Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes March 12, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 12, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell.

Members Absent:  Tim Ryan and Councilmember Johnson (non-voting). 

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

Also Present: Marilyn Sobataka, Edward Blake, Steve Gaubert, Lura Nickel, Mark Clapsadle, Jim Ball, Jason Gay, L. Howry, and Edith Schories.

Citizens’ Comments: No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

New Business:

221 East Broadway – Marilyn Sobataka- Application #2012-17

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

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

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Marilyn Sobataka. 

Discussion:

 

Marilyn Sobataka, 15 Donald Ross Drive, indicated she would like to use the existing signage located at North Prospect Street, but at a different location – 221 East Broadway.  She stated the rod holding up the projecting sign would be a little shorter.  Ms. Terry stated all of the requirements have been met and no variances are needed for this application.    

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-17: 

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 signage requests 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 materials are consistent with other materials used in this district and this signage was previously approved by the Planning Commission.

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 the signage is historically appropriate.  

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-17 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-17:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  

221 East Broadway – Marilyn Sobataka- Application #2012-18

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. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Marilyn Sobataka.  

Discussion: 

Marilyn Sobataka, 15 Donald Ross Drive, indicated she would like to place a sidewalk sign out for the business.  Mr. Hawk asked if there was a specific timeframe put in place for Ms. Sobataka’s existing sidewalk signage.  Ms. Terry stated yes, but this is because the signage was placed at the sidewalk corner of the intersection of Prospect and Broadway.  She stated the difference with this proposed signage is that the sign would be on the same property and next to an existing sign.   

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-18: 

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 is consistent with other signage approved 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. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-18 with the condition the signage is removed and secured indoors during non-business hours.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-18:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

226 South Mulberry Street – Forrest Blake - Application #2012-22

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the demolition of a detached wooden garage.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Edward Blake. 

Discussion:

 

Edward Blake, 226 South Mulberry Street, stated he is representing his father who could not attend.  He stated they would like to remove the old shed and it is close to the property line.  He stated the next application is for a carport that would sit in this general location.    

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-22:

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

b)         The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  The Planning Commission concluded this information was fulfilled.

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

d)         The proposed future construction plans for the demolished area meet the zoning requirements of the zoning district and are consistent with the existing structures, sizes, densities, and development styles of the surrounding areas, and that an implementation schedule is submitted and committed to by the applicant.  Ms. Terry stated the site plan and current photographs of property and the structure that is proposed to be demolished. Confirmed this information was submitted and will be given to Council along with a bond.  The Planning Commission agreed.  

Mr. Hawk made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2012-22 to Village Council.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-22:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

226 South Mulberry Street – Forrest Blake - Application #2012-23

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new detached accessory structure with carport.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Edward Hoyt, and Edith Schories.  

Discussion:

Edward Blake, 226 South Mulberry Street, stated this application is to build a garage and carport where the existing shed stood.  He stated the exterior would match the house.  Ms. Hoyt clarified if a variance is required for this application.  Ms. Terry stated yes and this application would have to go through the BZBA.  She stated that if this application were to be approved by the Planning Commission, it would be contingent upon the applicant receiving a variance from the BZBA.  Ms. Terry stated the neighbor from the rear of the property contacted her regarding the proximity of the proposed garage to her property line.  Mr. Burriss asked if the new garage would have gutters.  Mr. Blake stated they are not proposing gutters at this time.  Ms. Terry stated she did review water drainage for this application by visiting the property and everything drains to the back of the yard.  She stated she thinks there needs to be a gutter to direct water to the front.  Ms. Terry stated the space in between the existing garage and the neighbor's garage to the north is pretty wet.  She presented pictures she took of the property.  Mr. Burriss stated that with the closeness of the property lines in this area he would want to see water appropriately directed.  Mr. Blake stated they would be willing to add gutters and downspouts.  Mr. Burriss asked if the base of the structure is going to be concrete,  including the carport area.  Mr. Blake stated the entire area would have concrete.  Mr. Mitchell asked where the water in this area is currently draining.  Ms. Terry stated it is going to the back and the middle of that block.  She also stated she did not see any ponding or standing water.  Mr. Mitchell stated he would not want to see more water directed than what is collecting in this area now.  Ms. Terry questioned if problems would be avoided by directing water toward the front.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the carport will be used as a patio or an actual carport.  Mr. Blake stated they will use this area as a carport.    

Edith Schories, 128 West Maple Street, stated she has looked at the proposed garage plans.  She stated she has lived at her address since 1963.  She stated that if they do not put cement down as the base for the garage this would be an invitation for groundhogs.  Ms. Terry clarified the applicant has indicated they would have a cement foundation for the garage.  Ms. Schories indicated she is an avid gardener and she has some concerns over her plantings being protected.  She stated some trees that shade her back yard are at risk of damage with the proposed garage.  Ms. Schories stated she was only made aware of these plans from the Village, and the applicant did not contact her regarding their plans to build a garage so close to her property line.  Ms. Schories stated her biggest concern is regarding the tall evergreens with roots that run parallel.  She stated she contacted an expert at Dawes Arboretum and he has assured her the roots would be damaged enough to hurt the trees.  Ms. Schories stated she is against the proposed location of the garage.  She stated her trees make her garden with the shade they provide.  She went on to say she cannot go in the sun because she has had skin cancer.  Ms. Schories stated she is 90 years old and wants to be comfortable where she lives.  She indicated the proposed garage could be set closer to the applicants home.  She indicated she cannot agree to the proposed location under any circumstance.  

Mr. Mitchell stated the Village notifications are set up when an application comes to the Village.  He stated it is the Village’s responsibility to notify all contiguous and adjacent property owners within 250 feet of the proposed project.  Mr. Mitchell stated it is not a requirement of the property owner to do this, but it would be considered a courtesy for neighbors to discuss future plans.  Mr. Mitchell stated it sounds as though the issue is the proposed location of the garage.  Mr. Mitchell stated the new garage is proposed to be two-point-one feet (2.1’) from the property line and the existing shed is one foot (1’) away from the property line – so the applicant is proposing to move the structure further away from Ms. Schories property.  

Ms. Schories stated the proposed location will still kill her trees.  Mr. Mitchell asked the distance from the property line to the trees.  Ms. Terry stated she would say the distance from the side property line north is five feet (5’) to the north of the fence line and three feet (3’) from the other property line.  Ms. Terry stated Ms. Schories trees are three to four feet (3’- 4’) from the property line.  Mr. Mitchell asked if Mr. Blake’s tree would come down.  Mr. Blake stated no.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the new structure’s foundation would be within the tree drip line.  Ms. Terry stated she did not check this, but she does not believe the tree goes out that far.  Mr. Mitchell stated it looks as though the new structure would not be close to the drip line of the trees.  Ms. Hoyt questioned how much root destruction can be had before the life of the tree is in question.  Mr. Mitchell clarified if the roots for these trees could potentially be under the existing shed now.  Mr. Blake stated yes, but he was unsure.  Mr. Mitchell stated a new foundation would cut through any roots that lie where the existing garage is located.  Ms. Hoyt clarified if a representative from Dawes Arboretum came to Ms. Schories property.  Ms. Schories stated she spoke with the expert on the phone and he was unable to come to her home.

Mr. Hawk stated he appreciates Ms. Schories concerns but he questions if the Planning Commission has the authority to address this type of concern.  He stated this is not in the criteria they have to adhere to.  Ms. Terry stated she indicated to Ms. Schories that she could also come to the BZBA meeting since this relates to the setbacks from property lines for this application.  Mr. Hawk confirmed that the proper forum for this type of concern would be before the BZBA and not the Planning Commission.  Mr. Mitchell stated he is not a tree expert, but it appears to him that Ms. Schories trees would be far enough away and would be protected.  He stated the new garage would be much nicer for Ms. Schories to view than the shed that is currently in place.  Ms. Schories asked why the opinion of an expert would not be considered.  Ms. Hoyt stated an expert did not visit Ms. Schories property.  She suggested having an expert look at these trees and offer testimony on her behalf before the April 12 BZBA hearing. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-23: 

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 project is consistent with other projects approved 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 carport is scalistically 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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-23 on the following conditions:  1) That the applicant should install gutters and downspouts to the proposed carport; 2) The applicant received the required variances from the BZBA; and 3) Concrete is used as the foundation for the garage and carport.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-23: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

1137 Cherry Valley Road – Lura’s Nail Place- Application #2012-24

Planned Commercial District (PCD)

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

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Lura Nickel. 

Discussion:

Lura Nickel, 1137 Cherry Valley Road, indicated she would like signage for her nail business.  She explained that a temporary sign is currently in place.  Ms. Nickel explained she would like to change the nail color on the sign four times per year.  Ms. Nickel stated most of the signage in this area is horizontal and she would prefer the horizontal version of the sign be approved.  Ms. Nickel indicated she did not need lighting for the signage.  

She explained the submitted photo shows lattice and posts, and the lattice would be removed.  Mr. Burriss asked if the top horizontal piece of post would remain in place.  Ms. Nickel stated yes.  Mr. Burriss questioned how high the posts are and the applicant guessed seven foot high.  Ms. Terry clarified this signage is not located in the TCOD and can be a maximum of twelve foot high with a limit of four colors.    

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-24: 

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. Mitchell stated this is a higher speed roadway with larger setbacks and larger signage is appropriate.  

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 FALSE.  Ms. Hoyt stated a size of the proposed signage is appropriate for this district.  

(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.  Each member of the  Planning Commission stated FALSE.   

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.    

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

(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.  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.  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.   

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-24 on the following conditions: 1) That the submitted horizontal design be used (Option B); 2) That a variance is granted to increase the maximum size of a freestanding sign from eight point one (8.1) square feet to thirty-six (36) square feet; 3) To allow the four colors submitted by the applicant to change per season; 4) The sign is not to be illuminated; and 5) The sign panel is to be raised to the top of the post.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-24:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  

317 East Maple Street – Steve and Elizabeth Gaubert- Application #2012-25

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a detached accessory structure, deck, hot tub, privacy fence and picket fence. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Mark Clapsadle. 

Discussion:

Mark Clapsadle, indicated he is representing the homeowner of 317 East Maple Street.  He explained the applicant has already installed some of the fencing (picket fence) and they would like to put in additional screening for the hot tub area.  Mr. Clapsadle stated the accessory structure could be referred to as a three season pavilion with a hot tub. 

He stated the structure would have a bathroom and shower and this is for use of the family and not an apartment.  Mr. Clapsadle stated the proposed pavilion would match the exterior of the home with board and baton siding with white trim and green roof shingles.  Mr. Hawk asked the proposed size of the pavilion.  Mr. Clapsadle stated the structure would be twenty-three point one feet (23.1’) x fifteen feet (15’).  Mr. Burriss asked what type of heating is being used.  Mr. Clapsadle stated they will either use thermal or electric baseboard.  He explained they will have some issues running water to this location and they are still trying to determine if this will be a raised structure on stilts.  He explained there could be some difficulty in getting equipment to the backyard.  Mr. Hawk asked if there are any lot coverage issues related to this application.  Ms. Terry stated the setbacks are met, as well as the lot coverage requirements.  Mr. Burriss commended the applicant on the thoroughness of the application.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-25: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the project is consistent with other projects approved in the same zoning district. 

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

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the livability of the structure contributes to the vitality of the district.   

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-25 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-25:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  

317 North Granger Street – Jason Gay- Application #2012-26

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of new roofing and replacement of posts on the front porch.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Jason Gay.

Discussion:

Jason Gay, 317 North Granger Street, indicated he started to replace rotten posts on his porch and then noticed the entire porch is pulling away from the main house.  He stated his contractor has recommended making a repair from the top where the porch is pulling away.  He stated the contractor has recommended a footer be installed and new bolts and posts be put in place.  Mr. Gay stated nothing really changes as far as appearance. Mr. Burriss asked for clarification on the location of the base of the posts.  Mr. Gay indicated there would be some space from the bottom of the railing and the floor.  Mr. Burriss stated he appreciates that the architectural details in the home are being preserved.  Mr. Gay stated he would like to replace the slate roofing above the porch with English Gray three tab dimensional shingles.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-26: 

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 the applicant is preserving the architectural detailing of the home.    

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

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2012-26 on the condition the bottom of the handrail is not to be in direct contact with the flooring on the porch.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-26:  Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  

310 North Granger Street – Granville Exempted Village Schools- Application #2012-28

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of slate roofing and replacement with a composite slate shingle on the structure referred to as the ‘Art Room.’  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and James Ball. 

Discussion:

James Ball, 310 North Granger Street, indicated he is representing Granville Schools for the installation of the roof.  He stated they discussed replacing the cupola during a work session, but they will only replace rotten wood that is bad and there will be no visible change to the structure.  Mr. Ball stated the top of the cupola will remain as is and new ridge caps and flashing will be installed.  Mr. Ball stated he is not sure of the color of the composite slate material being used.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the same style of valleys and ridges will remain.  Mr. Ball stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell indicated the applicant was previously in for a work session on this project.  Ms. Terry stated the application indicates the color of roofing material would be similar in color to the existing roof.  Mr. Hawk suggested the final color could be approved by Planner Terry.   

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-28: 

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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-28 with the condition that the final color of the composite slate be approved by the Village Planning Department.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-28:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  

Finding of Fact Approvals: 

New Business:

Application #2012-17: Marilyn Sobataka; 221 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 1189, Signage, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-17 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-17. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-18: Marilyn Sobataka; 221 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 1189, Signage, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-18 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-18. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-22: Forrest Blake; 226 South Mulberry Street; Demolition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1162, Structural Demolition, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their recommended approval of Application #2012-22 to Village Council.

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-22. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-23: Forrest Blake; 226 South Mulberry Street; Garage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157, General Zoning, Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-23 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-23. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-24: Lura Nickel; 1137 Cherry Valley Road; 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, Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-24 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-24. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes),.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-25: Steve and Elizabeth Gaubert; 317 East Maple 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 1157, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-25 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-25. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-26: Jason Gay; 317 North Granger 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-26 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-26. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-28: Granville Schools; 310 North Granger 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-28 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-28. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve excuse Tim Ryan from the March 12, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.  

Motion to approve meeting minutes for February 27, 2012:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from February 27, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. (Ms. Hoyt abstained.) 

Adjournment:  8:50 PM

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

Next meetings:

Monday, March 19, 2012 (Special Meeting)

Monday, March 26, 2012 (Melanie Schott, Tom Mitchell and Jack Burriss stated they 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.