Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

I have been on vacation and am now just getting caught up. Here is something this webiste must have missed. It is from the July P&Z meeting. For the full transcript go to http://66.194.250.96/picktown/documents/meeting_minutes/doc1150.htm


Mr. O?’Brien stated one of the differences between this outbuilding and the center itself, is that the center is so far back off the road and what we are discussing with the three colors are those that primarily abut the 256 corridor and are visible clearly from the road versus the ones done several years ago that are back off the road. He stated he felt there was a delineation on this particular property. Mr. Fix stated he understood Mr. O?’Brien?’s point, but he felt there were a lot of signs up and down 256 that carry the logo colors of the individual businesses within and that we should allow for that in these businesses as well. Mr. Schultz stated the applicant has agreed to having the three colors. Mr. Fix stated he understood they have agreed to the three colors, but he felt as a body what they were doing was not in line with our own code and is plain bad business and we should not be doing it. Mr. Nicholas stated if he recalled correctly when this was approved, a brick water table was to be along the entire elevation and he did not see that on the site. Mr. Nicholas stated he would like to have staff review the prior approval to see if that is correct.

Mr. Fix moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan with staff recommendations 1 and 3. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Kramer moved to approve with all three staff recommendations; Mr. O?’Brien seconded the motion.

Mr. Schultz inquired for a point of clarification if the approval was for three colors for each sign, do we want them to have the same background, or does it matter if it is red letters. Mr. Reynolds stated they were proposing to use green, red, and white, and the background will all be the off white. Mr. Schultz clarified the panels will be white with red and green letters.

MR. FIX STATED WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE BOARD THEY HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON AND THEY ARE NOT DOING THAT IF THEY VOTE FOR THIS.

Mr. O?’Brien inquired if there was documentation on any of this. Mr. Smith stated the Code does state that each sign shall be limited to three colors, however, if staff proposes, and the applicant agrees, they basically can make the agreement not to exceed what is set forth in the code. He stated if the applicant willingly agrees to limit the color pallet to three colors for all of the signs, the applicant can do that. He stated the code states three colors per sign, not three colors per plan. Mr. Kramer clarified that our Commercial Design Guidelines state that no sign shall have more than three colors. Mr. Kramer stated then, this Commission is abiding by the law. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix voting ?“Nay,?” and Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. O?’Brien, Mr. Kramer, and Mr. Binkley voting ?“Yea.?” Motion passed, 6-1.

So.... The amazing Mr. Fix questions the integrity and ethics of P&Z? Councilman O'Brien? Maybe the whole Shaver administration?

Tch, tch, Jeffy. BIG MISTAKE THERE, EH PAL?


By Council Watcher

Fix four purple hearts honest!!

CITY OF PICKERINGTON
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2005

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

7:30 P.M.

B. Review and request for motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for a Ground Sign for ReMax office building at 10400 Blacklick Eastern Road. Mr. Schultz stated the owner was proposing a single ground sign along S.R. 204 and a potential second building on the site would likely require an additional ground sign. He stated the ground sign would be approximately 8.5?’ x 10?’, and would have a total sign area of 42.75 square feet. He stated there would be a maximum of five tenant panels on the sign, and the ReMax panel would have a white background with blue and red letters and graphics. There would be approximately one foot of brick from the bottom of the sign area to the ground, the brick would extend up both sides of the sign, the top of the sign would be comprised of an aluminum cabinet painted white, the sign would be internally illuminated, and the height of the ground sign should not exceed 10 feet above the elevation of the parking lot grade adjacent to the sign. The parking lot in this area has an elevation 872 feet. Mr. Schultz stated staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan with the conditions that the sign panel lettering and graphics have a matte finish, that the number of colors on the each panel shall be limited to three, that the ground sign shall be located five feet from the property line and outside the site triangle, and the height of the ground sign should not exceed 10 feet above the elevation of the parking lot adjacent to the sign. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the base of the sign, where the brick columns meet the base, would be finished off with brick or stone. Mr. Kramer clarified the black trademark symbol indicated on the sign drawing would not be on the sign. Mr. Bosch clarified when the other building is built it will probably require another ground sign and questioned if that should be dealt with at this time. Mr. Schultz stated the intent would be they should be the same. Mr. Smith clarified the Commission was voting to approve the sign with the brick as shown in the illustration. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan contingent upon staff recommendations being met and the removal of the realtor logo on the sign, that both ground signs have the same design, and that either stone or brick be used for the cap of the base of the sign; Mr. Kramer seconded the motion. Mr. Fix clarified the requirement that both signs on the site have the same design was to prevent confusion when the second sign is requested. Mr. Schultz clarified the requirement for the second sign was based on the understanding this was one parcel and one development. He stated should the parcel be split into more than one parcel this requirement would not be valid. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. O?’Brien voting ?“Yea.?” Motion passed, 7-0.





















By Council Observer

Dan Rather reporting

Apparently in January of 2005, Mr. Fix found no problems with the comprehensive sign designs of Pickerington. In the previous posting he has no problems voting for the approved sign for Re-Max. However six months later he is ripping the integrity of the Pickerington Planning and Zoning commission for a very similar vote. Clearly to accuse members of the P & Z with violating their oath of office is something I heard Daryl do on occasion. Who is coaching Jeff?

Why would he attack others that by July two of whom he knew were running for council? Was this calculated to show that these two candidates were unworthy of being elected to council? Why would he attack the entire commission? I understand he apologized to the commission at the August meeting. Do we have a Sabatino packaged a little differently here folks? Maybe he is someone that delivers his lines better and has the courage to publicly rip anyone that might stand in his way to fuel his ego? Is this a Brian Fox wrapped a little differently? I understand there have been ties to Fox for years now between Fix and Fox. Names seem very close.

Then we have the inconsistency issues of Randy Hughes, Bill Wright and Doug Parker. Cleary we currently have Parker and Wright on council who both supported and spent nearly $2 Million on the design of Diley Road in 2003 but in 2004 waffled because they received a little heat from the Diley Road residents. Here we have a commission member that changes his position in the very same manner that Parker,Sabatino and Wright did over the Diley Road project. No reason just wanted to get their names in the paper.

Of course we all remember Randy Hughes who flipped on the Commercial Zoning behind Kroger?’s in 1999 once Daryl asked to turn a planned business park into single family homes.

So we have on the public record a person that is wanting to grandstand and make an issue where there are none and at the expense of his fellow commission members. That is what the three minority members of council are currently doing. I am afraid that Mr. Fix is a new packaged advocate for growth coming to our election booth soon.


By Council Observer

Another similarity

In checking the attendance record of Fix, I see where he emulated Parker early on in his lack of attendance at P&Z meetings.

Is this where that ''Parkertino'' moniker is coming from?

Well voters, here's how I see it to be. Team for Change 05 vs. Team for the Good Ol' Days.

Sorry Parkertino and Sabatino, those days weren't all that good. Bye Bye.....

By Council Watcher