Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 12, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Gina Reeves, Tim Riffle, Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan (Chair), and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Jack Thornborough, Jim and Joy Jung, David Schnaidt, Sam Schnaidt, Art Chonko, Connie Westbrook, John Noblick, and Mr. and Mrs. Peter Puze.

 

New Business:

240 West Broadway, Art Chonko for Denison University, Application #08-41

VID (Village Institutional District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Art Chonko and the applicant is requesting approval of exterior site lighting.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Art Chonko, and Jack Thornborough. 

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-41:

Art Chonko stated that they are interested in lighting Burke Hall – particularly the entrances.  He stated that their intent is to use more lighting when they are having particular events at Burke Hall and less lighting when the facility is not in use.  Mr. Chonko provided a plan listing the various types of lighting they propose to use.  It included:

Green highlights – up lighting

Pink highlights – capped ballard lighting

Purple highlights – wall lighting and push lighting on the sidewalk

Blue highlights – to be used to shine at entrances and possibly banners (to be approved at a later time)

Mr. Chonko stated that they would like to replace two of the pole lights with standard campus lights.  Mr. Chonko stated that he is also adding additional lighting not on the plan previously submitted.  He stated that he would like to have some additional ground lighting and three wall washer lights – one at each entrance to Burke Hall.  Mr. Chonko stated that in addition he would like to have several more down lights placed at the corridor of the building.  Ms. Terry questioned if the SA lighting and SB lighting would be the same wattage.  Mr. Chonko stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked for clarification on the placement of the additional lighting not listed on the plan.  Mr. Chonko stated that he would like to use two 100 watt lights at each entrance for banners that they would like to put up during particular events at Burke Hall.  He stated that he is aware that he would need Planning Commission approval for these banners and will seek approval at a later time.  Mr. McClow questioned if all the lights would be on continuously.  Mr. Chonko stated that he anticipates that some of them would be on a timer and some of the brighter lights would be used only during particular events.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked Mr. Chonko if he can quantify how much more light is being requested compared to what they are currently using.  Mr. Chonko stated that the building is currently very dark and it would be difficult to quantify how much lighting they are proposing to make the building more alive and vibrant.  Ms. Terry asked the wattage of the proposed ballard lights.  Mr. Chonko stated seventy (70) watts.  Mr. Ryan clarified if the 100 watt lights would be used only when a banner is up or all the time.  Mr. Chonko stated that these lights would be left on to illuminate the entrances to the building.  He stated that it is currently very difficult for individuals to locate the entrance to the building.  Mr. Ryan asked if these lights would project out.  Mr. Chonko stated that the lights would shine directly on the building and would not project into the neighborhood. 

 

Jack Thornborough, 13 Donald Ross Drive, should to testify.  Assistant Law Director Crites questioned Mr. Thornborough’s standing as a party directly impacted by the application as he did not live within proximity to Burke Hall.  Mr. Thornborough stated that the Village Code does not state that there has to be a direct impact.  He stated that he had a personal interest in this matter as the potential changes could impact the character of the Village.  Mr. Thornborough stated that he had been granted standing in several other discussions pertaining to Denison University and he could not understand why his testimony could not be heard regarding this application.  Mr. Thornborough went on to say that he also owns property located at 233 South Mulberry Street.  Assistant Law Director Crites questioned what Mr. Thornborough’s present injury or prejudice would be in regard to this application.  He explained that he just restored a home in the Village and he felt the proposed changes to application #08-41 negatively impacted the character of that home.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that his Mulberry Street property would allow Mr. Thornborough standing to testify.  Mr. Thornborough stated that the Village Code was written to allow general comments by citizens.  He argued that Mr. Chonko’s plans were different from the plan submitted to the Village.  He continued by stating that Mr. Chonko said he will put some “lights here…or maybe there.”  He asked the Planning Commission if they were going to approve an application with “maybes.”  Mr. Thornborough stated that he did not approve of 100 watt bulbs showing off an ugly white building, especially in the historic district.  Mr. Thornborough ended by saying that if Mr. Chonko wished to display banners, those banners should be presented at the same time as the lighting approval.  Mr. Chonko stated that the current plan before the Planning Commission indicated the correct placement of all lighting fixtures.  Mr. Chonko also stated that Denison would request the lighting changes regardless of any approval needed for future banners.  Ms. Reeves asked when Burke Hall was built.  Mr. Chonko stated 1969.  Mr. Chonko stated that Burke Hall was an asset to the community with all the events scheduled there.  He acknowledged that the building’s architecture was controversial. Councilmember O’Keefe asked how poor the current lighting was.  Mr. Chonko stated that the currently there were issues with exterior entrance lighting.  Mr. Ryan stated that the lack of lighting of the handrails and sidewalks could be considered a safety issue.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that in terms of the lighting plan, she assumed Denison University wanted to be a good neighbor.  Mr. Chonko stated that this building was used by the community.  He stated that a determination was not yet made regarding which lights would be put on timers. Councilmember O’Keefe asked if someone living in the neighborhood felt the lighting caused pollution, how would Denison handle this issue?  Mr. Chonko stated that Denison would be willing to discuss any particular problems with the lighting.  He added that they did not intend to keep the lights on 24/7. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-41:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan added that the proposed pole lights are an improvement. 

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. Ryan stated that adding the lighting will enhance the building.  Mr. McClow stated that he does not care for the look of the building, but he feels the lighting could make it look better. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion that Application #08-41 be approved with the following conditions: As per document labeled “Exhibit A”

-         A timing schedule for the lighting must be submitted and approved by Village Staff

-         The lighting schedule plan will be reviewed by Village Staff in 3 month intervals after the initial installation

-         The SF/Entrance flood lights are to be separately switched

 

Second by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Reeves, Mitchell, Burriss, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Application #08-41 is Approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

100 Smith Lane/Curtis Hall, Art Chonko for Denison University, Application #08-42

VID (Village Institutional District)

The application is submitted by Art Chonko for approval of an exterior elevator addition.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Art Chonko.

 

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-42:

Mr. Chonko explained the location of the exterior elevator.  He stated that the exterior would be brick.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-42 as submitted.  Second by Ms. Reeves

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Burrris, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-42 is approved as submitted. 

 

334 East Broadway, Art Chonko for Denison University, Application #08-43

VID (Village Institutional District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Art Chonko and the applicant is requesting approval of a handicap ramp replacement.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Art Chonko.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-43:

Mr. Chonko stated that the current handicap ramp doesn’t actually get you into the building, but rather only onto the porch.  He stated that there is a step before the door and this needs to be addressed.  Mr. Chonko stated that they plan on using the same materials – painted wood.  Ms. Terry stated that the orientation of the ramp would be changed from the side to the front of the building.  Mr. Burriss asked if the flooring on the ramp will match the existing porch flooring.  Mr. Chonko stated yes.  Mr. Burriss noted that the posts on the ramp look significantly smaller the existing porch posts.  Mr. Chonko stated that the proposal calls for 4x4 treated lumber unless otherwise noted.  He did not recall the ramp posts being different from the porch posts.  Mr. Mitchell stated that if the posts are different – they appear to match the existing porch posts.  Mr. Burriss concluded that the posts were fine after further review of the plans.  Mr. Burriss asked Mr. Chonko if there had been any discussion to replace the pipe railing on the existing steps.  He stated that this would make the building look much nicer if it were replaced.  Mr. Mitchell agreed that this would be nicer to see but it is not part of the application.  Mr. Chonko stated that they have not yet bid out this project and they could look at replacing this depending on costs.  Mr. Burriss stated that the matter would have to come before the Planning Commission for review if the railing is changed. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-43 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Reeves, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Application #08-43 is approved as submitted. 

 

327 North Pearl Street, Ed and Donna Jenkins, Application #08-44

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

The application is submitted by Ed and Donna Jenkins for approval of modifications to an existing enclosed porch.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-44:

Ms. Terry stated that the applicant was given notice of the hearing but they are not present to discuss the application.  Ms. Terry and member’s of the Planning Commission stated that they have several questions regarding the application and there is a lack of information that they would need before rendering a decision.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #08-44.  Second by Mr. Burriss 

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-44 is Tabled.

 

317 North Granger Street, Dee and Jason Gay, Application #08-46

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

The application is submitted by John Noblick for the Jerry McClain Construction Company and the applicant is requesting approval of a three-car detached garage.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, John Noblick, and Peter Puze.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-46:

John Noblick stated that he is representing the builder – Jerry McClain Construction.  He also stated that he believed the former owner of the home was granted a variance for a four car garage in the same location he is proposing a three car garage.  Mr. Noblick stated that a large amount of the garage will be built over an already existing slab of asphalt.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the trees would remain.  Mr. Noblick stated that the trees Mr. Mitchell is referring to are on the property line and he believes the applicant/owner of the home is working with a next door neighbor to take down the trees because they are in bad shape and not balanced.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the neighbor was present.  Mr. Noblick stated no, but they are in agreement about taking out the trees.  Ms. Terry stated that it is true that a variance was granted for the property (317 North Granger Street) in 1990 and variances go with the sale of the property and never expire.  Mr. Noblick stated that they are proposing a wooden structure with a dark green metal roof.  Mr. Burriss asked if there would be any exterior lighting.  Mr. Noblick believed there would be one light by the side door and one overhead flood light.  Mr. Burriss stated that since the proposed garage would be so close to the property line – proper drainage of run off water from the garage would be encouraged.  Mr. Burriss asked how the neighbor to the north felt about the flood light.  Peter Puze, 323 North Granger Street, stated that he is the neighbor to the north and they had two concerns – one being the exterior lighting and if it would shine into their yard.  Mr. Puze stated that they would also hope that the roof will not be a bright color reflecting light onto their property.  Mr. Noblick stated that the homeowner has not yet picked out a final color for the roof, but he believed they were looking at going with either ultra dark green or hunter green. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-46:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the architecture is consistent with the design and materials of other garaged approved in the same area.

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 that the style is consistent with other buildings at the turn of the century – and they found this structure to be a Victorian style. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-46 with the following conditions:

-         A draining and handling on-site water plan be submitted and approved to Village Staff

-         A lighting plan be submitted and approved by Village Staff

-         A color package that is consistent with the color of the existing house be submitted and approved by Village Staff.

 

Second by Mr. Mitchell

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Application #08-46 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

102 East Broadway, Centenary United Methodist Church, Application #08-47

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

The application is submitted by Sherry Russell for Centenary United Methodist Church and the applicant is requesting approval of two sandwich board signs.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Connie Westbrook.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-47:

Connie Westbrook, 128 South Prospect Street, stated that she is representing Centenary United Methodist Church located at 102 East Broadway.  She stated that the church has started a casual Tuesday evening worship service that they would like to open up to the congregation and general public.  She stated that they would like to have two sandwich boards listing information about the Tuesday evening service and possibly used for other special events throughout the year.  Ms. Terry asked where they would like to place the signs.  Ms. Westbrook stated they would place one sandwich board sign on the yard of the church so that the sidewalk is not blocked and another sign would be at Linden Place.  Ms. Westbrook stated that they were envisioning a natural wood with an acrylic finish and she said that they plan on bringing the signs in at night.  Mr. Ryan asked if they are proposing a sign with changeable script.  Ms. Westbrook stated yes.  Ms. Terry explained that the staff recommendation is for one sign with no more than three colors and with a one inch border.  She also said that they would recommend that the sign not be placed on the sidewalk.  Mr. Ryan asked Ms. Westbrook if the church would be able to get by with just one sign because this would then be consistent with other sandwich board signs approved for area businesses.  Ms. Westbrook stated that if this is the wishes of the Planning Commission they can get by with one sign.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the sandwich board signs ought to mimic the look of the free-standing sign at the front of the church.  He stated that they discourage handwriting on signs and they would encourage that the colors of the sandwich board sign match the church and be of similar material used for the free-standing sign.  Ms. Westbrook stated that they intended to have the word “Centenary” raised on the sign.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission would need to have the size, font, materials, and colors proposed for the sign before they could vote on it.  He also stated that he would like the church to consider a more formal changeable copy sign.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is a consensus by the Planning Commission to see one sign and they would not require approval for each event that they use it for.  Ms. Westbrook agreed it would be best to table the application to gather the needed information.        

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #08-47.  Second by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Application #08-43 is Tabled.

 

139 West Elm Street, David and Rebecca Schnaidt, Application #08-48

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

The application is submitted by David and Rebecca Schnaidt and the applicant is requesting approval of re-roofing, specifically removal of the slate roof and replacement with premium dimensional asphalt shingles. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and David Schnaidt.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-48:

David Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street, stated that he would like to begin his comments by extending an apology to the Board.  He stated that they have already begun the de-roofing and re-roofing process and he didn’t think twice about requesting for approval by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Schnaidt explained that a large portion of the slate has been removed and they are installing Owens Corning Estate Gray fifty year dimensional shingles.  He stated that they are at a point of no return due to the weather and if he did not continue work – considerable damage could have been done to his home.  Mr. Schnaidt provided a sample of the shingles being installed on the home.  He stated that the slate had been on the home for 100+ years and it began to fail – with light and a family of squirrels coming in through the roof.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that as much as he would have liked to have kept slate on the home – it was cost prohibitive.  He also stated that a home across the street from him – owned by Bill Wernet – is from a similar time period as his home and he too replaced slate with shingles.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that architecturally the dimensional shingle will give more of a look than any other product he could have used.  Mr. McClow inquired on how much of the home has been re-roofed.  Mr. Schnaidt answered that ½ of the home is done.  Mr. McClow asked if a new sub roof was needed.  Mr. Schnaidt stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked if the slate on the roof was damaged.  Mr. Schnaidt stated yes.  Mr. McClow asked what the cost difference is from installed slate compared to dimensional shingles.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that he believed slate would have cost approximately $250 per square foot and the shingles are about $85 a square foot.  Mr. McClow asked about imitation slate.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that imitation slate is made from asphalt.  Mr. Ryan asked the location of what is already done.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that it would be the back south and east part of the roof that is complete.  Mr. Ryan asked if the porch will be done.  Mr. Schnaidt stated yes and he stated that he will also have to replace the columns because they are not adequately supporting the roof.  Mr. McClow asked if the soffit and fascia will also be replaced.  Mr. Schnaidt answered yes - where it is needed.  Mr. Ryan asked about the ridges and hips.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that they will also have asphalt shingles.  Mr. Burriss asked if the top flat portion of the roof will be done.  Mr. Schnaidt stated yes and it will be similar to other homes that have a flat roof top.  Mr. Mitchell stated that Roofer’s Wholesale has slate replica’s and he would have preferred to see something like this used on the home – rather than asphalt shingles.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that it came down to an affordability issue and the slate replica is also $250 a square foot.  He went on to say that there are other similar homes in his neighborhood that have replaced slate for shingles.  Mr. Ryan stated that he would agree with Mr. Schnaidt and there are at least two homes on Elm Street that have had slate replaced with shingles and his request is consistent with other homes that are similar.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he first wanted to congratulate Mr. Schnaidt for the outstanding job he has done with renovating his home.  He stated that it really looks nice.  He went on to say that he (Mr. Schnaidt) has an opportunity and a responsibility to keep with the historical character in the look of the slate – and this would be best also from an economic standpoint.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this home is a great asset to the Village and there are not many left that are this pristine.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that he understands and appreciates what Mr. Mitchell is saying but he would disagree that shingles distract from the look of the home in any way.  He added that he is not asking for any more than anyone else has been granted.  Mr. Ryan noted that the Board did receive a letter from Bob and Sherry Gardner, Elm Street, that recommended that the home at 139 West Elm have slate or the look of slate.  Ms. Reeves stated that the applicant is asking for forgiveness rather than permission since he has already completed much of the work on the home.  She stated that this point needs to be made and she has objection to this fact.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that based upon his track record with three previous renovation projects to the home – he has never tried to “get away with anything.” He stated that he has lived in this community for thirty-seven years and he did not believe he needed approval by the Planning Commission since he was not doing a new structure, but he will certainly know better the next time.  Mr. Ryan stated that there was a person on city council that recently did the same type of thing and had to later get approval for a job already done.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that the Village needs to do a better job at informing the public that they do need to get approval when re-roofing their home.      

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-48:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the request for shingles is very similar to what has been done to other homes in the area that have been re-roofed. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that a new roof will keep the home from falling down.  Mr. Mitchell disagreed and concluded no – which the shingle roof will not contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the materials used will be consistent – so all the roof is the same. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded that the scale of the tab is very similar to what was there.

 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-48 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burriss.   

 

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

 

Application #08-48 is approved as submitted. 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-41:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-41.  Second by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

Application #08-42:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-42.  Second by Ms. Reeves.

Roll Call Vote:  Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-43:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-43.  Second by Mr. Burriss

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-46:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-46.  Second by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Reeves, McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-48:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-48.  Second by Ms. Reeves

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

Joy Jung, 221 West Broadway, stated that she did not recall seeing any spot light for Denison University /Burke Hall when she first came in to review the application (#08-41).  Mrs. Jung stated that she appreciated Mr. Burriss putting a condition on the approval to revisit the matter at various times throughout the year.  She also thanked Councilmember O’Keefe for her question to Mr. Chonko regarding the percentage of light increase they can expect.  She stated that he did not answer this question, but she appreciated it being asked.  Mrs. Jung stated that she finds it intriguing that the address for Burke Hall is on West Broadway and haven’t they used a College Street address in the past?  Mr. Burriss explained that Burke Hall had previously been located closer to Broadway.  Mrs. Jung stated that she hates to be a watchdog for this University but she is concerned over the spot lights and if there is a problem she will come back to the Planning Commission or to Ms. Terry.  She went on to say that part of the charm of living on this block is to look over and see the wonderful green space over there.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village is in the process of purchasing a light meter that will be capable of measuring when there is light pollution.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is a review process in place with the conditions stated in the approval of Application #08-41.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Township has a Dark Sky Ordinance that ought to be looked at for the Village as well.  Councilmember O’Keefe noted Mr. Mitchell’s suggestion to pass along to Council.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission is only able to enforce what rules are already in place. 

 

Jack Thornborough, 13 Donald Ross Drive, stated that when he first reviewed the plan for Application #08-41 he felt it seemed modest and he did not plan on saying anything regarding approval/disapproval of the application.  He stated that he was disappointed to see that the application had been changed at the last minute and he stated that he would plead with the Planning Commission to not allow applications to be changed after they have been advertised.  Mr. Thornborough stated that this practice prevents the public from being capable of commenting on an application.  He also asked the Planning Commission to consider moving Citizen’s Comments to the front of the agenda, rather than at the end.  He stated that he had some difficulty in being able to testify today regarding Application #08-41 and if he would have been forced to make comments at Citizen’s Comments – what good would that have done after they had voted.  Mr. Thornborough stated that there are many talented and smart people living in the Village and it would behoove the Planning Commission to let their comments and suggestions are heard and considered when rendering a decision. 

 

Approval of the Minutes:

April 28, 2008

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes of April 28, 2008 as presented.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Adjournment: 9:30 PM. 

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

 

Next meetings:

May 27, 2008

June 9, 2008

�bi'0(�#upportLists]>5)                  “Per sign three (3) on Exhibit A “

 

 

Ms. Reeves seconded the motion to amend. 

 

Roll Call Vote on the motion to amend Mr. Riffle’s motion pertaining to Application #08-24:  Reeves (yes), Riffle (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion to amend carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Fackler stated that before the Planning Commission proceeds he would like to note that he feels terrible about this decision and if you do the math the sign will not fit.  He stated that he needs more square footage to increase the size of his logo. 

 

Mr. Riffle made a motion to amend his previous motion a second time to increase the 113 sq. foot maximum to 120 sq. ft. for both wall signs. 

 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

 

Roll Call Vote on the motion to amend the second time:  Reeves (yes), Riffle (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion to amend a second time carried 3-0. 

 

Mr. Fackler thanked the Planning Commission and stated that although he is not in agreement he does appreciate all of the effort put forward for this project.  He stated that his building opening is scheduled for April 17th.  Ms. Terry stated that there will be a ten day appeal process and then the permits will be issued. 

 

Roll Call Vote to approve Application #08-24 as amended: Riffle (yes), Reeves (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No. 08-24 is approved as amended with the following conditions:

 

1)      To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zoned lot from 70 square feet to 120 square feet for both wall signs;

2)      To increase the maximum number of wall signs per building from one (1) to two (2);

3)      To increase the maximum number of colors in any sign from three (3) to four (4) for the northern wall sign, and from three (3) to seven (7) for the western wall sign, as proposed in Exhibit “A”; and

4)      A stipulation to change the presented twelve foot (12’) vertical sign to be stacked and to be more horizontal in nature with panels, for the sign to be placed at a lower level, 48 sq. ft. total per Exhibit “B.”

5)      Per sign three (3) on Exhibit A.

 

Finding of Fact Approval:

Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-24, George Fackler: 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-24. Seconded by Mr. Riffle.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Minutes of March 10, 2008 – Ms. Reeves moved to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Riffle.  The motion passed 3-0.  The minutes of March 10, 2008 were approved as presented.

 

Motion to excuse Planning Commission member’s absence:

Mr. Riffle made a motion to excuse Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Burriss from the Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  The motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Riffle moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Adjournment: 9:30 PM. 

 

 

 

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.