Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes September 13, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 13, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Charlie Dutton, Jeanie Montgomery, Don DeSapri, and Mark Clapsadle.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

425 South Main Street – Eva Montgomery/Mark Clapsadle - Application #2010-135

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for review and approval of a platform, handicap ramp and stairs surrounding the building, and as a result of elevating the structure above the base flood elevation.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Jeanie Montgomery, and Mark Clapsadle.

 

Discussion:

Mark Clapsadle, 4380 Granview Road, Granville, stated that he received a permit to raise the first floor of the building above the floodplain elevation.  He explained that he is there for approval of a platform around the building to meet the setback requirements.  Ms. Terry stated that the application meets all of the setback requirements and the applicant is doing a ramp, platform, and stairs.  She explained that the ramp will be separated with columns due to potential flooding and the first floor would be elevated.  Ms. Terry stated that there is not any AROD Criteria to review for this application. 

 

Jeanie Montgomery, 9809 Betteker Lane, Potomac, MD, was present to address any questions or concerns by the Planning Commission. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-135 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

119 East Elm Street, Rear – Charlie Dutton – The Sport Shop - Application #2010-137

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

Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of a 3 square foot freestanding tenant panel sign to be located on South Main Street.

 

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

 

Discussion:

Charlie Dutton, stated that he would like to add a tenant panel sign to the existing freestanding tenant panel sign.  Mr. Ryan asked if the tenant panel sign would be the same color of green as the rest of the signs on the tenant panel sign.  Mr. Dutton stated that his signage is blue and white.  Mr. Johnson asked if the variance is required because the signage exceeds the maximum allowed.  Ms. Terry presented an example of the sidewalk signage that was originally approved which showed a date of 1981 and discussed the reason for the variance.  Mr. Dutton stated that the tenant panel sign is already in place and the blue was approved per Mr. Williams, the owner of the property.  Mr. Burriss recalled the Village Baker sign being approved at the same time as the fencing.   Mr. Mitchell stated that he wasn’t sure that the blue signage looked appropriate with a green background.  Mr. Dutton questioned if the Planning Commission would like him to paint the sign green and white.  Mr. Hawk stated that he agrees that the signage should match the other tenant panel signs on the freestanding sign.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have encouraged that tenant panel signs be consistent with other panels on the signage, but this already graphically does not match.  He stated that the other signage is blue and white that the applicant is proposing.  Ms. Terry noted that the sign is two sided and there aren’t any variances included with the signage as it stands now.  She stated that if another panel were added in the same place as the tenant panel sign – a variance wouldn’t need to be added – and the Variance given today would stand.  Mr. Hawk clarified that the variance given by the Planning Commission today is to legitimize the size because there isn’t a variance on file and there should have been since it doesn’t conform to the code.  Mr. Ryan questioned if changing the color of the tenant panel will improve the look of the sign because the signage is not in the best shape.  Mr. Mitchell stated that requiring that the tenant panel sign be consistent in color is being consistent with other signage they have approved in the past.  Mr. Dutton indicated that he would rather not change the color of the tenant panel sign, but he would be willing to change it if the Planning Commission requires him.  Mr. Johnson stated that if the application were for a new sign then they would have limited it to three colors. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-137:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that the peculiar nature of the application is because it is located in the TCOD District which has limitations on the size of signage.  Mr. Burriss stated that the size of the parking lot is unique in this situation.  Mr. Hawk and Mr. Mitchell agreed. 

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)               Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the benefit that is being allowed is equivalent to the rights of other property owners.   Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Ryan, and Mr. Johnson also agreed. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission agreed that the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burriss stated that the variance is substantial, but is necessary.   Mr. Mitchell agreed.  Mr. Johnson stated that the number of businesses in this complex also comes into play.

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The Planning Commission stated FALSE. 

 

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

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with         

knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Johnson stated that the signage in this district would require a variance. 

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission agreed TRUE. 

 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  The Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-137:

 

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

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by being consistent with the graphics that are in place the sign is an upgrade to the historical character

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

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-137 with the following variances:

1)         To increase the maximum size for a freestanding sign from twelve (12) square feet to forty-one point six two (41.62) square feet;

2)         To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on any zone lot in the TCOD from 6 square feet to 83.24 square feet to allow for a freestanding tenant panel sign on South Main Street; and

3)         To require that the tenant panel sign match the existing tenant panel signage on the sandwich board sign and be in the colors of white (lettering) and green (background).  

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

119 East Elm Street, Rear – Charlie Dutton – The Sport Shop - Application #2010-138

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

Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD). 

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

 

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

 

Discussion:

Charlie Dutton, 119 East Elm Street, was present to address any questions from the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Dutton was getting rid of any of the existing signage.  Mr. Dutton stated he would like to keep it, but he was told he could not.  Ms. Terry stated that the signage Mr. Dutton is referring to is a changeable copy sign and they are not permitted in this District.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the dry erase board on the sign could have different colors if it is changed daily.  Ms. Terry stated yes and she indicated that in the past the Planning Commission has been requiring that the business' logo be at the top of the signage.  Mr. Dutton stated that he doesn’t see how his hand-writing will look neater than what is on the current sign.  Mr. Ryan stated that this sign should  identify that this is his business and having the logo on the sign will accomplish this.  Mr. Dutton questioned if he could put his company name on the sign he already has in place.  Mr. Ryan stated that the issue with his sign is that it is a changeable copy sign – which are not permitted.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the code doesn’t allow for changeable copy signage.  Mr. Dutton indicated that it doesn’t make sense, if he used the current sign he has it would be more legible than if he were to write on a dry erase board.  Mr. Ryan stated that if it were up to the Planning Commission, he doesn’t think anyone on the Commission would even allow for sidewalk signage, but according to the code – they are permitted.  Mr. Johnson asked if the variance is for two sidewalk signs.  Ms. Terry explained that the sign by Elm’s Pizza is on a different lot, and this lot includes the Village Baker and The Sport Shop.  She indicated that the variance is needed because you are only allowed one sandwich board sign per property.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that they do not have a picture of what the signage would look like with permanently applied lettering at the top.  Mr. Ryan pointed out the business logo that the applicant is proposing to put on a window of the business.  Mr. Dutton agreed that this would be the graphic he would choose to use on the sandwich board sign.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-138:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the location and the number of tenants make it a unique application in this District.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Hawk and Mr. Burriss stated that sidewalk signage has been allowed for other businesses in the district.  Mr. Ryan, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Mitchell agreed that the business would yield a reasonable return without the variance.

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission agreed that the variance is not substantial.

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The Planning Commission stated FALSE. 

 

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

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with         

knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.   

 

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

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The Planning Commission stated TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that other businesses in this district have sidewalk signage.

 

c.      That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission agreed TRUE. 

 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  The Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that there the signage should have the business logo on it and it should only be allowed to be placed outside during business hours.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-138:

 

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

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the signage aids a business and therefore the district.

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

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

 

Mr. Mitchell motioned to approve Application #2010-138 with the following conditions:

1)         That a duplicate of the window sign logo be applied to the sign on both sides

2)         That the signage be put in place only during business operating hours

3)         That the location of the sign shall be located between the curb and sidewalk and shall not block exiting vehicle view of traffic on South Main Street;

And approval of Application #2010-138 with the following Variances:

4)         To increase the maximum number of sidewalk signs per building from one to two and;

5)         To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on any zone lot in the TCOD from 6 square feet to 93.74 square feet to allow for a sidewalk sign on South Main Street.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

119 East Elm Street, Rear – Charlie Dutton – The Sport Shop - Application #2010-139

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

Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of a 3 square foot freestanding tenant panel sign to be located on South Main Street.

 

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

 

Discussion:

Charlie Dutton, 119 East Elm Street, stated that he would like to place his company logo on the window.  Ms. Terry stated that a variance is required because the sign exceeds the15% requirement for signage on a single window.  Mr. Johnson questioned if a variance is also required for the TCOD.  Ms. Terry stated that this particular sign will not be located within the TCOD district because it is further than 100 feet from the right-of-way. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-139:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that the space that the tenant occupies one window on this side of the structure.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it is peculiar with the location of the business within the building.  Mr. Burriss stated that there are unique businesses located within this structure. 

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission agreed FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated that Mr. Dutton’s business requires a sign. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission agreed that the variance is not substantial.

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The Planning Commission stated FALSE. 

 

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

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with         

knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.   

 

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

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission agreed TRUE. 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  The Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-139:

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

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

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

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

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-139 with a variance to increase the maximum percentage of window area for the window sign from 15% to 40% for a five point two five (5.25) square foot sign.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

221 East Broadway – Dana Landrum – Landrum Cottage - Application #2010-140

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a six point twenty five (6.25) square foot wall sign. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

Mrs. Dana Landrum, 642 Chateaugay Drive, S.W., Pataskala, Ohio  43062 was not available for comment on the application. 

 

Mr. Ryan questioned how much signage is required for the business.  Mr. Burriss suggested that rather than having a Bistro sign on the Broadway elevation and another sign above the door, it may serve the business better to have a projecting sign.  The Planning Commission asked for clarification on what signage they have previously approved for the business.  Ms. Terry stated that they have approved a bakery sign and a sidewalk sign.  Mr. Hawk agreed with Mr. Burriss and stated that instead of two signs (as presented by the applicant) he would also suggest a projecting sign with the word ‘Bistro’ because it covers the purpose of both signs with one projecting sign.  He stated that the Planning Commission doesn’t clearly know the applicant’s intent with her not being present.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant had indicated that she might be late arriving at the meeting.  Mr. Ryan agreed that he prefers Mr. Burriss’s suggestion to what is being presented by the applicant.  The Planning Commission discussed tabling the application, and asked Ms. Terry to make the applicant aware that they are not inclined to approve what she has presented in terms of signage. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Table Application #2010-140.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

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

 

221 East Broadway – Dana Landrum – Landrum Cottage - Application #2010-141

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sixteen (16) square foot wall sign. 

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

Discussion:  None.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Table Application #2010-141.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

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

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-135: Eva Montgomery/Mark Clapsadle; 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 1167, Community Service District, Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-135 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-135. 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

Application #2010-137: Charlie Dutton – The Sport Shop; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-137 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-137. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2010-138: Charlie Dutton – The Sport Shop; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-138 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-138. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2010-139: Charlie Dutton – The Sport Shop; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-139 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-139. 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the August 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 4-0.  Mr. Hawk abstained.    

 

Additional Comments by the Planning Commission:

Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to take a moment during the Planning Commission meeting to say some words about Village Planner, Alison Terry.  Mr. Burriss stated that she is the most professional Village Planner he has had the pleasure to deal with and he greatly appreciates the job she does.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he “would agree with Jack and raise him one.”  Mr. Ryan stated that he whole-heartedly agrees with Mr. Burriss and he would recommend telling Village Council, the Mayor, and Village Manager their thoughts on the Planner, Alison Terry.  He indicated that they have begun work on a letter to send to them.  Mr. Ryan continued by stating that he has done work all over the Midwest, seeking various approvals for clients in front of boards and it is evident that the level of professionalism with Planner Terry supersedes others he has appeared before.  He indicated that one wants to hire the most professional – most experienced person they can.  He stated that as Planner of this Village she has the expertise and experience required to do the job.  Mr. Burriss stated that Ms. Terry’s knowledge and relaying of information helps the Planning Commission understand the process and her way has been clear and to the point.  Mr. Burriss stated that Ms. Terry is the 7th Village Planner that he has dealt with and she deserves their compliments and thanks.  Mr. Johnson stated that he is relatively new to the Planning Commission, but from an applicant standpoint going through the process – Ms. Terry made it very clear as to what was expected of him in order to present a complete application to the Planning Commission.  He stated that he has observed that some people may feel that they don’t have to follow rules and present a full application – but he is confident that Ms. Terry instructs each applicant of what is expected by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Mitchell clarified that Ms. Terry doesn’t make the rules, but she instructs others on how they need to be followed.  Mr. Mitchell went on to say that the make up of the Planning Commission board and the relationship they have with the Village Planner is the most productive since he’s been there and “there is nobody in the same ballpark/class as our current Planner.” 

 

Mr. Hawk asked procedurally how a public hearing is handled since he is new to the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant is sworn in and gives their testimony.  She stated that the Planning Commission can ask questions of the applicant and staff.  She stated that in the case of a rezoning application - anyone in the Village can speak.  The process is usually that each person receives five minutes to speak and then they move on to the next person.  Ms. Terry stated that after everyone has spoken, if the Planning Commission chooses they can ask if anyone wishes to speak a second time.  That person will then be allowed three additional minutes.  She stated the testimony they give the second time should not address anything that they have previously stated on the record, but instead it should be new testimony.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission can continue the public hearing or make a decision that night.  She stated that they are not required to render a decision that night, and even if they close the public hearing that they could hold further discussion and vote on the application at their next meeting. 

 

Adjournment:  8:05 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

September 27, 2010

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

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.