Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes July 25, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 25, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  None. 

Staff Present: Village Planning Director, Alison Terry.

Also Present: Tim Dobyns and Tom Linzell.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

Mr. Mitchell recused himself from discussion and voting of Application #2011-89, Application #2011-90, and Application #2011-91 at 7:02 PM.

 

1919 Lancaster Road – Metropolitan Partners - Application #2011-89

Village Gateway District (VGD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Tom Linzell, and Tim Dobyns.

 

Discussion:

Tom Linzell, Meleca Architecture, representing the applicant Metropolitan Partners, 150 East Broad Street, Suite 100, Columbus, stated that they would like to install a tenant panel sign where the existing freestanding monument sign is located.  Mr. Linzell explained that they would like the signage to match the style of the building.  He stated that the second tenant panel sign wording is yet to be determined.  Ms. Terry explained that the application would require multiple variances.  She stated that the signage requirements adopted for the Village Gateway District (VGD) was the same as the Suburban Business District (SBD) text.  She also explained that some of the required variances are a result of the TCOD (Transportation Corridor Overlay District) requirements and numerous variances have been granted in the past due to extreme nature of the TCOD requirements.  Ms. Terry stated that the text in this part of the code may need to be modified in the future for signage within the TCOD.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant needs to have a freestanding sign this large if they also are requesting a sign for the roof.  Mr. Ryan stated that he believes the presented size of the signage is too large.  Mr. Johnson asked why the signage for the VGD was not addressed when this area was rezoned for development.  Ms. Terry stated that the SBD text pertaining to signage was simply adopted for the VGD.  Mr. Linzell explained that they want the signage to fit with the building and the existing zoning requirements pertaining to signage would be too small when applied to this particular building.  Ms. Terry explained that the wall signage in the SBD is allowed to be 40 square feet and they do not specifically have a provision for roof signage so the sign was delegated (in a different application) under ‘projecting sign.’  She went on to say that the applicant is not presenting a typical projecting sign.  Mr. Ryan concurred that the TCOD language has always been overly restrictive when it comes to signage.  Mr. Ryan added that there is an existing sign already located at 1919 Lancaster Road and this freestanding sign was once located within the Township.  Mr. Linzell agreed that they want to utilize the existing sign with an added decorative cap on top.  Mr. Hawk indicated that one of the tenant panel signs is for Verizon and he asked if this would be a retail shop.  Mr. Linzell stated yes.  Mr. Hawk indicated that he shares his colleagues concerns and the presented signage is too large and it appears that the entrance to Granville is for Verizon.  Mr. Hawk stated that he could see having either the freestanding sign or the projecting roof sign, but not both.  Mr. Hawk also stated that the presented design for the freestanding signage is much better than what is currently at this location.  He added that the applicant is requesting a substantial variance.  Mr. Linzell stated that Verizon has indicated that they would need this signage in order to lease the space.  Mr. Ryan asked if the color requirements have been met for the signage.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the total square footage of the freestanding sign is an issue and would require a substantial variance.  Ms. Terry reviewed other signage in the area.  She stated that Ross' Granville Market has a sign that is 64 square feet per side and it is ten feet (10’) in height.  She went on to say that Ross' has another wall sign that is thirty-five (35) square feet and the Cherry Valley Office Complex sign is 41.41 square feet and is almost six (6’) feet high.  Ms. Terry indicated that the applicant’s sign is proposed to be a total of 54 square feet.  Ms. Terry also indicated that any changes that differ from the application for the tenant panels have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval.

 

Tim Dobyns, Metropolitan Partners, indicated that Metropolitan Partners is making the request for signage on the behalf of their tenant, Verizon.  He stated that Verizon has indicated that signage approval is required for them to finalize the lease agreement.  He stated that he is not sure if they have to have a monument sign and he questioned if the existing monument sign was part of the original annexation agreement and grandfathered in.  He stated that they realize that they need to come back for any updates to this sign.  Ms. Terry reviewed the annexation agreement and indicated that there is nothing in it that relates to the existing monument sign being grandfathered in.  Mr. Ryan questioned if corporate Verizon has stated that they need a particular size of signage.  Mr. Dobyns indicated that he only knows that they are sensitive to signage and he is unsure if this is from corporate or a franchisee.  Mr. Burriss stated that he feels the freestanding signage is too big, especially when scalistically compared to other signage on this street.  Mr. Linzell questioned if the lighting that was previously approved for the building included the proposed ground lighting for the freestanding sign.  Ms. Terry stated that the lighting for the signage was not previously approved.  Mr. Hawk asked if the applicant would be agreeable to not approving the freestanding signage and approving only the roof signage.  Mr. Dobyns stated that they were assuming some variation of the freestanding sign would be allowed since it already exists on the property.  Mr. Linzell presented another drawing with a more simplified and smaller scaled version of the freestanding sign.  The Planning Commission unanimously preferred to look of this signage and labeled it as ‘Exhibit A.’ Ms. Terry indicated that the drawing depicts a freestanding sign that is shorter and a smaller version of the original proposal.  She stated that this example of the freestanding sign is much more in keeping with existing signage on the street, with a height of eight and a half (8 1/2') feet from the base, rather than the previously presented 12-foot high sign.  Ms. Terry indicated that the amended sign is 9’ by 6’ (54 square feet).  Mr. Burriss asked what would happen with the signage if there were to later be three tenants occupying the building.  Mr. Linzell indicated that they could fit three panels if they shifted the signage down.  Mr. Linzell also stated that at this time they anticipate two tenants, with Verizon occupying most of the structure.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the sign could be shrunk down more with the logo checkmark being moved to the side.  Mr. Ryan stated that moving the check mark would allow for a third tenant panel sign.  Mr. Linzell indicated that the signage depicted in ‘Exhibit A’ is virtually a new build sign, compared to using the existing signage that is already in place.  He questioned if the owner of the property would be in agreement to this change.  Mr. Hawk stated that the revised signage presented in ‘Exhibit A’ beats the alternative to losing the tenant panel sign.  Mr. Ryan agreed and stated that he would have a hard time approving the first sign that was presented. Mr. Hawk stated that he couldn’t support the first freestanding sign that was presented.  Mr. Burriss stated that the signage in ‘Exhibit A’ is more consistent with the district.  Mr. Dobyns indicated that if ‘Exhibit A’ is what is preferred by the Planning Commission – they could live with this option.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the Planning Commission generally requires there to be landscaping around any ground lighting for signs.  Ms. Terry indicated that the Planning Commission has required shielding, such as boxwoods, so the lighting does not impair passing traffic. 

 

Mr. Hawk indicated that the Planning Commission has previously required that the lighting be turned off at a particular time.  Mr. Burriss agreed and stated that this is a less residential area, but there is also a “plethora of lighting proposed to be located in the parking lot.”  Mr. Johnson suggested that the lighting be turned off by 11:00 PM.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Criteria for a Variance during their discussion of Application #2011-89:

 

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.  Mr. Ryan indicated that this is a new zoning district with carried over sign language from the Suburban Business District.  Mr. Burriss stated that to some degree the property had an existing building with architectural elements that were not pleasing.  He added that the applicant has made substantial improvements to the property that pleases the Planning Commission.  He stated that the existing massing of the structure is unique to this property.  Mr. Burriss stated that the signage compliments the proposed modifications to the structure.  Mr. Ryan added that the proposed sign is an improvement to the existing sign that is in place.  Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hawk 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 unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that without proper signage there would not be beneficial use of the property.    
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is substantial, but justified.  Mr. Johnson stated that what the Planning Commission is considering approving for signage is not substantial when compared to the Main Street Commerce Center.  The Planning Commission agreed that the TCOD requirements are too penalizing for business signage, thus requiring a variance.     

 

(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 unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission is trying for consistency by approving the requested variances. 

 

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

 

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

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.   

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the owner of the property is applying for the signage, rather than the tenant. 

 

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

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  The Planning Commission agreed that there are special conditions:  Landscaping for lighting and lighting turned off by 11:00 PM.     

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-89 with the following conditions:

1)      To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on any zone lot in the Village Gateway District (VGD) from 77 square feet to 108 square feet to allow for the installation of a freestanding sign;

2)      To increase the maximum size in the Village Gateway District (VGD) for a freestanding sign along South Main Street from 40 square feet to 54 square feet to allow for the installation of a freestanding sign;

3)      To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on any zone lot in the TCOD from 6 square feet to 108 square feet to allow for the installation of a freestanding sign;

4)       To increase the maximum size in the TCOD for a freestanding sign from 18 square feet to 54 square feet to allow for the installation of a freestanding sign;

5)      To increase the maximum height in the TCOD for a freestanding sign from 6 feet to 8’6” feet to allow for the installation of a freestanding sign;

6)      Source of the lighting for the sign shall be screened with appropriate landscaping;

7)      That the lighting of the sign shall be limited to the hours of dusk to eleven (11:00 PM); and

8)      The approved sign shall be constructed per ‘Exhibit A.’

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (no), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

1919 Lancaster Road – Metropolitan Partners - Application #2011-90

Village Gateway District (VGD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Tom Linzell, and Tim Dobyns. 

 

Discussion:

Tom Linzell, Meleca Architecture, representing the applicant Metropolitan Partners, 150 East Broad Street, Suite 100, Columbus, stated that they would like to install a projecting sign on the building.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant would be increasing the total square footage of the signage to a 100 square foot sign.  Mr. Ryan asked if this signage is also a requirement made by Verizon.  Mr. Dobyns stated that they have asked them to request the signage before the Planning Commission this evening.  Mr. Burriss explained that the roof signage is the type of signage that the Planning Commission requested for the building design.  He indicated that he does have an issue with the presented height and size of the sign because it feels too big.  Mr. Ryan stated that he agreed.  Mr. Linzell stated that the tenant, Verizon, would be utilizing 2/3 to ¾ of the building and this is the reason for the difference in the size of the first sign compared to the second tenant wall sign.  Mr. Burriss stated that all of the tenant panels for Ross' Granville Market freestanding sign are the same size. 

 

He asked if the tenant would also be requesting signage for the windows or doors.  Mr.   Linzell stated that they are unsure and he questioned if approval is required for this type of signage.  Ms. Terry stated yes and neon signage must be artful in appearance.  Mr. Johnson stated that the height of the signage could be reduced and the Planning Commission was aware that signage for the structure would be on the roof.  Mr. Hawk stated that the presented size of the signage for the roof is contrary to what they envisioned for the building.  Mr. Linzell presented an amended drawing, which was labeled ‘Exhibit A’, showing an 80 square foot sign for the roof for Verizon.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he prefers the size of the Verizon sign in Exhibit A, but not the increased size of the unknown tenant sign for the second sign on the building.  He also questioned if there should be consistency in the style of graphics for both signs.  Mr. Ryan stated that this would be hard since they have approved other signs with logos in the past.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have also required the same font for signage on one building – for instance the signage located at 121-127 East Broadway.  Ms. Terry stated that if the applicant changes the font of the signage from what is presented they would need to come back to the Planning Commission for an amendment/revision.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he would like to see the signage framed out.  Mr. Linzell stated that it is hard to see, but he did propose a two inch (2”) white border, but this could be increased to three inches (3”).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the border should be increased to three inches (3”) and this could be accomplished without increasing the total size of the sign.  Mr. Johnson asked if the sign would be centered on the roof plane.  Mr. Linzell indicated that ‘Exhibit A’ does not show any move for the placement of sign on the roof and it would not be centered on the roof plane.  Mr. Linzell stated that overall height is impacted.  The Planning Commission indicated that the lighting for the signage should be turned off by 11:00 PM.  Mr. Hawk stated that this would be consistent with other lights for business signage.    

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Criteria for a Variance during their discussion of Application #2011-90:

 

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.  Mr. Burriss indicated that there is not another building within this district with a similar fashion and orientation of roof structure.  He stated that they are limited to placement for signage on the building due to wall space. 

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that this is a multi-commercial tenant building and the tenants need to be properly identified.     
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is substantial, but justified due to lack of an appropriate title (since the sign is not actually a projecting sign.)  Mr. Ryan indicated that the size of the signage is going from 108 square feet to 188 square feet.   

 

(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 unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated that with the variance the signage for this area would be consistent. 

 

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

 

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

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.   

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  The Planning Commission agreed that there are special conditions that include the addition of a three inch (3”) border for the sign and that the lighting for the sign be turned off by 11:00 PM nightly.    

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-90 with the following conditions:

1)                  To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on any zoned lot in the Village Gateway District from 108 square feet to 188.25 square feet to allow for the installation of a projecting sign;

2)                  To increase the maximum size for a projecting sign in the Village Gateway District (VGD) from 10 square feet to 80.25 square feet to allow for the installation of a projecting sign; and

3)                  That the proposed sign shall be per ‘Exhibit A.’

4)                  That the sign will have a 3” white border;

5)                  That the sign shall be turned off by eleven (11:00) PM.; and

6)                  That the sign will be no more than 14’ foot in total height.   

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

1919 Lancaster Road – Metropolitan Partners - Application #2011-91

Village Gateway District (VGD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Tom Linzell and Tim Dobyns.

 

Discussion:

Tom Linzell, Meleca Architecture representing the applicant Metropolitan Partners, 150 East Broad Street, Suite 100, Columbus, stated that they would like to install a wall sign on the building.  The Planning Commission agreed that they preferred the look and size of the sign from the picture that was submitted with the application.  The Planning Commission requested that the border of the sign be consistent with the other tenant sign for Verizon at three inches (3”).   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Criteria for a Variance during their discussion of Application #2011-91:

 

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.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the fenestration pattern of the building limits the available wall space for signage.  

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that scalistically the sign is appropriate for the building and the tenants need signage to be successful.     
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is substantial, but justifiably so.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the increase in square footage is going from 188 to 228.   

 

(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 unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

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

 

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

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.   

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  The Planning Commission agreed that there are special conditions that include the addition of a three inch (3”) border for the sign and that the lighting for the sign be turned by 11:00 PM nightly.    

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-91 with the following conditions:

1)                  To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on any zone lot in the Village Gateway District (VGD) from 108 square feet to 188.25 square feet to 228.85 square feet to allow for the installation of a wall sign;

2)                  That the sign lighting will be turned off by eleven (11:00) PM; and

3)                  That the sign will have a 3” white border;

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Other Business:

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

 

Review of Proposed Zoning Permit & Application Fees, Exhibit A, to amend the various development and zoning related fees. 

 

Discussion: 

Ms. Terry presented the potential fee changes that were discussed by the Planning and Zoning Committee.

 

Appeal Hearing Fee:

Mr. Ryan questioned if the Planning and Zoning Committee discussed the Planning Commission’s previous recommendation on increasing the appeal charge because of expenses incurred by the Village that are not covered with the existing $150 fee.  Ms. Terry explained that the Village currently charges $150 for appeals and she is aware of at least one situation where someone wanting to file an appeal changed their mind after they found out that there is a fee to do so.  Ms. Terry stated that the amount of the fee for an appeal hearing was not brought up at the Planning and Zoning meeting.  Ms. Terry reviewed the fees that the Village incurs when an appeal is filed.  She stated that they send notices and they have the cost of postage and advertising associated with the application.  She also stated that they typically hire a court reporter for the appeal hearing and this can be about $500-$600, depending on the length of the hearing, and they incur additional attorney costs that are not included in the law director retainer fee.  Mr. Ryan asked who could file an appeal.  Ms. Terry stated 1) the applicant; 2) anyone interested party who testifies before the Planning Commission regarding the application; 3) any person who requested the right to speak on an application but was denied the right to speak by the Planning Commission; and 4) the Village Manager could file an appeal.  Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that Council does not want to “shut the door” and make fees that discourage filing an appeal.  She added that they also need to be careful to cover all expenses.  Mr. Johnson stated that he feels that all costs incurred by the Village regarding the filing of an appeal ought to be covered by the person filing.  He suggested that the fee should be around $500 and this still wouldn’t cover all of the costs incurred when an appeal is filed.  The Planning Commission also discussed a fee of $300, but ultimately decided to recommend $500 to Village Council as an appropriate amount for filing an appeal.      

 

Construction Inspection Fee:

Ms. Terry stated that municipalities generally require special inspections for commercial or industrial work involving utility work.  She stated that this is generally in terms of a deposit that would be refunded to the contractor if it were not entirely used.  Mr. Johnson stated that he has seen other municipalities require a contractor to hire an independent inspector, after being provided a list by that City, to provide these services prior to obtaining a permit.  Ms. Terry clarified that the percentage suggested in the fee chart is 6% of the total construction cost for utility inspections (i.e. water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm water improvements, roadways) and any remaining balance would go back to the contractor.  Mr. Johnson stated that any overdraft ought to also be billable by the Village.  

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to recommend the proposed zoning fees be approved by Village Council, with the exception of the appeal charge being changed to $500 and the Construction Inspection fee rate to be 6% (with any remaining balance going back to the contractor and any overdraft billable.)  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Motion carried 4-0.  (Mr. Mitchell was not present to vote.  He indicated to Ms. Terry earlier in the meeting that he did not have any issues with the zoning fee recommendations as presented in his packet.) 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-89: Metropolitan Partners; 1919 Lancaster Road; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-89 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-89. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (no), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Application #2011-90: Metropolitan Partners; 1919 Lancaster Road; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-90 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-90. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Application #2011-91: Metropolitan Partners; 1919 Lancaster Road; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-91 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-91. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for July 11, 2011:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from July 11, 2011 as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0.  (Mr. Johnson recused himself.)

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.  (Mr. Mitchell had left the Planning Commission meeting during discussion under ‘New Business.’)    

 

Next meetings:

Monday, August 8, 2011 (Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that she cannot attend this meeting.)

Monday, August 22, 2011 (Mr. Ryan indicated that he may not be able to attend this meeting.)

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.