PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2009

 

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

 

1.         ROLL CALL.  Mr. Blake called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. with roll call as follows:  Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer were present.  Mr. Binkley, Mr. Nicholas, and Mrs. Evans were absent.  Others present were:  Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Joe Henderson, Mitch Banschefsky, Bill Yaple, John Monebrake, LouAnn Bepler-Todd, Harry Myer, Dave Gilmore, and others. 

 

2.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF August 11, 2009, Regular Meeting.  Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 4-0.  

 

3.         SCHEDULED MATTERS: 

 

A.        A public hearing and review and request for a motion to approve a Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan for the approximate 16 acre Ebright/Homestead parcels from R-4 (Residential) to PC-3 (Planned Community District) for a Retail, Office, and 4 Seasons Sports Complex Development located at 1010 and 1040 Refugee Road just west of Hill Road Plaza (former Big Bear).  (TABLED, 08/11/09) 

 

B.        Review and request for motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for the Violet Township Maintenance Building at 490 Center Street.  Mr. Henderson reviewed staff’s report presented to the Commission and stated the applicant is proposing the sign would be an old “V-plow” the Township no longer uses.  Mr. Henderson stated it appeared the sign has a shiny finish coat and Code requires it have a matte or satin finish.  Mr. Henderson further stated the Code requires ground signs to have a brick or stone base with columns extending a minimum of 75 percent up each side of the sign.  This sign appears to be attached to three concrete pillars that would stand one foot above grade and does not have columns.  The sign would not be illuminated.  Mr. Henderson continued that the Commission may approve, modify or reject a plan, and if this Commission considered approving the proposed signage for the Violet Township Maintenance Building, staff would recommend documenting justification for approving the sign.  He stated such justification could include: 

 

            (1)        The location of the site and the surrounding properties are rural in character and the unique sign would not likely create visual pollution and/or traffic safety issues along the corridor. 

            (2)        The sign could be considered nostalgic that has a direct correlation with the maintenance building use and the historical context of township duties. 

 

Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan for the Ground Signage for Violet Township Maintenance Building that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following condition:

 

                        1.         That the height of the ground sign shall not exceed eight feet above the street grade adjacent to the sign. 

 

            Mr. Bill Yaple, Director of Operations, Violet Township, stated the reason they were looking at using the snowplow for the sign is because it identifies the building as a maintenance type operation.  He stated the “V-plow” was used in the 1970s and is no longer used and other maintenance facilities around the state have used this type of signage. 

 

            Mr. Hackworth clarified the sign would be outside the site triangle and would not be lit.  Mr. Bosch further clarified the plow currently has a gloss finish and our code requires a matte or satin finish.  Mr. Bosch stated he did not have a problem with the issue of having columns on the sides, but his concern would be that the finish be brought down to what the City would consider a matte finish.  Mr. Sauer stated he concurred with Mr. Bosch regarding the finish, and the sign is in character with the building and adds an historical touch to it.  Mr. Blake stated he agreed with the location and use of the building, the sign would fit the character.  Mr. Blake clarified that currently the requirement for the matte finish is a requirement of the Code, and if this Commission were to allow less than that it would need to be a condition to the approval.  Mr. Bosch inquired if a satin finish would meet the matte finish requirement, and Mr. Schultz stated he would prefer that a condition be added to allow for the satin finish if that was what the Commission would like.  Mr. Bosch further clarified the intent is to put white rock around the bottom of the sign to look like it is sitting in snow.  Mr. Blake clarified the bottom of the plow would be at grade level.  Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for the Ground Signage for Violet Township Maintenance Building with the following conditions: 

 

            1.         That the height of the ground sign shall not exceed eight-feet above the grade adjacent to the sign.

 

            2.         That the sign shall have a matte or satin finish.

 

            3.         That the sign shall not be required to have a stone base and columns extending a minimum of 75 percent up each side of the sign. 

 

Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 4-0. 

 

C.        Review and request for a motion to approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Architecture for an Entrance Canopy for Peace United Methodist Church at 235 Diley Road. 

 

            Mr. Bosch stated due to his close attachment with the Peace United Methodist Church he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion or voting on this issue. 

 

(Mr. Bosch left the room for this discussion.)

 

            Mr. Henderson reviewed staff’s report provided to the Commission and stated the applicant is proposing to construct a canopy over the existing sidewalk to the east side entrance of the building that connects the building to the eastern parking lot.  Mr. Henderson stated the Nonresidential Design Standards states that retail, industrial, office, and civic buildings may employ standing seam metal roofing on a limited basis upon approval of the City when the material is consistent with the purpose of that section.  He stated the proposed standing seam metal roof could be justified because it would match the existing standing seam metal roof of the church.  Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness for Architecture for Peace United Methodist Church that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following waiver for architectural standards compliance in Appendix IV: 

 

            1.         That the standing seam metal roof for the canopy as proposed shall not be allowed, unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission. 

 

            Mr. John Monebrake, Advanced Awning Company, stated he was present representing the applicant and he would answer any questions anyone might have.  Mr. Sauer clarified the entire awning would be metal and the poles would be powder coated to match the standing seam.  Mr. Sauer moved to approve with the following waiver for the Architectural Standards compliance in Appendix IV would be required:

 

            1.         That the standing seam metal roof for the canopy as proposed shall not be allowed, unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission;

 

Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 3-0. 

 

(Mr. Bosch returned to the meeting.) 

 

D.        Review and request for a motion to approve an amended Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building and Ground Signage for Dairy Queen at 541 Hill Road North.  Mr. Henderson reviewed staff’s report presented to the Commission and stated the applicant changed their existing signage without applying for a zoning certificate in July 2009.  He stated the applicant is proposing to amend building and ground signage for Dairy Queen, located at 541 Hill Road North.  He continued that Dairy Queen International has instituted a new “Master Brand Logo” which apparently allows a multicolor and two color signage and the owner decided to use the multicolor signage.  Mr. Henderson stated the applicant is proposing the change the current signs on the west and east elevations of the building with the new logo and add signage under both signs.  In addition, they are proposing a sign face change for the ground sign.  Mr. Henderson stated the previous Comprehensive Sign Plan was approved in 2001 when channel letters were not required and the applicant is not proposing channel letters for the building.  Mr. Henderson further stated the code requires no more than three colors on signage and the applicant is proposing five colors.  Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following condition: 

 

            1.         That there shall be no overflow of light created by the spotlights for the building sign on the west elevation. 

 

            LouAnn Todd stated she is the owner of the Dairy Queen and Mr. Dave Gilmore stated he is the franchiser for 70 Dairy Queen stores in 34 counties in Ohio.  He stated he is a middleman between the parent company and the franchisee.  Mr. Gilmore stated the master logo was changed and this is not the first meeting he has attended regarding this situation in municipalities around Columbus.  He stated the company that represented the territory operators in this signage program were supposed to file permits, have the site clearances, etc., for each franchisee’s store.  He stated, however, the company filed bankruptcy and they were now finding out they had not gone through the proper steps before having the signage installed.  Mr. Bosch stated as far as the quantity and size of the signs he did not have any issues, however, with regard to the number of colors he would not be able to support more than the three colors.  Mr. Sauer stated it would make it difficult to enforce the code if exceptions are made for one, and not others.  He stated he agreed with Mr. Bosch and he felt the Commission has been consistent with keeping signs to the three colors.  Mr. Blake stated it appeared the Commission was not comfortable with more than three colors.  He stated three Commission members were not present this evening, so if this did not move forward or was tabled this evening, there would be three additional members that would vote on it next month.  Mr. Bosch stated the literature he had received shows a master brand logo style sign in what they call one color, but is actually two colors, that would meet our requirements.  Mr. Bosch stated further if the applicant wanted to use whatever three colors they desired, that would be fine with him.  Mr. Blake stated as he understood it, the Commission was willing to deviate from requiring the channel letters, and if they get to three colors, the Commission would be comfortable with that.  Mr. Gilmore stated if this item were tabled this evening that would give them some time to get some actual numbers together on the cost of changing the signs.  Ms Todd stated she thought she would want some time to do some research on the costs and she would request it be tabled this evening.  Mr. Bosch moved to table; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 4-0.  (TABLED)

 

4.         REPORTS:

 

A.        Planning and Zoning Director. 

 

            (1)        BZA Report.  Mr. Schultz stated the BZA did not meet due to the lack of a quorum and will meet in September.   

 

            (2)        FCRPC.  Mr. Henderson stated the Fairfield Regional Planning Commission voted to not support the rezoning in Violet Township on Refugee Road from R-2 (Single Family) to C-2 (Limited Commercial).   

 

5.         OTHER BUSINESS:

 

A.        Outdoor Patio Discussion.  Mr. Schultz stated this Commission had discussed the possibility of alternatives for the side curtains, and he would like to clarify if the Commission did want to consider other options.  Mr. Blake stated he understood the applicant for Pizza Cottage had some other examples that they would provide to the Commission.  Mr. Schultz stated he would like to know what direction the Commission would like him to follow.  Mr. Blake stated he felt there must be a way to do some type of non-permanent curtain that would be tasteful and not visible when not in use.  Mr. Bosch stated he agreed there has to be something out there that this Commission could approve, but nothing has been brought before them as yet.  Mr. Schultz stated he would do some investigating and find examples of what other communities are allowing.  Mr. Sauer stated he felt the proposal from Pizza Cottage had come the closest to what he would consider approving.  Mr. Schultz stated as he understood it, the Commission would like to see something that was semi-permanent but would be flexible enough that it could be used in the colder months.  He stated he would inform Pizza Cottage of this and perhaps they would be able to provide some examples.  Mr. Hackworth stated his concern was how to differentiate between retrofitting an existing building with this and incorporating it into a new building.  Mr. Banschefsky stated there would have to be two separate sections in the Code for those issues. 

 

B.         Commission Discussion.  Mr. Sauer ascertained Don Patron’s did get a zoning certificate for the banners outside of their restaurant.  Mr. Henderson stated all businesses are allowed three thirty-day temporary banners a year. 

 

6.         ADJOURNMENT.  There being nothing further, Mr. Sauer moved to adjourn; Mr. Blake seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Bosch voted “Aye.”  Motion carried, 4-0.  The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 8:37 P.M., September 8, 2009.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

___________________________                 

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk