Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 28, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call To Order:  Mr. Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.

 

Members Present: Jean Hoyt; Tom Mitchell, Vice-Chair; Tim Ryan, Chair; Councilmember Johnson (non-voting).

 

Members Absent:  Jack Burriss; Steven Hawk; Doug Eklof (non-voting). 

 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner and Michael King, Law Director

 

Also Present:  Jeff McInturf, Kirk Combe, Mary Ann Stone, Bill Troy, Brett Black, Andrew and Monica Doud, Eleanor Cohen, Jason Adamkosky, Sharon Sellitto, Bob Lundfeld, Jack Lucks, Tim Rollins, Karl Schneider 

 

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

 

New Business:

1820 Newark-Granville Road  – Granville Christian Academy - Application #2013-38, Modified  Planned Unit Development District (PUD).  The request is for review and approval of a modular unit to be utilized by the Granville Christian Academy as a temporary classroom.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Jeff McInturf, Kirk Combe, Mary Ann Stone and Bill Troy.    

 

Discussion:

Jeff McInturf, 1820 Newark-Granville Road, stated the church and Granville Christian Academy (GCA) have selected a modular unit and have presented pictures to the Commission.  This would be a temporary structure and GCA was looking at a four-year lease for this particular modular unit.  GCA is proposing this as a short term fix, while they investigate long term solutions to their overcrowding. He indicated GCA may be looking at other locations for future growth.  The proposed unit has T-111 siding currently painted a two-tone tan color, but GCA is willing to paint it if the Village would prefer a different color.  He stated they have shown landscaping surrounding the unit and have tried to take into account the most immediate neighbors view shed of this area.  They have not specified the type of trees/shrubs but are open to suggestions for the evergreen screening.  He showed views of the proposed wooden handicap ramp and indicated it would closely match the look of the existing wooden walkway from the school to the playground at the rear of the property.

 

Ms. Hoyt asked about the type of roof material on the proposed unit.  Mr. McInturf indicated it would be a rubber roof.

 

Kirk Combe, 133 Wicklow Drive, stated he will have one of the most direct views of this proposed modular unit.  He fears the school will install this unit and then decide they need more modular units and he will end up looking at a bunch of modular units from the rear of his home.  He's concerned with overcrowding of this school and with the proposed "temporary" status of the unit.  He asked why they can't put the proposed modular unit in the front of the church and Granville Christian Academy instead of in his back yard.

 

Mary Ann Stone, 125 Wicklow Drive, stated she won't really see it from her home.  She has contacted several realtors and they have all informed her that the proposed unit will not affect her property value.

 

Mr. McInturf stated the proposed location will have the least impact when compared with all of the other areas GCA studied.  The easiest placement would be along the eastern edge of the church's property, which would be directly adjacent to the Wicklow Drive neighbors.  The church and GCA do not want to locate it there.  He also indicated the unit will not have plumbing.

 

Tim Ryan stated putting the unit in the front yard, as Mr. Combe suggested earlier, would put the unit closer to the northern neighbors.  He was not in support of that option.

 

Jean Hoyt asked what the height of the landscape screening would be and the type.

 

Planner Terry indicated evergreen trees were typically installed at a five foot to six foot height.

 

Mr. Mitchell stated if the modular unit was only going to be there for four years, the unit would not be screened during the time it's there anyway.  He asked if there would be any bathrooms in the modular unit.

 

Mr. McInturf stated no bathrooms are required.  GCA would utilize the main building for bathrooms.

 

Mr. Combe asked if any of the Planning Commission members had visited the site.  And if so, had any of them visited it from the second story rear windows of the neighboring homes.

 

The Planning Commission members all indicated they had visited the site, but had not viewed the area from any second story window of homes located on Wicklow Drive.

 

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Combe if he was opposed to this particular unit or any building.

 

Mr. Combe responded that he is opposed to any structure in the rear of the church's property.

 

Ms. Stone asked whether a mound could be installed along the property line as neighbors have requested.

 

Planner Terry indicated this issue had been discussed with the Village Engineer and any further mounding along this property line, south of the existing mound, could cause additional flooding to the Wicklow Drive area.

 

Bill Troy, 109 Wicklow Drive, stated he is a former firefighter and he was concerned to hear that kids would be located in this structure without the benefit of sprinklers, water supply or bathrooms.  He asked whether GCA had contacted the Fire Department about this issue.

 

Mr. McInturf indicated the church and GCA have contacted the Fire Department and there are no issues with the unit being placed on this property with no water supply.

 

Ms. Hoyt asked if any conditions should be imposed for this application.  The other Planning Commission members agreed there should be some additional conditions discussed for inclusion in a recommendation to the Village Council.

 

Mr. Ryan asked about the total height of the proposed unit. 

 

Mr. McInturf indicated the total height would be approximately eleven (11') to twelve (12') feet.  He also indicated they would be willing to paint the unit and to put in any landscape which the Planning Commission prefers.

 

Mr. Mitchell questioned Mr. King whether there could be any limitation on the four year lease provision.

 

Mr. King indicated the Planning Commission could recommend a four year term to the Village Council and then he could clarify whether this could be imposed by the Village prior to the next Village Council meeting.

 

Mr. McInturf indicated he was hesitant to have an exact time restriction placed on the proposal, especially if the church, GCA, neighbors and the community approved of the modular unit being in place longer than a four-year span.

 

Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Ryan stated they would prefer to see a sunset provision put in place for this temporary structure.

 

Mr. King again indicated that a sunset provision would be acceptable since this was proposed as a temporary solution by the property owners.

 

Mr. McInturf indicated he would prefer some flexibility with the time frame.

 

Mr. Combe stated he objects to the churches proposed "flexibility", and that the church and school keep pushing the boundaries as it applies to the use of the property.

 

Mr. Mitchell questioned adding a barrier along the eastern property line.

 

Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant wanted to put in additional modular units in the future, would it have to come back to the Planning Commission and Village Council.

 

Planner Terry indicated yes, any additional units proposed would have to be reviewed by both Planning Commission and Village Council.

 

Mr. Ryan asked if there were any architectural standards the Commission needed to review with this application.

 

Planner Terry indicated there were no architectural standards within the Planned Unit Development District (PUD).

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-38, as modified:

 

a)                  A more useful pattern of open space and recreation areas and more convenience in the location of accessory commercial uses and services.  Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE, various areas have been studied and this seems to be the most appropriate location.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

b)                  A development pattern which preserves and utilizes natural topography and geologic features, scenic vistas, trees and other vegetation, and prevents the disruption of normal drainage patterns.  Mr. Ryan stated TRUE, he does not feel it impacts the view from the neighbors, however any structure in this area could be seen by adjoining neighbors.  Ms. Hoyt indicated she didn't feel there would be a negative impact.  Mr. Mitchell concurred with Ms. Hoyt and Mr. Ryan.

 

c)                  A more efficient use of the land than is generally achieved through conventional development resulting in substantial savings through shorter utility lines and streets.  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE, there are limited utilities proposed to the unit.  Mr. Ryan and Ms. Hoyt concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

d)                  Commercial areas that: reflect the pedestrian scale and varied traditional architectural styles of the commercial downtown Granville; increase tax revenues to both the local schools and the Village, while minimizing costs to the Village for infrastructure acquisition and maintenance; and preserving or enhance, rather than harm, neighborhood, Village and Granville Township quality of life and property values.  The Planning Commission concluded this criteria was not applicable to this application.

 

e)                  A development pattern in harmony with land use density, transportation facilities, and community facilities objectives of the comprehensive plan.  Mr. Mitchell indicated he did not feel this proposal met with the intent of the comprehensive plan.  Mr. Ryan agrees with this use, and indicated that this type of temporary use has been allowed previously for Granville Schools.  He was concerned that this be a temporary use only.  Ms. Hoyt concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend to Village Council approval with the additional provisions: 1) That the building is limited to a four-year time frame from the date of occupancy; and 2)      That additional landscaping is included in the project, per Village Council, and as presented additionally by the applicant.  Second by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-38, Modified: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

311 East College Street – Andrew and Monica Doud - Application #2013-50

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of the demolition of a rear accessory structure.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Brett Black. 

 

Discussion:

Brett Black, 2579 Pleasant Crest Court, stated the homeowners would like to demolish the existing one-story garage.  They will be reducing the overall lot coverage with the removal of this structure, some other hard surface areas and once the new proposed structure is approved.  He indicated the Granville Historical Society has submitted information indicating the structure has no historical relevance.  He also indicated the garage is in bad shape and is currently leaning. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-50:

 

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.  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

b)                  The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

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. Mr. Ryan stated TRUE. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

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.  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2013-50 to the Village Council as presented.  Second by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-50:  Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes).   Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

311 East College Street– Andrew and Monica Doud - Application #2013-51

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a new detached accessory structure (two-car garage), addition of a new concrete driveway, service walk and turn around, and the addition of a fence in the rear and side yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Brett Black.

 

Discussion:

Brett Black, 2579 Pleasant Crest Court, stated the applicant wants to install a black powder coated aluminum, wrought iron look alike, 48-inch high fence in the rear yard.  He also indicated that the foundation description in the Staff Report is inaccurate, it should state poured footings with standard buff colored split face block above.  Mr. Black explained the site plan, areas with existing and new asphalt, the removal of hard surfaces and the location and style of the new garage.  He indicated there will be Shake siding on the front gable end only.

 

Ms. Hoyt asked if the garage will face the street now.  Mr. Black indicated yes, but at the back of the lot.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if the garage doors will actually look like the color renderings which have been presented by the applicant.  Mr. Black stated yes, very similar.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-51:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE, it improves the subject property and improves and upgrades the historical character.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Ryan stated TRUE, it replaces an old structure and therefore contributes to the continuing vitality. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.   Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE, by replacing an old structure it does protect and enhance the physical surroundings.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2013-51 as submitted.  Second by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-51:  Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes),.   Motion carried 3-0.

 

331 East Broadway – Charles and Eleanor Cohen - Application #2013-54

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an existing (10 x 16) wood deck and associated fence/railing and the construction of a replacement (10 x16) deck with associated fence/railing.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Eleanor Cohen.

 

Discussion:

Eleanor Cohen, 331 East Broadway, stated she wanted to replace her existing deck which is redwood with Timbertech decking and a cedar fence railing.  The deck would be the same style and dimensions as the previous deck, just rebuilt with new materials.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-54:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE.   All 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 TRUE.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Ryan stated TRUE, it's replacing a dilapidated structure.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

c)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2013-54 as submitted.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-54:  Ryan (yes), Hoyt (yes) and Mitchell (yes).   Motion carried 3-0.

 

317 West Elm Street – Jason Adamkosky - Application #2013-55Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the following improvements:

1)                  Covering an existing patio with a roof and support columns;

2)                  Adding an exterior fireplace and outdoor grill counter;

3)                  Addition of tiered stone retaining walls to the rear of the patio; and

4)                  Enclosing the current carport, returning it to a garage use.

 

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

 

Discussion:

Jason Adamkosky, 317 West Elm Street, stated he is proposing covering the previously approved patio.  Creating retaining walls for landscaping with the walls tapering into natural grade at each side of the home; enclosing the carport; creating pedestals at the base of the steps which will be wrapped in a stone veneer with a stone cap and will match the existing foundation; the porch structure will also have pedestals supporting the white columns; the proposed porch roof will have the same roof pitch as the carport, just elevated; there will be a grilltop/countertop on the east side with granite counters; the western side will be walled with a block fireplace and masonry covered in veneer; they will be reusing a sill plate from the house as a mantel; the carport will be enclosed with Hardie-plank siding with 2 windows on the west; the eight foot seven inch (8'7') garage door closely matches the previous wood garage door; adding powder coated steel railing on the porch and steps; there will be skylights in the roof of the porch and the shingles on the roof will be the same as the rest of the house.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked questions regarding the carport enclosure.

 

Ms. Hoyt indicated she felt the application seems "exhaustingly" complete.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-55:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Ryan stated TRUE, it's a continuation of improvements.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Ryan stated TRUE, it's an upgrading of an historical home.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE, it enhances the surroundings in which past generations lived.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2013-55 as submitted.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-55:  Ryan (yes), Hoyt (yes) and Mitchell (yes).   Motion carried 3-0.

 

215 South Cherry Street – Sharon Sellitto - Application #2013-56Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for review and approval of the structural demolition of a one-story detached garage.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Sharon Sellitto.

 

Discussion:

Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street, stated her detached garage is in bad condition, the garage doors are too narrow, the concrete floor is deteriorating the garage leans. She would like to have permission to tear the garage down and build a new structure in its place.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-56:

 

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.  Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

b)         The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

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. Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

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.  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend to Village Council approval of the demolition of the garage located at 215 South Cherry Street.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-56:  Ryan (yes), Hoyt (yes) and Mitchell (yes).   Motion carried 3-0.

 

215 South Cherry Street – Sharon Sellitto - Application #2013-57Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for review and approval of the construction of a new two-car garage with carport.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Sharon Sellito.

 

Discussion:

Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street, stated this is a replacement for the garage she'll be tearing down.

 

Ms. Hoyt asked if there would be vinyl siding on the structure.  Ms. Sellitto stated yes, the same as a portion of her existing home.  Ms. Hoyt asked if this structure would be larger than the existing structure.  Ms. Sellitto indicated yes the structure is slightly larger with the carport.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked why the applicant was using a 2:12 roof pitch on the new structure.  Ms. Sellitto responded to replicate the previous structure.  Mr. Mitchell indicated the structure would be more attractive with a shingled roof rather than a rubber roof.  Ms. Sellitto indicated she wouldn't be opposed to a different roof pitch on this structure.

 

Mr. Johnson asked how high the sidewalls would be compared to the front wall.  He indicated it would look strange if the walls weren't modified with a roof pitch change.

 

Mr. Mitchell withdrew his suggestion of a pitched roof.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-57:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE, it's compatible with other structures which have been approved.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Ryan stated TRUE, it's basically the same footprint.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Ryan stated TRUE, with a similar structure it does achieve this.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Ryan stated TRUE.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2013-57 contingent upon the BZBA variances being granted and on Village Council approving the demolition.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-57:  Ryan (yes), Hoyt (yes) and Mitchell (yes).   Motion carried 3-0.

 

Work Session - Metropolitan Partners, Columbus Road & Weaver Drive Site:

 

Planner Terry reviewed the proposed Assisted Living Concept for the Columbus Road and Weaver Drive property.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if the parking area can be filled since it's in the floodplain.  Planner Terry indicated it could not be filled, only cut and fill within the floodplain area would be allowed. 

 

Jack Lucks, 35 North 4th Street, Columbus, indicated the site was originally quarried and then filled in.  He presented proposed elevations and indicated they were trying to break up the façade of the structure. 

 

Mr. Mitchell asked how many units there would be at this facility.  Mr. Lucks indicated there would be approximately 88 total.

 

Mr. Johnson asked if there would be nurses on staff.  Mr. Lucks indicated yes, there are 20 full-time employees during the day and 8 full-time employees at night.

 

Mr. Lucks indicated this project would be a joint venture between the Assisted Living Group and Metropolitan Partners.  He stated this use would not be a traffic generator, therefore he didn't see the need for a full-blown traffic study.  He indicated there are typically fourteen visitors/day and ten to twelve percent of the residents would have vehicles.

 

Mr. Johnson asked if they would need to file a Certificate of Need. Metropolitan Partners indicated no.  Mr. Johnson asked about the HVAC system and whether there would be the need for any type of exterior features. Mr. Johnson inquired about where they plan on providing storm water detention and/or retention areas on the site.  Planner Terry indicated they could look at utilizing the floodplain area portion which is not in a conservation easement area.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if they would be utilizing Hardie-plank siding.  Mr. Lucks answered yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked about the remaining commercial area to the frontage of Columbus Road.  Mr. Lucks indicated there is enough room for two (2) Outparcels up front, but they have no intention of developing them at this time.

 

Mr. Lucks indicated the Assisted Living owners had an excellent facility in Fort Wayne, Indiana called Park Place.

 

Tim Rollins, 35 N. 4th Street, indicated marketing studies have been completed for this facility and it is sized right to meet the needs of the area.

 

Mr. Mitchell questioned if this was a for-profit or not-for-profit facility.  Mr. Rollins indicated this is a for-profit facility.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2013-38: Jeff McInturf, on behalf of Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road, Modular Unit

 

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 District, and hereby recommends to Village Council approval with the additional provisions:  1) That the building be limited to a four-year time frame from the date of occupancy; and 2) That additional landscaping be included in the project, per Village Council, and as presented additionally by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-38. Second by Ms. Hoyt.

 

Roll call vote: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-50: Andrew and Monica Doud, 311 East College Street, Structural 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, and hereby recommends approval of Application #2013-50 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-50.  Second by Mr. Hawk.  

 

Roll call vote:  Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes).   Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-51: Andrew and Monica Doud, 311 East College Street, New Detached Accessory Structure, Concrete Driveway, Service Walk and Fencing in Rear Yard

 

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 #2013-51 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-51.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.  

 

Roll call vote: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-54: Charles and Eleanor Cohen, 331 East Broadway, Removal and Replacement of Existing Deck with New Deck and railing

 

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 #2013-54 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-54.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.  

 

Roll call vote: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-55: Jason Adamkosky, 317 West Elm Street,  Cover Patio Roof, Carport Conversion to Garage, Retaining Walls, Fireplace

 

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 #2013-55 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-55.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.  

 

Roll call vote: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-56: Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street, Structural 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, and hereby recommends approval of Application #2013-56 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-56.  Second by Mr. Hawk.  

 

Roll call vote:  Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes).   Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-57: Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street, New Detached Accessory Structure

 

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 #2013-57 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-57.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.  

Roll call vote: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to excuse Jack Burriss and Steven Hawk absences:

Mr. Ryan moved to excuse the absence of Jack Burriss and Steven Hawk.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for May 13, 2013:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from May 13, 2013 as presented.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Adjournment:  9:30pm

Mr. Ryan moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Monday, June 10, 2013

Monday, June 24, 2013

Monday, July 8, 2013

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.