Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 25, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair).

Members Absent:  Tim Ryan, Jack Burriss, and Doug Eklof.   

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

Also Present:

Citizens’ Comments: Carolyn Johnson, Marvin Rutter, Yadi Delaviz, Leman Beall, Don DeSapri, Ann Lowder, Keith Myers, Kevin Lewis, Craig McDonald, and Mary Ann Stone. 

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

Old Business:

221 East Broadway – Robbins Hunter Museum - Application #2012-74

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of cobblestone pavers and replacement with exposed aggregate concrete. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Don DeSapri, Ann Lowder, and Keith Lewis. 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to remove Application #2012-74 from the table.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote:  Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  

Discussion: 

Don DeSapri, 250 Potter’s Lane, Granville, stated that he is representing the Robbin’s Hunter Museum.  Mr. Mitchell indicated the layout they received at the last meeting has been revised.  Mr. DeSapri stated they did not change the number of parking spaces, but they did change the layout by incorporating gravel along with the exposed aggregate concrete.  Mr. DeSapri stated the objections posed by the Planning Commission dealt with the surface and south boundary air conditioning unit being protected.  Mr. Mitchell stated a third concern by the Planning Commission was how the applicant proposed to go about parking in the area.  Ms. Terry stated there are three parking spaces proposed for the area and it is now deep enough for a car to pull out.  Mr. Mitchell clarified if there are three head in parking spaces being proposed.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. DeSapri explained they are proposing to put gravel at the eastern end of the parking area and exposed aggregate concrete in the rest of the areas.  Mr. DeSapri stated they feel the gravel is more historically correct and would be a more acceptable surface material.  He also presented an example of the exposed aggregate concrete.  Mr. DeSapri stated they are proposing to use this because it simulates gravel, which they have been told is the most historically accurate surface material that would have been used when the structure was originally built.  He went on to say the reason the exposed aggregate is preferred next to the alley is because it does not move and secures the brick pavers already located in this area.  Mr. DeSapri stated the brick pavers in the alley are moving with cars going over them.  He stated there is a prized dogwood tree in the eastern area that they would like to save and they feel this would be easier if they use gravel in the area.  Mr. DeSapri stated there are several advantages to using the gravel and they include historical accurateness and not having to plow snow from gravel in the wintertime.  As for the proposed exposed aggregate, Mr. DeSapri, stated it is cheaper than brick and stamped concrete and does not show imperfections from oil spills or cause slippery pavement.  Mr. DeSapri stated exposed aggregate has a long life and they chose it because it closely resembles gravel, which is used throughout Granville.  He stated Sam Schnaidt has told him he has had it for forty years and never had a problem.  Mr. DeSapri stated they could protect the air conditioning unit with four-foot wide stones (three of them) to be used as a barrier.  Mr. DeSapri stated the proposal before the Planning Commission was devised by the same person who requested the front stone sidewalk approval, clock tower approval, and was responsible for having the bathrooms installed in the museum.  He stated this person is very knowledgeable about preservation.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the new plan has gravel surrounding the dogwood tree.  Mr. DeSapri stated there would be a four-foot radius around the tree and the perimeter would be a hard plastic.  Mr. Mitchell stated the green line on the submitted paperwork looks like the ending point of the gravel.  Mr. DeSapri clarified on the drawing and explained it was incorrect.  Ms. Hoyt questioned the variety of surfaces in the rear.  She stated she researched the proposed aggregate and she could be ok with it, but she has concern in having aggregate going up to the counting house building and eliminating a landscaping bed in this area.  Ms. Hoyt stated she would like to maintain the landscape bed around the air conditioning unit even though it is just weeds now – she believes something nice could be put in here.  Ms. Hoyt also suggested the gravel should stop at the green line indicated in the drawing and a softer material should be placed around the dogwood tree, such as mulch and/or shrubberies.  Mr. DeSapri suggested the look Ms. Hoyt is referring to around the air conditioning unit could be achieved with planted window boxes.  He stated they would like to keep the area in this location clean and feel it is necessary for the concrete to go right up to the building.  Mr. Hawk asked if the Robbin’s Hunter Museum was aware of the neighbor’s project proposing removal of the existing alley asphalt and putting in a brick paver driveway at their expense.  Mr. DeSapri stated Robbin’s Hunter Museum is sharing in part of this cost along with the Granville Public Library.  Mr. Hawk questioned if cost is the driving decision for choosing the exposed aggregate concrete.  Mr. DeSapri stated not totally and they do feel brick would move too much no matter how well it is laid.  He stated they did not want to deal with any future maintenance issues associated with brick.    

Kevin Lewis, Jutlew Concrete, 32 Waterworks Road, Newark, stated the exposed aggregate is only sealed one time. 

Mr. Mitchell questioned why gravel would be put in the area of the dogwood tree.  Mr. DeSapri stated they may use this area for turning around, especially for deliveries.    

Mr. Mitchell asked the parking space size regulations.  Ms. Terry stated the requirement is 10 x 20 feet per parking space.  She explained the applicant is only required to replace parking they currently have in place.  She stated they could maybe fit three spaces, but they are only required to have two spaces.  Councilmember Johnson asked the proposed thickness of the concrete.  Mr. Lewis stated four inches.  Councilmember Johnson asked if this is sufficient for vehicular traffic.  Mr. Lewis stated it is the same as residential driveway standards.  Councilmember Johnson asked if there are larger vehicles expected for deliveries.  Mr. DeSapri stated they don’t envision any big vehicles, but rather smaller type repair trucks.  Mr. Mitchell stated it is a shame the applicant is not considering bricks in this location since the neighboring properties are using it.  Mr. DeSapri stated they talked with a board member architect and asked him the most appropriate ground surface for a building of this era and he stated gravel.  Mr. DeSapri stated if they are going to be historically correct they are using a material that simulates gravel and is more stable.  Mr. Mitchell stated the previously existing cobblestones were more appropriate than anything else.  Mr. DeSapri stated they were a headache and a tremendous expense to redo.  Ms. Hoyt stated she would want to see landscaping beds added to the applicant’s plan. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-74: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated the aggregate concrete is compatible with other driveways within the Village which makes it stylistically compatible with other renovated structures.  The other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Ms. Hoyt stated it's compatible with other aggregate concrete which contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character. She also stated that she would rather see grass in place of the proposed gravel and that she would want to see additional landscaping beds.  The other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.       

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the vitality of the district continues.  The other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.  

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.   Ms. Hoyt stated gravel is an approved material used by past generations.  Mr. Hawk stated he would agree if the proposed gravel was placed in a different area.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-74 with the following conditions: 1)  There be a landscaping bed around the existing air conditioning unit on the south side of the Counting House; 2)  That the green line around the dogwood tree utilize the existing stone on the site as landscape barriers.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-74: Mitchell (no), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 2-1.  No Action Taken. 

Ms. Terry explained No Action is Taken on Application #2012-74.  She stated there are three Planning Commission members present and the applicant would have needed a unanimous vote for approval.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant can come back to a future meeting with additional information or present the same information in front of a full Planning Commission board.  Ms. Lowder asked if the Planning Commission is aware that the alley having asphalt removed and brick pavers put in is a private alley way.  Mr. Beall stated his project will be delayed because they will not go ahead with the driveway replacement until the work at the Robbin’s Hunter is complete.  

New Business: 

464 South Main Street – Always Forward Crossfit- Application #2012-81

Community Service District (CSD)

The request is for review and approval of the off-street parking requirements for a fitness business. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Craig McDonald. 

Discussion:

Craig McDonald, 428 East College Street, indicated he is co-owner of Always Forward Crossfit.  Ms. Terry explained this application is before the Planning Commission because it is a recreational use and the code states the number of parking spaces required is to be determined by the Planning Commission.  Mr. McDonald stated their business operates in off hours and there is only overlap at the 9:15 class.  He stated their class size is approximately 18 people.  Mr. McDonald stated there has never been a conflict in parking that he is aware of.  Ms. Hoyt asked if these would be assigned parking spaces.  Ms. Terry stated no.    

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-81 as presented with a total of eighteen (18) parking spaces.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-81: Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

218 East Elm Street – Bob Johnson - Application #2012-85

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an asphalt driveway and replacement with a brick driveway.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry, Carolyn Johnson, Keith  Lewis, and Leman Beall.  

Discussion:

Leman Beall, 212 East Elm Street, stated he would speak for the two applications concerning a driveway replacement with brick pavers.  He stated until recently it was believed this was an alley owned by the Village.  He stated a title search showed he and his neighbor Mr. and Mrs. Johnson actually own the alley.  Mr. Beall stated he drafted a cross-access easement agreement that was approved by the Robbin’s Hunter Museum, the Granville Public Library, and the Johnson’s that will soon be recorded.  Mr. Beall explained they would like to remove the existing asphalt and put concrete and brick pavers in.  He explained that it is their hope this project will cut down on the traffic in this area and the alley will appear to be a driveway.  Mr. Beall stated they plan to put private driveway signage in place and they have requested the Library and Robbin’s Hunter Museum limit the access to large vehicles.  He stated they would still tolerate pedestrian traffic in the alley.  

Mr. Beall stated the existing curb cuts have been damaged and repaired twice.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the applicant had considered a gate.  Mr. Beall stated this option is included in the easement for the future if need be, but they are choosing to not install this at this time.  Mr. Beall also stated they will wait to do this project until the work is complete at the Robbin’s Hunter Museum.  Mr. Mitchell stated the Planning Commission would like to see the museum continue the use of the brick pavers that they are presenting.  Mr. Beall stated regardless there are water drainage issues on their property and the Johnson’s have had to have French drains put in because of water run-off from the museum property.  He stated anything they do would be a much-needed improvement in this area.  Mr. Beall stated all four parties (Robbin’s Hunter Museum, Granville Public Library, Johnson’s and Beall’s) are paying for a portion of the project, but the two residential neighbors are paying the majority.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the proposed brick is compatible with the existing brick.  Mr. Beall stated yes.  Ms. Terry indicated the applicant will need a right of way permit from Terry Hopkins for the work within the right-of-way for the driveway approach.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-85: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated that the proposed project is consistent with the library pavement and other structures which have been approved in the District. The other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Hawk stated the brick pavers are very consistent and an improvement from the asphalt. The other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk stated by improving the historical character the livability is improved.   The other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Hawk stated the brick was used long before asphalt and is a more appropriate material.   The other Planning Commission members concurred.   

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-85 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-85: Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

212 East Elm Street – Leman Beall - Application #2012-86

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an asphalt driveway and replacement with a brick driveway.    

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Leman Beall. 

Discussion:

Leman Beall, 212 Elm Street, indicated he is the homeowner.  This application was previously discussed during ‘Discussion’ of Application #2012-85.  Mr. Hawk asked if the interlocking brick system can have movement.  Mr. Lewis, Juttlew Concrete, stated they can move.  He explained the bricks will be set on top of concrete and not in the concrete.  He stated this is similar to the walkways in town that are brick.  

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated that the proposed project is consistent with the library pavement and other structures which have been approved in the District. The other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Hawk stated the brick pavers are very consistent and an improvement from the asphalt. The other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk stated by improving the historical character the livability is improved.   The other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Hawk stated the brick was used long before asphalt and is a more appropriate material.   The other Planning Commission members concurred. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-86 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve 2012-86 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-86: Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  

1820 Newark-Granville Road– Spring Hills Baptist Church- Application #2012-87

Planned Unit Development District (PUD)

The request is for a minor revision to the Preliminary Development Plan to allow for baseball dugouts and a bathing cage in the rear of the property.    

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry, Marvin Rutter, John McGowan, Yadi Delaviz, and Mr. and Mrs. Stone. 

Discussion:

Marvin Rutter, 1820 Newark-Granville Road, stated the application indicates this request is for baseball, but it is actually for girl’s softball.  

John McGowan, Athletic Director for Granville Christian Academy, indicated he was approached by Todd Hartshorn who offered to partially fund the dugouts and batting cage area.  

Mary Ann Stone, 125 Wicklow Drive, stated she really has no problem with the batting cages.  She explained her back yard is next to the church.  Ms. Stone stated the church recently cleared the sound barrier (trees and undergrowth) from our neighborhood and they now hear highway noise.  She questioned if there would be noise issues associated with the applicant’s request.   Ms. Stone stated the trees were trimmed from four feet and she is “totally exposed to their church and parking lot.”  Mr. Hawk asked if Ms. Stone was in opposition to the applicant’s request.  Ms. Stone asked if the church could come up with something to bring back her privacy then she wouldn’t be opposed.  She questioned if some screening ought to be put in.  Ms. Stone stated she has lived there for eight years and the noise wasn’t a problem and now she also believes her property value has been affected because of the recent changes with the trees. 

Yadi Delaviz, 137 Wicklow Drive, stated his property is back to back with the church.  He stated he echo’s what his neighbor says.  Mr. Delaviz stated most of the trees are gone and there is a noise problem.  Ms. Hoyt asked if Mr. Delaviz is proposing that the Planning Commission not approve the application.  Mr. Delaviz stated out of respect for the neighborhood he believes it would help if a barrier was put in.  He agreed a fence or plantings could be appropriate.  Mr. Rutter stated they have improved the area to make it aesthetically pleasing from the freeway.  He agreed he could check to see if there is something they can do in the way of screening.  Mr. Rutter stated he does not believe the request by the neighbor’s is pertinent to their request for a dug out and batting cages.  The Planning Commission agreed the two parties should discuss this matter and it sounded as though they could reach a resolution with further discussion.  

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-87 as proposed.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-87: Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  

118 South Main Street – Village of Granville - Application #2012-88

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an asphalt driveway and replacement with a buff colored exposed aggregate concrete pedestrian walkway. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry.  

Discussion:

Alison Terry, 118 South Main Street, stated Keith Myers worked on the plan that is before the Planning Commission.  She stated based on a request from St. Luke's and the Historical Society that Council is considering permanently changing this area from vehicular access to a pedestrian only walkway.  Mr. Hawk stated he is in support of this.  The Planning Commission agreed.  Ms. Terry stated the asphalt would be completely removed and that there is an existing drainage issue in this area.  She stated buff washed exposed aggregate concrete is being proposed and there is an indication that the area might be further improved with decorative benches and planters by both the Historical Society and St. Luke's.  Ms. Terry stated the application is before the Planning Commission for review of materials, design, and historical appropriateness.  She explained there are two options Council is considering – vehicular drive through ro pedestrian only.  Mr. Johnson stated Council is supporting vehicular traffic being allowed for emergency purposes only.  Although, he stated Chief Hussey has already indicated he would not take a fire truck through this alley.  

Ms. Hoyt stated she likes the softening the pavement with additional landscaping.  Ms. Terry explained this would be a future cost, not a part of this project.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the Village considered the use of brick pavers, rather than exposed aggregate.  

Keith Myers, 221 East College Street, stated he is a landscape architect.  He stated the material they have suggested is concrete with a nice finish with socket joints.  He stated they did discuss brick, but it is not economically feasible and more than the historical society, church, or Village were willing to bear.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the material being suggested is consistent with any nearby materials.  Mr. Myers stated they are proposing a very fine grain aggregate similar to what was used in downtown Columbus for the Scioto Mile.  Mr. Myers reviewed the sample materials proposed by the the Robbin’s Hunter Museum for their application.  He stated the exposed aggregate material they are proposing does not simulate the material he is talking about.  Ms. Hoyt questioned if brick could be incorporated somewhere.  Mr. Myers stated both groups are limited on what they would be willing to spend on the project.  Ms. Hoyt suggested the landscaping should be more of a focus and less pavement.  Councilmember Johnson questioned if there would be water basins in the alley.  Mr. Myers explained this is still being determined, but it looks as though they can save some money and not put these in.  He stated it would save money if a drainage system is not needed.   

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-88: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated it's compatible with other structures in the area and is compatible with other approvals by the Planning Commission. The other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Ms. Hoyt stated by being compatible with other approved structures it does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character.  The other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Ms. Hoyt stated by upgrading and improvement the character it does contribute to the continuing vitality of the district.   The other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Hoyt stated the upgrading of this area with a pedestrian surface and appropriate materials does protect and enhance the physical surroundings.   The other Planning Commission members concurred. 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to recommend to Council Application #2012-88 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-88: Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

238 East Broadway – Erin DiGiacomo - Application #2012-92

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

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

The applicant was not present to speak in regards to Application #2012-92.  Mr. Hawk made a motion to Table Application #2012-92 until the applicant could be present.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2012-92:  Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Other Business:

Note:  This agenda item is open to the public and is a public hearing.  All individuals will be permitted to speak regarding the review of these proposed zoning code revisions.  

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1171.03, and 1189.13.  

Mr. Hawk made a motion to remove the Proposed Zoning Code Revisions for Sections 1171.03 and 1189.13 from the Table.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), and Mitchell (yes). 

Discussion: 

Ms. Terry stated the Planning Commission had previously requested that she include their suggestions and present the updated information.  Mr. Mitchell indicated all five members of the Planning Commission were present when these changes were reviewed.

Mr. Hawk moved to recommend the changes in the June 19, 2012 draft for zoning code changes sections 1171.03 and 1189.13 to the Village Council.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote on Proposed Zoning Code Changes to Sections 1171.03 and 1189.13: Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals: 

New Business:

Application #2012-81: Always Forward Crossfit; 464 South Main Street; Picket Fence

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1183, Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-81 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-81. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-85: Bob and Carolyn Johnson; 218 Elm Street; Exterior Modifications

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 #2012-85 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-85. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-86: Leman Beall; 212 East Elm 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, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-86 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-86. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-87: Spring Hills Baptist Church; 1820 Newark-Granville Road; Wall Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1171, Planned Unit Development, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-87 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-87. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-88: Village of Granville; 121 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-77 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-88. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes). Motion carried 3-0. 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve excuse Jack Burriss and Tim Ryan from the June 25, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Motion to approve meeting minutes for June 11, 2012:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from June 11, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

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

Next meetings:

Monday, July 9, 2012

Monday, July 23, 2012

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.