Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes June 27, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 27, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  None.

Staff Present: Village Planning Director, Alison Terry; Planning & Zoning Assistant, Deb Walker.

Also Present: Dan Rogers, Barb Franks, Max Rogers, Christian Robertson, Jim Patin, Anne Aubourg, Josh Brader, Perry Watson, Mary Morales-Rivera, Ed and Donna Jenkins, Noah Brader, Laura Hunt, Cynthia Cort, Brian Miller, Sam Sagaria, and Flo Hoffman.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

115 East Broadway – Granville Historical Society - Application #2011-64

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a two-story rear addition; and

review and approval of a Change of Use, as a similar use, to Category “F”: Clubs,

sororities, fraternities, lodges, and meeting places to allow for the two-story addition and

museum expansion.

 

Jeremy Johnson recused himself from hearing/voting on Application #2011-64 at 7:04

PM. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Flo Hoffman, Laura Hunt, and Anne Aubourg.

 

Laura Hunt, 88 Arden Place, Hebron, indicated that she is the project architect for the Granville Historical Society addition.  She stated that they came in for a work session with the Planning Commission and the applicant has attempted to implement the suggestions that were given to them.  Mr. Burriss stated that he appreciates the development and reflection shown in the plan from the work session discussions.  Mr. Burriss stated that he was surprised to see the fire escape, as this was not in the original plan.  Ms. Hunt stated that by building code there has to be two exits.  She stated that they originally looked at having another inside staircase for an exit, but this took up too much interior space – making the main level almost useless.  Mr. Burriss clarified if the fire escape would be located in the alley next to the park.  Ms. Hunt stated yes.  Mr. Burriss clarified that this is a pedestrian alley.  Ms. Hunt indicated that the roof shingles on the fire escape would match the roof shingles on the main structure.  Mr. Burriss questioned if there was any functional reason why the fire escape stairway couldn’t move further back on the eastern elevation towards the back parking lot.  Ms. Hunt stated that there was not a functional reason as to why the stairs couldn’t move further back.  Mr. Burriss stated that the overhang for the roof at the top of the stairs disturbs the gable roof line from the front of the structure.  He questioned if the stairs could move back about six feet.  Flo Hoffman stated that the archives storage room is located in the area where the emergency exit would be located and they have minimal space for the archives.  She questioned if the stairway would disturb the shelving.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the stairs could be moved in a way that could actually create additional wall space for the shelving.  Mr. Hawk asked what type of shelving they would be using for the archives.  Cynthia Cort stated that they would be using standard metal shelving.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the  door should line up with the window and this would improve the look of the side elevation.  Mr. Burriss stated that the presented location for the fire escape seems to interfere with the thought process for the look from the front of the building.  Ms. Hunt stated that she did not see a problem in lining up the door with the window.  Mr. Mitchell stated that overall the application looks good and the applicant did all of the suggestions that were previously discussed in the work session.  Mr. Burriss questioned the intention for the ground surface under the fire escape.  Ms. Cort stated that this would be concrete and they hope to locate the trashcans there.  Ms. Cort stated that they are unable to locate the trashcans inside of the building because of code, and the stairwell would be the next alternative location.   Mr. Burriss stated that this is a narrow pedestrian area and the applicant will want to keep trash from collecting in the stairwell area.  He asked what type of stairs is being proposed.  Ms. Hunt stated that they are considering see through metal.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant has any examples of the proposed railing.  Ms. Hunt stated no, but they could get this to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss questioned how the space between the canopy and the stairs would be handled with the overhang.  Ms. Hunt stated that there would be a space.  Mr. Burriss asked how icicles in the gap would be addressed.  Ms. Hunt explained that the roof will not have any vertical slope, but it will slope away from this area.  Mr. Burriss asked where the downspouts would be located.  Ms. Hunt stated that the drawing labeled June 15th shows the location of the downspouts.  Mr. Burriss also noted that by moving the door, this will allow the stone quoins to show up better at the corner.  There was no objection by the Planning Commission to building massing.  Ms. Terry indicated that no signage for the applicant has been presented for approval, even though it has been shown on the drawing.  Ms. Terry also stated that the applicant has received the required variances for parking and setbacks from the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals.  Ms. Terry explained that this application also has a Change of Use request because the current use is a grandfathered use which is not a permitted or a conditional use.  She also explained that the code requirements for a Change of Use approval has been changed by the Village Council, but is not yet in effect.  The Planning Commission had no objection to the Change of Use request to Category ‘F’ by the Granville Historical Society.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-64:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the application is consistent with other applications 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. Burriss stated that the expansion of the Granville Historical Society is consistent.     

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district continues with the Historical Society by preserving the historical nature of Granville.    

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Historical Society has proposed a design for the expansion that protects and enhances the physical surroundings in which past generations have lived.    

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-64 with modifications to the east elevation per Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ and that they found the Change of Use request to be similar to Category ‘F’.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

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

 

Jeremy Johnson rejoined the Planning Commission meeting at 7:28 PM. 

 

209 West Broadway – Robert Hill - Application #2011-67

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the conversion of a gravel driveway to concrete and a concrete patio addition in the rear yard.   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Robert Hill.

 

Discussion:

Robert Hill, 209 West Broadway, thanked Alison Terry and Deb Walker for their help in his application request.  He stated that he already has an existing driveway back to the garage and he is not requesting additional width or length just a change in material.  He indicated that he would also like to add an additional cement pad in the back for a back yard patio.  Ms. Terry clarified that the applicant meets all of the setback requirements and lot coverage requirements. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-67:

 

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

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the driveway appearance would be enhanced with a better presentation.  

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 #2011-67 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Hawk, Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

230 East Broadway – Noah Brader - Application #2011-68

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Noah and Josh Brader.

 

Discussion:

Noah Brader, 230 East Broadway, indicated that he would like a freestanding sign for a family owned mortgage company he is opening in Granville at 230 East Broadway.  Mr. Brader stated that the posts would be wood and the actual sign would be made from high-density urethane.  He added that they are not proposing any landscaping or lighting.  Mr. Ryan questioned what would happen with the sign that is currently there (projecting sign).  Mr. Brader stated that this would stay and they didn’t want to hang their sign with the other signage.  Mr. Ryan asked if the setback requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant had considered wood instead of the high-density urethane.  Mr. Brader stated that they looked at wood, but the sign company (Columbus Sign Company) indicated that a wood sign would be more maintenance and would need to be painted yearly. 

 

Ms. Terry asked if the sign would be a matte or shiny finish.  Mr. Brader stated it would be a shiny finish.  Mr. Johnson asked if the sign would be two back-to-back signs.  Mr. Brader stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant considered having the posts further apart with the picture framing the sign with the post.  He further indicated that this would be similar to other signage on this side of the street.  Mr. Brader stated that this is a good suggestion.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant has indicated that the sign would be one foot from the ground and this would not be very visible.  Mr. Mitchell stated that sixty inches to the top of the post seems more appropriate.       

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-68:

 

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

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that signage is appropriate with the recommended changes encouraged by the Planning Commission this evening. 

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

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss agreed if the proposed changes by the Planning Commission are done.    

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-68 with the modification according to Exhibit ‘A’ with the maximum height to be sixty inches (60”).  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Hawk, Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

327 North Pearl Street – Edward and Donna Jenkins - Application #2011-69

Suburban Residential District-B (SRB-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  The request is for architectural review and approval of a deck in the rear yard. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Ed Jenkins.

 

Discussion:

Ed Jenkins, 327 North Pearl Street, indicated that he would like to install a rear deck.  Mr. Jenkins stated that they would like to put gothic style finials on the posts, as this matches the existing house.  Mr. Jenkins explained that the deck goes away from the house and it would meet the grade so it is not above ground.  Mr. Jenkins stated that the balusters will be stained white and medium gray to contrast with the house.  Mr. Ryan asked if the lot coverage requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the deck would be located within the corner boards of the house.  Mr. Jenkins stated yes.  He also stated that a previous owner directed water away from the house. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-69:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed deck is similar to other decks 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. Burriss stated that the deck detailing is appropriate.

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

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed deck encourages the utilization of exterior space.    

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-69 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Hawk, Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

134 East Broadway – Day Y Noche - Application #2011-30 AMENDED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a change in the color of the umbrellas for orange to striped for the previously approved sidewalk café area. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry and Mary Morales-Rivera.

 

Discussion:

Mary Morales-Rivera, 134 East Broadway, was present to address any questions by the Planning Commission. She indicated that she would like to change the umbrella that was originally proposed and the new umbrella would have stripes.  Mr. Burriss asked if the proposed umbrella coordinated with the existing façade.  Ms. Morales-Rivera stated that the umbrellas compliment the colors on the existing façade.  Mr. Burriss asked if the umbrellas will match the existing furniture.  Ms. Morales-Rivera stated that the furniture is black.  Mr. Ryan asked if the umbrellas are all the same size.  Ms. Morales-Rivera stated that there are four (4) umbrellas and they are all five foot (5’).  Mr. Morales-Rivera left the meeting to get one of the umbrellas to show to the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the submitted color of the umbrellas in the paperwork does not resemble the actual umbrella colors.  The Planning Commission discussed that they do not approve building colors, but they have approved the design of awnings for buildings and they have approved the design of furniture for outdoor cafes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the proposed umbrellas are not a permanent fixture.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed umbrellas are not the same style as other umbrellas in the district.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is ok with the stripes on the umbrellas.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he would like to ensure that the color scheme for the building and the colors in the stripe do not detract from the look of the building.  After viewing the umbrella, the Planning Commission agreed that the stripe and colors would not detract from the look of the building.     

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-30 AMENDED:

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

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have approved multiple colored awnings in the past.    

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

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss agreed that the proposed material is historically appropriate. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-30 AMENDED as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss, Hawk, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

121 South Prospect Street – Barb Franks & Dan Rogers - Application #2011-38

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a portion of the northwest corner of the structure to create a forty-five degree angle adjacent to the driveway area.  This application was previously tabled at the May 9, 2011 Planning Commission Hearing. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Dan Rogers, Barb Franks (arrived later and was sworn in), Perry Watson, Max Rogers, and Sam Sagaria.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to remove Application #2011-38 from the Table.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0.   

 

Discussion:

Dan Rogers, 230 East Maple Street, stated that he would like to cut the corner of the primary structure for safety reasons.  He stated that previous testimony has been given regarding multiple accidents in his driveway.  Mr. Ryan asked what the plans are for the roof above the area where the corner would be taken off.  Mr. Rogers stated nothing would change.  He went on to say that nothing would be affected on the inside and the roofline would stay exactly as it is.  Mr. Ryan asked about the existing vent.  Mr. Rogers stated that the vent will stay as it is.  Mr. Ryan asked how the corner would be built back.  Mr. Rogers stated that he would be using the existing siding that is there.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if the applicant would be cutting into the window.  Mr. Rogers stated no and the trim on the window would stay.  Mr. Johnson asked if the light would stay.  Mr. Rogers stated that the light is there for safety reasons.  He added that there have been numerous accidents and the presence of a bollard, as previously mentioned by the Planning Commission, would accomplish nothing. 

 

Mr. Ryan stated that he sees the struggle in approving this application coming when they have to review and meet the AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District) criteria.  He stated that cutting off a portion of a historical structure in the historical district would be considered a demolition.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has not illustrated to the Planning Commission exactly what he would be doing.  He explained that they require other applicants to provide elevations or drawings showing exactly what the structure will look like.  He stated for instance, will the window remain as is and they need a drawing depicting this.  Mr. Rogers indicated that he feels as though he is being hassled, while other people “are rubber stamped for approval.”  Mr. Burriss stated that they are not asking more from him than what they require from any other applicant.  Mr. Rogers stated that he would be willing to come to a future meeting to provide more details to the Planning Commission. 

 

Dr. Perry Watson, 121 South Prospect Street, stated that he would like to provide testimony that his patients have been affected by this driveway and the hazard in getting through without causing damage to a car.  He read aloud a police report, prepared by officer Scott King, about an incident that happened several months ago to a patient.  He stated that he is at the meeting requesting better access and to represent his patients.  He stated that the current setup is not good. 

 

Max Rogers, stated that his wife, Kathy, is a patient of Dr. Watson’s.  He stated that she has a medical issue with her knee and he has had to park next to the door to allow her to crawl in the office because she cannot walk.  He stated that he once tried to get through the driveway and did $1,077 worth of damage to his car.  He stated that if the flower box was not there this wouldn’t be a problem.  He later indicated that if the corner of the building was altered, this might help with allowing cars to pass through easier. 

 

Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant has determined that cutting off the corner of the primary structure would fully solve the problem.  Mr. Rogers stated that it would help immensely and ease the problem drastically.  Mr. Ryan questioned that if sixteen inches were cut off, what would happen if this doesn’t completely solve the problem.  Mr. Rogers stated that cutting off sixteen inches at the corner of the structure would solve the problem to his satisfaction.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant would later request that additional inches be taken off.  Mr. Rogers stated no.  

 

Barb Franks, 230 East Maple Street, stated that this is a safety issue.  She stated that she is tired of seeing cars get destroyed in her driveway.  

 

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, stated that the driveway has historically been used to allow the ingress/egress of a few cars a day and not 40-50 cars that the applicant would like to have pass through. 

 

He stated that there has been testimony from Dr. Avery and others that 40-50 cars have never utilized this driveway.  Mr. Sagaria stated that a car can make it through and the turning radius is fine.  He indicated that the flower boxes are there because the court indicated that he can place them in this location and they will remain there.  Mr. Sagaria stated that he has seen Mr. Rogers and Ms. Franks come and go without any incident on this driveway.  He also stated that the damage to Ms. Frank’s structure was there when he purchased his property.  He stated that there could have been incidents that occurred after he purchased his property, but he is not sure.  Mr. Sagaria stated that he is concerned with safety and the driveway as it is today helps to calm the speed.  He went on to say that there are three areas of safety:  entering and exiting onto South Prospect Street because there are children and pedestrians often present.  He stated that someone could get hit and in fact, Mr. Rogers has come close to hitting him several times.  Mr. Rogers denied that this was true.   Mr. Sagaria stated that a 2x4 flipped up and hit him when someone drove by.  He stated that the intent for the driveway is for a small number of vehicles per day and that “this is a case of deceit by the applicant.” 

 

Barb Franks indicated that she watches someone ruin their front fender once a week on this driveway.  She stated that there is no other issue here except safety.  She stated that the Planning Commission is “propagating this by allowing this.”  Ms. Franks abruptly left the Planning Commission meeting. 

 

Mr. Rogers stated that “speed is not the issue, deceit is not the issue, but safety is the issue.”  Mr. Rogers stated that he drives slowly in this area and still does damage to his vehicle. 

 

Sam Sagaria stated that he has witnessed Mr. Rogers and Ms. Franks drive through this area without incident. 

 

Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission needs to be shown how Mr. Rogers wants to cut off the building and they need an elevation drawing depicting those changes.  He added that they need the dimensions, materials, color, details, etc. 

 

Mr. Rogers stated that he would get this information and come back to the Planning Commission. 

 

Mr. Mitchell stated that this was the exact same meeting that they had the last time and it got tabled the last time.  He added that he sees no reason to table the application and he is prepared to vote on the application this evening.  He stated that it could be that there is just not reasonable access to this building.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he is not sure that they need additional information.  Mr. Ryan added that he is not sure he could say TRUE/YES to most of the criteria they follow in Section 1161.02, such as "is this proposal stylistically compatible with other renovated structures in the district."  

 

Mr. Rogers stated that the other side of his structure has the corner altered.  Mr. Ryan stated that the structure was most likely built this way.  He questioned if this is a demolition to the structure.  Mr. Rogers argued that this is not a demolition and he requested to Table the application so he could get additional information to the Planning Commission.  

 

Mr. Hawk moved to Table Application #2011-38.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell (no), Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (no). 

Motion carried 3-2.   

 

121 South Prospect Street – Barb Franks & Dan Rogers - Application #2011-70

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of 3-tab asphalt shingles and replacement with a standing seam metal roof in a bright red color. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Dan Rogers.

 

Discussion:

Dan Rogers, 230 East Maple Street, stated that the roof for the primary structure would be the same roof that is on the barn.   Mr. Ryan stated that the roof that was put on the barn was not what was approved by the Planning Commission.  He explained that there was a revision with the roof being built up and this differed from what was submitted with the application.  Mr. Rogers stated that he hand built this to take out the sag.  Mr. Ryan questioned how the standing seam would go on the roof for the primary structure and would all of the trim boards be the same.  Mr. Rogers stated that the cornering would be just like the barn with one piece wrapped on the edge.  Mr. Burriss stated that the roof structure on the house is more complicated and the house has gables and peaks that are not present on the barn.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission needs a simple drawing on how the roof will appear at the ridges of gables, valleys, trim, etc. He asked the applicant to give the Planning Commission a drawing to illustrate the details.  Mr. Rogers indicated that he would like this application tabled and he would get additional information to the Planning Commission.  He added that he does not feel that there is much he can add because he is proposing exactly what he has done on the barn.    

 

Mr. Burris made a motion to Table Application #2011-70.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (no), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-1.  

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-64: Granville Historical Society; 115 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 1163, Off-street Parking and Loading, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-64 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-64. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2011-67: Robert Hill; 209 West Broadway; New Concrete Drive and Patio 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-64 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-67. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2011-68: Noah Brader; 230 East Broadway; Freestanding Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-68 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-68. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2011-69: Edward and Donna Jenkins; 327 North Pearl Street; Rear Patio

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 #2011-69 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-69. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

 

Application #2011-39 AMENDED: Day Y Noche; 134 East Broadway; Sidewalk Café 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, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-39 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-39 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for June 13, 2011:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from June 13, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0. Mr. Burriss abstained.   

 

Adjournment:  8:55 PM

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

Monday, July 11, 2011 (Jeremy Johnson indicated that he cannot attend this meeting.) 

Monday, July 25, 2011

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.