed signage.  Ms. Terry stated that the signage will face Prospect Street and be in front of the ATM. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-101:

 

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.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is an upgrade to the historical character of the Village; all members concurred.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that this creates a consistent style of graphics for the entire property which protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings; all members concurred.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-101:

 

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 the parking lot and ATM are special circumstances.     

 

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. Mr.  Burriss stated that the signage is for safety reasons; all members concurred. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE. 

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with         

knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated that a variance would be the most expedient process.

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

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 #2010-101 with a variance to increase the maximum number of incidental signs on a zone lot from two (2) to four (4).

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-101: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-101 is Approved.

 

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-102

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of two (2) existing 1.5

square foot canopy internally illuminated signage and replacement with two (2)  new 1.25

square foot canopy internally illuminated signage for the drive thru located in the parking

lot area on North Prospect Street.

 

Discussion:

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan )

 

Ryan Srbljan, DaNite Sign Co., was present for questions/comments.

Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant would be switching over to LED lights.  Mr. Srbljan stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell commented that the variance for an internally illuminated light is not listed.  Ms. Terry clarified that this should have been listed as a variance on the staff report.  Mr. Srbljan stated that the reason for the internal illumination is a way-finding measure, and not necessarily for advertising.  Mr. Burriss asked if the proposed LED lighting would be brighter.  Mr. Srbljan indicated that they will be using lenses with diffusers and they are red and green. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-102:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed signage is compatible with other Village signage in the same zoning district; all members concurred.  

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage establishes consistency which contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character; all members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated that this creates a consistent style of graphics for the entire property which protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings; all members concurred.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-102:

 

 

 

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 because of the vehicular maneuvering pattern in the parking lot and the entrance/exit to the ATM.

 

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 signage is needed for safety. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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 TRUE.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the variance is the most practical way to handle the matter.  Mr. Burriss agreed that the internal illumination is a practical requirement with this particular request.

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission agreed FALSE. 

 

 

 

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.  The Planning Commission agreed 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 #2010-102 with the following variances:

1)         To increase the maximum number of canopy signs per zone lot from one (1) to two (2);

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

3)         To allow internal LED illumination.

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-102: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-102 is Approved.

 

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-103

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the refacing of the existing 48.75

square foot freestanding ATM located in the parking lot area on North Prospect Street. 

 

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan )

 

Ryan Srbljan, DaNite Sign Co., indicated that they would be willing to remove the honeycomb emblem if the Planning Commission wishes.  Mr. Ryan asked how the board feels regarding the ‘Huntington’ label on the top of all four sides of the ATM.    Eric George stated that it should say ATM on two sides.  Ms. Terry indicated that she classified this sign as a wall sign, and not an incidental sign.  Mr. Ryan stated that he would be in favor of the removal of the graphics Mr. Srbljan spoke of, the honeycomb emblems.  Mr. Burriss stated that he could see having the word ‘Huntington’ on two sides, rather than four sides.  He stated that he questions the need for the word ‘ATM.’  He stated that he does not like the honeycomb emblem, as proposed for this signage.  Mr. Johnson stated that he is in favor of Mr. Burriss’ suggestions and he is fine with the word ‘Welcome’ staying on the sign.  Mr. Terry indicated that even if the Planning Commission removes some of the language on the ATM, it would still require a variance due to the total number of individual signs allowed for a storefront.  Mr. Burriss asked if the words ‘Huntington’ and ‘ATM’ would be at the same height.  Mr. Srbljan stated yes.    Mr. Ryan commented that he doesn’t see the need for four ‘Huntington’ signs on an ATM machine located at Huntington Bank.  He stated that the Planning Commission is suggesting that the word ‘Huntington’ be located on the ATM at the top facing west, with the word ‘Welcome’, and no ‘ATM’ lettering on the signage.  Mr. Srbljan agreed to these terms. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-103:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is compatible with other signage that has been approved in this District; all members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the consistency of the signage it upgrades the historical character; all members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the district; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past      generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated that by establishing consistency of signage it protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived; all members concurred.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-103:

 

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. 

 

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 agreed TRUE.  Mr.  Burriss stated that the signage is for safety reasons. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with         

knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. 

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

c.         That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-103 as modified per Exhibit "A" and with a variance to increase the maximum number of individual signs per storefront from four (4) to seven (7).          

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-103: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-103 is Approved.

 

230 E. Broadway – Mona J. Fine - Application #2010-106

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the addition of a 1.66 square foot tenant panel sign to be attached to the bottom of the existing projecting sign. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Mona Fine.

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-106:

Mona J. Fine, 230 East Broadway, stated that she is requesting a tenant panel sign to hang from the existing projecting sign.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant is decreasing the size from what Mr. Vernau had previously shown.  Ms. Fine stated that the signage would have the same color and same font (Times New Roman).  Mr. Burriss stated that as long as the signage has consistency with the font and color he is fine with approving it. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-106:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is consistent with other signs that have been previously approved in this District; all members concurred. 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is an upgrade to the historical character of the Village; all members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is historically appropriate which protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings; all members concurred.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-106 with the condition that the color and font are consistent with the adjacent McFarland sign.

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

216 East College Street– John Cassell - Application #2010-108

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of three-tab asphaltic shingles and replacement with asphaltic dimensional shingles in pewter gray color. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and John Cassell.

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-108:

Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Cassell is planning to reshingle the garage.  Mr. Cassell stated no, not at this time. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-108:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that this type of shingle has been approved for other structures in this District; all members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the upgrading of the shingles is more consistent with the historical character of the area; all members concurred. 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by upgrading the structure it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that by upgrading the roof it protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings; all members concurred.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-108 as submitted.

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

221 East Broadway – Landrum Cottage - Application #2010-113

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a Change of Use for 487.5 square feet from Category “B”, Specialty Shops (former antique store) to Category “D”, Food, Drug and Beverage Businesses, specifically for a bakery, which will also contain retail sales and indoor seating.  

 

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-113:

Dana Landrum indicated that she would like to take out the front retail counters at the current bakery and move them to where the antique shop was previously located.

She stated that her hours of operation would be extended, and she expects that there will be more morning traffic.  Ms. Landrum stated that there will not be an additional build out of the structure and she read aloud several written recommendations by customers.  She later indicated that she had a verbal “ok” from the Johnson’s who live next to the property and their neighbors.  She stated that the neighbors often come to her business.  Mr. Ryan inquired if the parking variance was granted by the BZBA.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  She went on to say that as part of the approval, Ms. Landrum has stated that all of the existing tables on the outside of the bakery would be removed and relocated to the inside of this new space.  Ms. Landrum stated that the new space would not open until 9:00 AM daily.  Mr. Burriss asked if the food would be prepared at the bakery and taken over to the adjacent proposed space.  Ms. Landrum stated yes.  Mr. Burriss questioned if there would be congestion using the front entrance for both customers and food service.  Ms. Landrum stated that she plans on having buffet service and if the museum were utilizing the side door – she would plan on having a place to put dirty dishes in the back of the room.  Mr. Burriss asked if the set of French doors would be removed in the museum.  Mr. DeSapri stated yes.  Ms. Landrum stated that they have handicapped accessibility to the restaurant and the bathrooms that are currently in place have been approved by the Health Department.  She went on to say that the Robbins Hunter Museum would be installing new bathroom facilities in the Fall.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the bakery would still be classified to sell food.  Ms. Terry stated yes, that the approval was for a food, drug and beverage business, for a bakery in conjunction with retail sales.  Ms. Landrum stated that she would be doing all of the shopping for the business and there would not be delivery trucks using the private driveway from Elm Street.  She stated that she may look at having a linen service, but if this is the case – she will have them access the property from Broadway.  Mr. Burriss questioned how trash is removed from the facility.  Ms. Landrum stated that she has two trash totes that are taken to the curb at Broadway on a weekly basis.  The Planning Commission questioned if this would be enough trash receptacles for the proposed restaurant use.  Ms. Landrum indicated that she would make any necessary provisions for trash.  She stated that the trash bins are located in the back of the building behind the bakery.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned how often the museum has teas.  Don DeSapri stated that they originally wanted to have the teas once per month, but they didn’t get enough response, so they are less often.  Mr. Burriss inquired on the proposed fireplace in the structure.  Ms. Landrum explained that this would be electric and is just for ambiance.  Mr. Burriss asked how the applicant would load the van for catered events.  Ms. Landrum stated that they typically go outside the bakery door in the back and she said that they don’t do much off site catering. 

Mr. Burriss asked if the trash receptacles are shared with the museum.  Mr. DeSapri stated yes.  Councilmember O’Keefe agreed that there would be more trash with the business changing to serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner.  Ms. Landrum stated that much of her business is take out.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission has typically required that all trash receptacles be screened with either fencing or landscaping.  Mr. DeSapri stated that they used to keep the trash bins in an area that was landscaped to screen them and perhaps they could move them back to this location.  Mr. Burriss stated that they could make that decision and let Village staff know.  Ms. Landrum also discussed using lattice for screening the trash cans.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission would like to see the trash receptacles screened on three sides so they are not visible from the museum or the alley.  Mr. Burriss asked the procedure for parking if an outside vendor were to come in for a wedding or event at the museum.  Ms. Landrum stated that she would vacate the two spaces at the museum and park elsewhere.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-113 with the condition that the trash are shall be fully screened and that the screening shall be approved by Village Staff.  

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

122 North Pearl Street – James Browder - Application #2010-114

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of 3-tab asphaltic shingles and replacement with Owens Corning dimensional asphaltic shingles.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and James Browder.

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-114:

James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street, indicated that he would be replacing the shingles and the gutters would remain.  He stated that they will also add ventilation to the roof and it won’t be visible from the street.  Mr. Browder indicated that the roof shingle will be green. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-114:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed roof is consistent with similar approvals in the same zoning district; all members concurred. 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated the applicant’s proposal is consistent with the historical character of the Village; all members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a structure it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that it protects an existing historical home; all members concurred.

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approval of Application #2010-114 as submitted.

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

 

Application #2010-95: Huntington Bank; Freestanding Signage

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, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-95 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-95.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-96: Huntington Bank; Freestanding Signage

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, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-96 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-96.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-97: Huntington Bank; Wall Signage

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, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-97 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-97.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-98: Huntington Bank; Incidental Signage

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, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-98 as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-98.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-99: Huntington Bank; Incidental Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1189, Signs and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-99 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-99.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-100: Huntington Bank; Incidental Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1189, Signage and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-100 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-100.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-101: Huntington Bank; Incidental Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1189, Signage and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-101 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-101.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Application #2010-102: Huntington Bank; Canopy Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1189, Signage and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-102 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-102.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-103: Huntington Bank; Wall (ATM) Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1189, Signage and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-103 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-103.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-106: Mona J. Fine; Projecting Tenant Panel Signage

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, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-106 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-106.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-108: John Cassell; Roof/Exterior Modification

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 #2010-108 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-108.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-113: Landrum Cottage; 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-113 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-113.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-114: James Browder; Roof/Exterior Modification

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 #2010-114 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-114.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for the May 24, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Motion carried: 3 yeas; 1 abstention (Mr. Ryan). 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for the June 14, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Motion carried: 3 yeas; 1 abstention (Mr. Burriss). 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for the June 28, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Motion carried: 3 yeas; 1 abstention (Mr. Mitchell).  

 

Adjournment:  9:20 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

July 26, 2010 (Jack Burriss indicated that he cannot attend this meeting.)

August 9, 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.