Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes August 22, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 22, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Absent:  Jack Burriss. 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Asst. to Planning Dept; Michael Crites; Law Director

Also Present: Eric Rosenberg, Elizabeth Moss, Bob Ramsey, Joseph Galano, Mary Morales-Rivera, Doug Feller, Bob Brooks, Mark Mauter, Don DeSapri, Marion Ackerman, and Liz Price.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

395 North Pearl Street – Eric and Susan Rosenberg- Application #2011-101

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a deck, walkway and exterior stairs.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker, Eric Rosenberg, Joseph Galano, Doug Feller, and Bob Ramsey.

 

Discussion:

Eric Rosenberg, 395 North Pearl Street, indicated he had an addition put on his home a few years back which required Planning Commission approval.  Mr. Rosenberg stated he would like to put an exterior second floor staircase in so he can access this part of the home easier because he spends a lot of time in this area.  He further stated that staff was   concerned about water runoff because the lot is very steep.  He also stated there was some discussion on whether these changes extend onto the private drive area.  Mr. Rosenberg stated three of the neighbors that use this driveway are present to address any concerns and he does not feel the private driveway is a problem.  He stated all of the deeds give the property owners the right to ingress and egress on the driveway.  Mr. Rosenberg stated Law Director Crites was consulted about the private drive and the exterior modifications being proposed do not encroach on this area or cause disruption.  Mr. Mitchell asked what the height is from the corner above the roadway.  Mr. Rosenberg explained that the drop-off needs to be excavated.  Joseph Galano stated he helped with the drawings and he believes the drop-off is high enough that the homeowner may want a handrail.  Mr. Galano stated the code says the optimum requirement for a handrail is anything more than thirty inches (30”).  Mr. Galano indicated that he believed the modifications encroach maybe five (5’) to seven (7’) feet onto the private drive setbacks.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if any type of written approval should be obtained from the neighbors utilizing the driveway.   Law Director Crites indicated that this is diminimous with this application. [He added staff is investigating that one of the conditions for approval is an easement by future applicants.]  Law Director Crites stated this would not be a condition of approval for this particular application.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant would be submitting for three variances from the BZBA.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked the purpose of the area that jets out.  Mr. Rosenberg explained this would allow them to have access to the front of their house.  Mr. Johnson asked the neighbors who were present at the meeting if they were ok with the application.  There was no objection by any neighbors.   Mr. Johnson questioned if the TREK wood would match the existing home.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that the decking would be gray TREK and it is paintable.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that he is unsure if he will paint it or leave it gray.  He stated that if he does paint it it would match the exiting home and be painted white.  He later indicated that the wood lattice and spindles would either be left natural or painted white.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-101:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the application is consistent with other decks and walkways approved in the district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the materials are consistent with other materials used in this district.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the walkway allows the home to be accessed easier.

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 #2011-101 on the condition that the applicant receives three variances from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-101:

Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

401 North Pearl Street – Doug Feller- Application #2011-102

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a two-story addition on the south side of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker, Eric Rosenberg, Doug Feller, Joseph Galano, and Bob Ramsey.

 

 

Discussion:

Eric Rosenberg, 401 North Pearl Street, indicated he is representing the homeowner, Doug Feller.  He later indicated he may purchase this home for a family member.  Mr. Rosenberg stated the addition he is proposing is very similar to what was done to his home in 2008.  He stated the current home does not have garage space and is very small.  Furthermore, Mr. Rosenberg stated the retaining wall cuts through his property at 395 North Pearl Street and he would be providing an easement to allow for the retaining wall.  Mr. Rosenberg stated the stucco would match the existing stucco on the home.  He stated that the Village had raised concerns about the easement and water run off from the new roof.  He stated the easement has been addressed and they plan to address water run off by installing the gutters for the new addition underground.  Mr. Rosenberg indicated the gutters would go under the new driveway and daylight over the hill.  He added that this is similar to how Denison University does their gutters.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that after review by the Village, they found this method to be an acceptable solution.  It was clarified that Terry Hopkins and Alison Terry reviewed gutter & downspouts with the applicant.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that most of the water that comes from the hill comes from Denison.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the downspouts on the existing home would be picked up with the new underground down spouting.  Mr. Rosenberg stated no and the Village was not requiring this.  Ms. Walker stated that staff would require that the easement be submitted prior to the release of the zoning permit.  She also indicated the front yard setback that is proposed requires a variance.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there is any issue with massing.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant is well under the 20% maximum building lot coverage requirement.  Mr. Mitchell asked about the style of the windows.  He stated that the drawings depict several different styles.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that some of the windows on the existing home are six over one and some are one over one.  He stated that they would like to remove the insert to make all of the windows match one over one style.  He added that this is the same style of windows in the neighborhood.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that he would do six over one window lights if this is what the Planning Commission prefers, but he prefers the look of one over one window lights.  Mr. Johnson asked if the door would have divided lights.  Mr. Rosenberg stated no.  Mr. Mitchell clarified that the application should be amended to state that all of the windows and doors in the home would be one over one window lights.  Mr. Rosenberg had a sample of the proposed roof shingle.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the new shingles would match the existing shingles already on the home.  Mr. Rosenberg stated yes.  He also questioned if the fascia and soffits on the addition would match the existing home.  Mr. Rosenberg stated yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the cut sheet for the garage door submitted with the application does not show any windows.  Mr. Rosenberg indicated that this is a mistake on the application and it should be amended to have four windows across the top.  He stated this is the same door he has on his home, but bigger.  He apologized for printing the wrong cut sheet.  Mr. Johnson clarified the size of the garage door.  Mr. Galano stated the door would be seven foot (7’) by sixteen foot (16’).  Mr. Hawk indicated the application should be amended to note this size in the garage door.  Mr. Johnson asked if there would be any coach lights on the side of the garage door.  Mr.  Rosenberg indicated he may use two lights that he has on his home, but they are not included in this application.  Mr. Johnson asked the treatment for the retaining wall cap.  Mr. Galano stated the ledge would be capped off with a vine and cementitious coping at the top.  He indicated there is a wood fence near the retaining wall that would continue.  The Planning Commission reviewed the amendments made to the application after discussion with the applicant.  They indicated all windows and doors are to be one over one light windows and the size of the garage door is to be seven foot (7’) by sixteen foot (16’) with four windows across the top.  The Planning Commission indicated the applicant is to connect the down spouting under the new driveway to daylight over the hillside.  The day lighting of water will be east of the driveway.  The Planning Commission clarified the underground drainage would not run under the private drive.  The Planning Commission also stated that the applicant would need a variance from the BZBA for final approval of the zoning permit.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant meets the AROD criteria regarding massing.  She explained the building massing in this district differs from the building massing code requirements in other districts in the Village. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-102:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed district is consistent with adjacent homes in the district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the home is being improved and so is the historical character.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the livability of the home is improved.   

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 #2011-102, as amended, with the condition that all windows and doors be one over one light windows; that the garage door be seven foot (7’) by sixteen foot (16’) with four windows across the top; that the downspouts run under the new driveway to daylight; that the applicant receive a front yard setback variance from the BZBA; and that an easement is submitted to the Village prior to the release of the zoning permit.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-102:

Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

(Law Director Crites exited the meeting at 7:45 PM.)

 

221 East Broadway – Marion Ackerman- Application #2011-103

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a handicapped ramp and sidewalk. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker, Marion Ackerman, and Don DeSapri.

 

Discussion:

Marion Ackerman, 221 East Broadway, indicated the existing handicap ramp goes through a building that they now rent out.  He stated they are proposing a new ramp that is ‘u’ shaped to gain enough length for wheelchair access.  Mr. Ackerman stated there are many surfaces that exist in this outside area such as stone to brick to concrete. He presented an example of a concrete paver stained to look like brick.  He also presented an example of a railing that they would like to use that was once located on the property.  Mr. Ackerman stated that a railing is not required for ADA standards, but they are proposing installing.  Ms. Walker stated the presented slope is designed to be 1 in 20 or greater and the design is nicely done. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-103:

 

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. 

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 #2011-103 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-103:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

134 East Broadway – Day Y Noche - Application #2011-104

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker, and Mary Morales-Rivera.

 

Discussion:

Mary Morales-Rivera, 134 East Broadway, indicated she would like the sidewalk sign for advertising specials.  Mr. Johnson asked if the logo would be on the slate.  Ms. Morales-Rivera stated the sidewalk sign logo would match the existing sign on the building.  The Planning Commission discussed if the signage required a variance.  It was decided that the proposed height of the sign could be lowered if the lower legs were slightly shortened, and this would remove the need for a variance.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the size of the sidewalk sign should have included a measurement including the lower legs of the sign.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant is allowed 5.18 square feet per side for the sidewalk signage.  Mr. Johnson asked the proposed location for the signage.  Ms. Morales-Rivera stated the sidewalk sign would be in front of the door and between the first two tables.  Mr. Mitchell stated a variance is not required if the maximum size does not exceed 57.5 square feet.  Ms. Morales-Rivera indicated that the sign would be no more than three colors.      

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-104:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the presented sidewalk sign is consistent with other sidewalk signs in the district.   

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. Johnson stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by this business.

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 #2011-104 with the condition that the total area of all signs does not exceed 57.5 square feet and that the signage be taken indoors during non-business hours.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-104:

Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

14 Westgate Drive – Bob Brooks - Application #2011-105

Community Service District (CSD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum size for a temporary real estate sign from eight (8) square feet to thirty-two (32) square feet.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker, and Bob Brooks.

 

Discussion:

Bob Brooks, 14 Westgate Drive, indicated the signage he would like to display is related to the sale of the property and it would be a temporary sign.  He explained the current signage is not large enough and the property has been vacant for 2 ½ years.  Mr. Brooks stated the proposed signage is not illuminated.  Mr. Brooks stated the character of the neighborhood would not be altered and there would not be any detriment to neighbors with the proposed signage.  Mr. Brooks indicated the sign code changed after he purchased the property and he is unable to achieve his goal in selling the property without larger signage.  Mr. Brooks stated the signage would not impair light to adjacent properties.  Mr. Ryan recalled that temporary signage was approved for REMAX in this same location in years past.  Mr. Johnson asked the correlation with the size of the building and acreage.  Ms. Walker stated that the property is allowed to have an eight (8) foot square sign, and property over two acres is allowed a larger sign.  Mr. Brooks stated that his property is approximately 1.5 acres.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-105:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated the property is located on a four-lane highway and Village street.  He stated that the property has been for sale for over a year.

 

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 the request is for a temporary sign. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is 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).  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 stated that the applicant has noted that the sign code changed after he purchased the property.   

 

(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. Ryan stated the applicant has already tried to sell the property with smaller signage and this did not work.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-105 with a variance to increase the maximum square footage for this zone lot from eight (8) square feet to thirty-two (32) square feet total.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-105:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

331 North Pearl Street – Elizabeth Moss - Application #2011-106

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a rear second-story addition.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker, Elizabeth Moss, and Mark Mauter.

 

Discussion:

Mark Mauter, indicated he is the contractor for the project.  He stated the addition would be compatible with the existing structure and their goal is to make this look like its always been there.  Mr. Mauter stated the homeowner would like to add an additional bedroom to the home.  He indicated the roof would have a 3/12 pitch.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the roof can have shingles on top of an ice and water guard.  Mr. Mauter stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked for an explanation of the downspouts.  Mr. Mauter showed him the location of the new downspouts on a drawing.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the brackets that are on the rest of the overhang would continue onto the addition.  Mr. Mauter agreed to continue this detailing on the addition.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant received a variance for the second story from the BZBA.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-106:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the detailing presented is consistent with other additions in this district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the use of details are historical.

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 #2011-106 with the amendment to have the applicant add brackets to the north and south elevations for the overhang, to be consistent with the structure.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-106:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (abstain), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

128 East Broadway – Stephen Larsen- Application #2011-108

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker, and Liz Price.

 

Discussion:

Liz Price, 128 East Broadway, indicated they would like to install a sidewalk sign.  Ms. Walker stated the sign would be a wood frame with cork background and there would be pictures of different menu items displayed on the board.  Mr. Hawk indicated the sign has been in place for some time and is still up without Planning Commission approval.  Ms. Walker stated the proposed signage could be considered to be a parallel with the Day y Noche sidewalk sign or Whit’s sign.  Mr. Mitchell stated he does not like sandwich board signs, but he doesn’t have a problem with the proposal because every business has them.    Mr. Johnson questioned if the sign would be taken in during non-business hours. Ms. Price stated yes.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-108:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the sandwich board sign is consistent with other sandwich board signs 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. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the vitality is improved by the signage.

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 #2011-108 as submitted with the condition that the signage is removed and secured indoors during non-business hours.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-108:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (no), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-1. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-101: Eric and Susan Rosenberg; 395 North Pearl Street; 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 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-101 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-101. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-102: Doug Feller; 401 North Pearl Street; Addition

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, Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-102 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-102. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-103: Marion Ackerman; 221 East Broadway; 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, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1187, Height, Area, & Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-103 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-103. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-104: Day y Noche; 134 East Broadway; 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 hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-104 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-104. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-105: Bob Brooks; 14 Westgate Drive; 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 1147, Variances, Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-105 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-105. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-106: Elizabeth Moss; 331 North Pearl Street; Addition

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 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-106 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-106. Seconded by Mr. Johnson

 

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

Application #2011-108: Stephen Larsen; 128 East Broadway; 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 hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-108 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-108. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (no), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to excuse Jack Burriss from the August 22, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for August 8, 2011:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from August 8, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, September 12, 2011

Monday, September 26, 2011 (Mr. Hawk indicated that he cannot attend this meeting.)

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.