PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL,
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2010
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL: Mr. Blake called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Roll was taken as
follows: Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer were present. Mr. Binkley was absent. He had advised the Clerk he would not be able to attend due to a work obligation. Others present were Bill Vance, Susan Crotty, Joe Henderson, Mitch Banchefsky, Greg Bachman, Lynda Yartin, Karen Risher, Andy Wasserstrom, James Brooks, Ebony Fitch, Lisa Johnson, Tim McCarthy, Melissa Brofford, Kirk Paisley, Stan Young, Mr. Raju and Bob Josten.
2. A. Approval of
minutes of September 14, 2010 meeting: Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr.
Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas and Mrs. Evans voting “Yea”. Motion
passed, 6-0.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. Review and request for a motion to
approve a Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of Athletic Fields and a new
Community Center for PYAA’s Sports Complex located within the Wellington Park
Subdivision (TABLED 4/13/10).
B. Review and request for a motion to
approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for
Architectural for Huntington Bank located at
C. Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a Daycare at Total Deliverance Ministries located at 122 West Church St.
Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated that the applicant is proposing a day care service at the Total Deliverance Ministries located at 122 West Church Street. The church is currently zoned R6 residential, which requires a Conditional Use Permit for a day care. The proposed plan does not appear to alter the building or the site. Staff supports the Conditional Use Permit for the Day Care for Total Deliverance Ministries that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That the church shall identify sufficient drop-off area for the day care.
2. That an outdoor play area shall be identified that meets the requirement
of 100 square feet per child enrolled in the facility.
3. That the percentage of site coverage by all principal and accessory buildings and outdoor play area shall be calculated by the applicant prior to zoning certificate approval.
Mr. Blake clarified that items one, two and three will be addressed in the zoning certificate approval process and is not part of what we are doing tonight. Ms Ebony Fitch stated she is the applicant and that she did not have any questions.
Mr. Hackworth clarified that the
drop off point will be on
Mr. Bosch moved to approve the
Conditional Use Permit for the Day Care for Total Deliverance Ministries at
1.
That the church shall identify sufficient drop-off area for the day care.
2. That an outdoor play area shall be
identified that meets the requirement of 100 square feet per child enrolled in
the facility.
3. That the percentage of site coverage by
all principal and accessory buildings and outdoor play area shall be calculated
by the applicant prior to zoning certificate approval.
Mr.Nicholas seconded the motion; Roll call was taken with Mr.
Sauer, Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Blake voting
“Yea. Motion passed, 6-0.
D. Review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive Thru for Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers located just south of the Offices at Stonecreek on State Route 256.
Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated that the applicant is proposing to develop the 0.89 acre site for a Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers restaurant that will front the west side of State Route 256 in an area just south of the Offices at Stonecreek on Stonecreek Drive South. The owner is proposing a drive thru along the south side of the building. Staff supports the Conditional Use Permit for a drive thru that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following condition:
1. That the drive thru shall be striped clearly to separate it from the driving lanes.
Mr. Kirk Paisley stated he is with
M-A Architects. Mr. Tim McCarthy stated
he is with Raising Cane’s. Mr. Hackworth
stated his concern is he does not think people will pay attention to the exit
signs and if the building was reversed the drive thru could be relocated to the
other side. Mr. Paisley stated that they
put a lot of thought into the layout and felt that this is the lesser of two
evils with this site as with this plan the building front faces
Mr. McCarthy stated a suggestion
that will perhaps help ease Mr. Hackworth’s concern would be to modify the curb
cut so it will curve and direct drivers back into the flow of traffic and out
to the back. Then the only exit to the
site would be off
Mr. Hackworth stated this would be a better option. There were no further questions or comments.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Conditional Use Plan for the drive thru
for Raising Cane’s that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and
the following condition:
1. That the drive thru shall be striped
clearly to separate it from the driving lanes.
Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Evans and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea”. Motion passed, 6-0.
E. Review and request for a motion to approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan, Architectural, Landscaping and Lighting for Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers located just south of the Offices at Stonecreek on State Route 256.
Mr. Henderson
reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated the applicant is
proposing to build a 2,722 square feet Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers
Restaurant just south of the Offices at Stonecreek on Hill Road North. There will be two access points. One would go through an existing drive to the
rear of the building that would go through the Equity office complex and
connect to
Jason Dolan of Glavan Feher Architects stated that they are the architect firm for the City and
have reviewed this building in comparison with the City’s Nonresidential Design Standards
and found the scale, massing and materials to be appropriate for the site. Mr. Dolan stated that on
the rear elevation there is a painted wood enclosure that acts as a screen for the rear door of
the restaurant and he recommended that this be brick and block to match the rest of the building
and that the door should remain as wood. The Nonresidential Design Standards require that
a service structure is brick or block and this enclosure would be considered to be under
the same guidelines as a dumpster. The roofs over the entry towers are metal and this is
not permitted without a waiver and they do recommend that it be approved. The metal roofs
compliment the material palette, they offer an extended life span and minimize maintenance
and repairs. Mr. Dolan stated that on the window glazing they request that the applicant submit
samples of the type of material and color for review and approval. There is a neon wall wash
light around the top of the building and further definition as to color, size and how this will be
mounted is required. The proposed locations for the wall sconce lighting are also required.
Mr. Henderson stated that the awnings and canopies are shown as stainless steel metal and this
will also require a waiver. Mr. Henderson stated the dumpster enclosure is shown with metal
doors and staff suggests that this be wooden doors as per the Nonresidential Design Standards.
The landscaping plan shows a good mixture of trees and bushes. There is an existing mound on
the site and they are not proposing to change that. They are proposing street trees. They are not
showing
a line of continuous landscaping material along
this. They are proposing eight pole lights that appear to be 16 feet high aluminum poles that
will meet our design standards. They also propose a mix of lights on the building. There would
be four gooseneck style fixtures, three over the mural on the south elevation and one on the north
side. There will be lights under all of the awnings and canopies marking the entrances as well as
lighting the building. The white neon wall wash light will be along the roof of the building and
will be underneath so only the wash of the light will be visible and not the light itself.
Staff supports the Certificate of Appropriateness for Site Plan, Architecture, Landscaping and Lighting that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That the applicant shall work with the City Engineer to determine the appropriate width of the driveway entrance in the southeast corner.
2. That all mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view
3. That the wood fence along the rear of the building shall be replaced with a brick wall and have wood doors.
4. That
a continuous buffer of landscaping along
5. That the neon wall wash light source shall not be visible.
And the following waivers for the Nonresidential Design Standards in Appendix IV would be required:
1. That the awnings and canopies shall be made of canvas or other durable non-glossy outdoor grade fabric unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. That the standing seam metal roof for the building as proposed shall not
be allowed, unless waived by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Kirk Paisley stated he is with M-A Architects and Mr. Tim McCarthy stated he is with Raising Cane’s and has no questions expressed is thanks to Mr. Schultz, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Bachman and the rest of staff for working with them and that they have been fantastic to work
with. Mr. Hackworth clarified that on item one regarding the driveway it should read as the southeast corner. Mr. McCarthy stated that item one in the conditions has been addressed with
the barriers discussed in the conditional use permit and that for item two the mechanical equipment is now screened from view and is at least six inches below the top of the screening. On item three, the area inside the fencing is a staging area for deliveries and boxes as well as a place for employee breaks. The wood fence sits up off the curb about six inches and that is for ventilation as there is a floor drain in the enclosure and this is frequently sprayed off. Mr. McCarthy stated there is no problem with complying with the landscaping in item four. Mr. McCarthy displayed a sample of the neon wall wash lighting in item five. He stated the lighting is placed under the metal coping and during the day it looks like part of the coping. At night the neon wall wash will only wash down to the first level of the cornice seen on the elevations and until you are directly underneath the light you cannot see the neon bulb. Mr. Bosch clarified that this will be a white light.
Mr. Sauer stated he has a concern
regarding the conditional use permit that was approved and the drive thru. The
result is that it will move vehicles around the back of the building, then
weave around and go back through the parking lots by the offices. Mr. Bachman
stated this will go through Equity’s parking lot. Mr. Sauer stated his concern
is this could be a bad mixture and is a lengthy trip out of a restaurant. Mr. Paisley stated he agrees with Mr. Sauer
in a perfect situation however this does address Mr. Bachman’s concern with
eliminating the left turn out onto
Mr. McCarthy stated that the site plan drawing is accurate as to where the buildings are located. Mr. Hackworth stated the building in the back near the exit area for this is project is not currently in existence and will be on Equity’s property. Mr. Hackworth clarified that there are two dumpster sites located on the site, one is for Raising Cane’s and one is for the Equity property. The dumpster for Raising Cane’s is accessible to trash trucks from both the front and back of the site. Mr. Hackworth clarified there is a sidewalk that connects the back parking spaces to the front door and goes into the side of the enclosure and this is for safety reasons.
Mrs. Evans stated that she agrees with Mr. Sauer regarding the exit, she liked it as it was first presented. When you enter and have to bypass the drive thru, go all the way around the building to get into the drive thru lane and then go all the way around the building again to exit it seems
crowded and she thinks this might hurt business. Mr. McCarthy stated this is an excellent point and is why their drive thru is located where it is. Mr. Bosch stated he would take Mr. Bachman’s
recommendation a step
further. He would like to see the
entrance created as one way in from Hill Road, keep the drive thru as it is, do
away with two lane in front of the building and change it to one way, go into
the drive thru, come out via a curb island that directs you back out, go
straight out the back and at end make a hard right onto Stonecreek South and
come out at the light. Mr. Bosch stated this brings people in from
Mr. McCarty stated people will
drive whatever direction they decide, even going the wrong way. Mr. Paisley stated at one time they did have
this as one way travel across the front and changed to the current layout due
to parking issues. Mr. Hackworth stated that eventually full access to
Mr. Bosch stated he likes the lighting fixtures for the parking lot. He clarified that other than the three gooseneck lights over the mural, the rest of the wall lights are either under the awnings or are can lights under the canopy. Mr. Bosch clarified that the metal awnings that are not flat are held up by a triangular shaped tube and that awnings project out from the building for two and one half feet and are there to shelter sunlight from people in the restaurant. He also clarified that the dumpster where the sidewalk ends is on Equity property. Mr. Bosch stated he would like to see the dumpster shifted a bit so that the sidewalk could be placed where it needs to be. Mr. McCarthy stated that most of the parking back there will be employee parking. Mr. Hackworth stated he thinks the concern is a child jumping off the curb and being hidden from the view of traffic by the dumpster enclosure and if the dumpster and enclosure were moved to the north you could extend the sidewalk straight out. Mr. Bosch stated he realizes this is spending money to move someone else’s dumpster but it would be the right fix. Mr. McCarthy stated he has been told this dumpster has been moved three times. The trucks picking up the trash had asked for it to be moved so they could have a straight line in and out. Mr. Bosch stated if it is just shoved straight up the path it still lines up and gives you your path for the sidewalk and that this is something that is very important. Mr. Bosch clarified this is a four feet sidewalk.
Mr. Blake stated he likes the use of the brick transitions and the neon wall wash is a nice calming effect with the down lighting. The Commission in the past has been a proponent of canvas awnings. He stated the standing seam awnings and capping will look well and live up to the test of time. Mr. Blake further stated that his one concern is the corral area they have proposed and if the brick is carried out on this there would still be a way for drainage underneath and it would then fit into the scheme of what the City has looked for in the past.
Mr. Nicholas clarified that neon is allowable if the tubes are hidden and only the light is seen. He stated if you are right under these you will be able to see the tubes. He further clarified that
the light just to the left of the front door is a wall sconce and the one at the other entry is under the canopy. Mr. Nicholas stated that regarding the enclosure area being referred to as the corral
area, he agrees this should be
brick with a wood door as the code requires brick or stone to match the
building and be wood doors. Mr. Paisley stated they do not have any issues with
changing the door to painted wood. Mr. Nicholas clarified that there are eight
pole lights and their location and that the permitted light levels at property
lines for commercial is that at 10 feet from the property line it is one foot
and for residential it’s .03 and that there is no residential in this
area. Mr. Nicholas stated if it were
solely up to him he would do away with the access at the southeast corner. He
appreciates that they need to get people into the site. He concurs that we should give serious
consideration to one way into the site. Mr. Nicholas stated he had done a rough
drawing and reviewed his suggestions. He stated his suggestion starts at the
point of the drive thru window and facing east and starts with putting in a
raised concrete curb with striping to a pork chop at the end of that to force
traffic to go around. Then, do away with the two-way and make it one-way. At
the drive by lane past the drive thru, extend that into the grass and do the
same thing to force traffic around to the north with the curb and grass
island. He further stated that perhaps a
directional sign in the grass island pointing to the north stating something
like to exit to
Mr. Nicholas stated he has a concern about people stepping off the sidewalk by Equity’s dumpster. He suggested running a four feet walk around the backside of the dumpster enclosure. Mr. Paisley stated they did consider that and their concern is that it would make it awkward when traveling along the bypass lane to the north of the building and coming down, around and dipping back into the flow of traffic and so they wanted to keep it as a straight line to get out to Stonecreek. Mr. Nicholas stated he understood that however he did not think it would be that awkward. He further stated that he has a concern regarding the eight spaces by the dumpster location. A pathway over to the sidewalk along the dumpster on the north side would be a good idea because people will be walking along there and need to navigate the drive thru traffic to get around to the door on the north side of the building. Mr. Nicholas stated if we do put in pork chops or some type of curbing to direct the two lanes around the front of the building his suggestion would be that the parking space in the extreme southeast corner parking space be eliminated as they would then be backing out into traffic.
Mr. Bachman stated his recommendation is to go with curbing as Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Nicholas mentioned. He stated his recommendation is to go with the pork chop suggestions and one way in. Mr. Sauer clarified that the Fire Department will be consulted as they recommend two points of entry and exit access. Mr. Bachman stated they would be consulted. Mr. Sauer stated he has a concern with running traffic through an area where there is parking and
he would prefer to close out the
parking spaces. Mr. Bachman stated there may not be enough parking spaces if
those are eliminated. Mr. McCarthy
stated that at peak times they estimate 30 cars per hour. Mr. Bosch stated most of the traffic will
come in from
Mr. Hackworth stated he has a concern with the trees ripping up the sidewalk. Mr. Bill Vance stated the City does have a Tree Commission and we are attempting to get our Tree Commission active on a monthly basis to address these issues. We have a lot of trees in subdivisions and do have sidewalk issues and in most cases they go hand in hand. We need to run this concern through the Tree Commission for their feedback and then go forward. Mr. McCarthy stated they are Bradford Pears to continue with the trees that are already there. Mr. Blake clarified that the staff’s recommendations are that everyone is fine with everything except the access. The waivers will require 2/3 of the present Commission members vote in order to be waived. Mr. Blake clarified that the conditions and the waivers can be included in one motion. Mrs. Evans clarified that the requirement is four to six feet high undulating mounding along fronting the public roadway. Mr. Bosch clarified the reason for the undulating mounding is to deflect lighting coming onto the public street. Mr. Blake stated these elevations are below street level and he recommends that the applicant work with staff when they get to the landscaping. Mr. Henderson stated the condition could be that the applicant shall work with staff to modify the mounding.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the
Site Plan, Architectural, Landscape and Lighting for Raising Cane’s with the
following conditions:
1. That
the applicant shall work with the City Engineer to determine the appropriate
width of the one way entrance in the southeast corner, creating a barrier to
direct the drive thru traffic to circle back around and exit all site traffic
to the west onto Stonecreek Drive South .
2. That
all mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.
3. That
the wood fence along the rear of the building shall be replaced with a brick
wall and have wood doors.
4. That
a continuous buffer of landscaping along
5. That
the neon wall wash light shall not be visible
6. That
the applicant shall work with staff to modify the existing mounding to achieve
the intent of the requirement.
And the following waivers:
1. That the awnings and canopies shall me
made of canvas or other durable non-glossy outdoor grade fabric unless waived
by two-thirds of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. That the standing seam metal roof for
he building as proposed shall not be allowed unless waived by two-thirds of the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion. Roll call was taken Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans,
Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake and Mr. Bosch voting “Yea”. Motion
passed, 6-0.
F. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Building Signage for Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers located just south of the Offices at Stonecreek on State Route 256.
Mr. Henderson reviewed the report
provided to the Commission. He stated
the applicant is proposing building and ground signage for the 2,722 square
feet Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers Restaurant located just south of the
Offices at Stonecreek on State Route 256.
Each proposed building sign would encompass 18 square feet, be
approximately three feet tall and six feet wide. The proposed building signs would have five
colors, red, white, black, yellow and orange.
The zoning code requires that no sign have more than three colors. The proposed sign appears to comply with the
channel letter requirement. The proposed mural appears to encompass 109.8
square feet, approximately 8.21 feet tall and 13.375 feet wide. Section 1292.07
stated that wall signs in C3 zoned districts are to be a maximum of 16 square
feet. The proposed mural would have five
colors, red, white, black, yellow and orange. The zoning code requires that no
sign shall have more than three colors.
The applicant is proposing a ground sign that would be located on
Staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That the bricks for the ground sign shall match the building.
2. That the width of the brick columns shall be wider than the channel letter cabinets.
3. That the height of the ground sign
shall not exceed 8 feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade along
Mr. Kirk Paisley of M-A Architects and Mr. Tim McCarthy stated they are here to represent the applicant and did not have any comments or questions.
Mr. Nicholas clarified if this is approved as is they will only be allowed to have three colors, a matte finish and channel letters. Mr. Nicholas clarified that the applicants will work with staff on approval for the directional and menu board signs and stated he is fine with that.
Mr. Nicholas suggested that the brick be brought up to meet the bottom oval of the sign. Mrs. Evans clarified that the sign is lighted. She stated she would like to see the brick meet the bottom oval of the sign also. Mr. Nicholas clarified the applicant is willing to do that he would suggest waiving the 75 percent and take the column to meet the curve of where the brick meets the oval. Mr. Bosch stated he agrees with bringing the brick to the half-way point and filling in underneath the oval and he likes the mural and would prefer the sign be three colors. Mr. Paisley stated they could eliminate the orange and bring it to four colors. Mr. Blake clarified that would bring it to black, white, red and yellow. Mrs. Evans stated she agrees with the four color compromise and agrees that the mural sign will be look nice, blend the old with the new and keep with the tradition of the company. Mr. Blake stated he did not have a problem with the four colors. Mr. McCarthy stated that their preferred choice would be the five colors, however he understands the compromise regarding going with four colors. He appreciates the understanding of the mural as it is an important part of their organization. Mr. Hackworth clarified they applied with five color, our code is three, and the applicant has eliminated the orange. Mr. Hackworth stated he does not have a problem with going with four colors and eliminating the orange. Mr. Sauer stated he likes the mural sign and supports it as is. The way it looks on the side of the building is unique. Mr. Bosch stated he cannot support anything other than our standard three color sign. If we are going to start going away from the Nonresidential Design Standards then perhaps thee standards need to be changed so that we can remain consistent. Mrs. Evans stated exception was made for Dairy Queen to have four colors as it was their logo and Sonic has four colors. Mr. Bosch stated there shouldn’t be and if there are we need to address that. Mr. Henderson stated Sonic was approved for three colors, we made them amend it. Mr. Henderson stated this would be investigated. He stated KFC has four as we allowed the Colonel his skin color, and Dairy Queen was installed with four colors. Mr. Nicholas stated he agrees with Mr. Bosch as we have held other applicants to three colors.
Mr. Bosch clarified that if we keep the mural with staff recommendations as written we have to add a condition to allow the wall mural.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve with the following conditions:
1. That the bricks for the ground sign
shall match the building.
2. That
the width of the brick columns shall be wider than the channel letter cabinets.
3. That
the height of the ground sign shall not exceed eight feet above the adjacent
sidewalk grade along
4. That
the brick on the ground sign shall fill in the area under the curve of the
bottom of the oval.
5. That the wall mural shall be allowed as a special case sign as per the code.
Mr. Nicholas seconded the motion.
Mr. Sauer clarified this motion leaves the colors as three as is the code. Mr. Hackworth clarified to approve as is will require four “Yea” votes. Mr. Blake clarified that if this fails then another motion could be made.
Roll call was taken with Mr.
Hackworth, Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Bosch voting “Yea” and Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake and
Mrs. Evans voting “Nay”. Motion failed, 3-3.
Mr. Blake clarified the floor is open for a second motion.
Mrs. Evans moved to approve with the following conditions:
1. That
the bricks for the ground sign shall match the building.
2. That
the width of the brick columns shall be wider than the channel letter cabinets.
3. That
the height of the ground sign shall not exceed eight feet above the adjacent
sidewalk grade along
4. That
the brick on the ground sign shall fill in the area under the curve of the
bottom of the oval.
5. That
the wall mural shall be allowed as special case sign per the code.
6. That
the mural shall be five colors and the remainder of the signs shall be four
colors.
Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll
call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake and Mrs. Evans voting
“Yea” and Mr. Bosch and Mr. Nicholas voting “Nay”. Motion
passed, 4-2.
G. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground and Building signage for Comfort Inn located at 1800 Hill Road North.
Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated the applicant is proposing to amend building and ground signage for Comfort Inn, formerly known as Holiday Inn Express located at 1800 Hill Road North. The applicant is proposing to change the wall sign on the west elevation from channel letters to a cabinet sign and is proposing a sign face change to the existing ground sign. The sign appears to be six colors, blue, white, black, yellow, orange and red. The logo is greater than 10 percent of the sign. The existing sign appears to have four colors. The zoning code requires three colors and that the building signs be channel letters.
Staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements that includes channel letters and three colors.
Mr. Stan Young with Allied Sign stated he is the applicant. He stated that the logo is a federally registered trademark that is used across the country. The colors of the logo are extremely important to the image of the company. Channel letters are usually neon filled and typically are very labor intensive. The owners have indicated they have had a lot of maintenance issues with the current sign. With cabinet signs there are high output lamps with less energy consumed and they are easier to service.
Mr. Nicholas clarified that with
channel letters the back lighting can be LED or neon and that LED would be an
option with the channel letters. Mrs.
Evans stated she feels they should be allowed to have the four colors. Mr. Hackworth stated he has trouble with
approving six colors. Mrs. Evans stated
she likes the sign as it is. Mr. Sauer
stated his preference is for the channel letter. He clarified that the code allows
10 percent of the sign to be the logo and this appears to be 17 percent of the
sign. Mr. Raju stated he is the owner and the trademark is significant. The franchise, Choice Hotels, has worked very
hard at reimaging their hotels and approximately 1000 Comfort Inn hotels across
the country have this sign. Mr. Henderson stated the code reads that no
individual signs shall have more than three colors, including black and
white. A registered trademark with
multiple colors is permitted to encompass 10 percent of the sign area. All signs shall have the matte finish. Mr. Henderson stated minus the sun in the
logo, there are three colors, blue, white and the black that outlines Comfort
Inn. On the ground sign, if they made the sun ten percent of the total sign
area, they could apply for that and not have to come before the Commission.
They are here because there are two issues, one that they want to do a cabinet
sign instead of channel letters and the other is that they do not want to make
the logo smaller. Mr. Raju stated that
they need all of the signage with the logo in its entirety because access to
the hotel is difficult. Mr. Henderson stated that this is a registered
trademark with the
raise the top of the blue a foot or so it would meet the ten percent. Mr. Blake clarified that Mr. Hackworth’s proposal is to basically make the sign larger and reduce the sun so that it would meet our code.
Mr. Bosch stated he likes the channel letters and shrinking the logo so that it meets the ten percent requirement. Mr. Henderson stated that the existing signage for Holiday Inn is much larger than what they are proposing. Mr. Bosch clarified if we modify the ground sign to meet code and modify the building sign to be channel letters and the correct size if they so desire than it would meet the code. Mr. Henderson stated they would not get the cabinet. Mr. Bosch stated they could go to the LED lights. Mr. Blake clarified that the difference in cost between what they submitted and the individual letters is $5,200. The channel letters are more expensive than the cabinet. Mr. Raju stated the extra expense would be a burden and that they already have the problem of a difficult access to the hotel.
Mr. Sauer moved to approve the Comprehensive Sign Plan for the ground and building signage for Comfort Inn with staff recommendations. Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea” and Mrs. Evans and Mr. Blake voting “Nay”. Motion passed, 4-2.
H. Review and request for a motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage for Volunteer Energy located at 790 Windmiller Drive.
Ms Crotty reviewed the report provided to the Commission. The applicant is proposing a 4.125 feet high and 10 feet wide ground sign, approximately 41.25 square feet, in front of the Volunteer Energy building. The sign is internally illuminated. The sign will have brick columns extending up the sides of the sign and appear to be wide enough to obscure the cabinet. Code requires a brick base and the sign as presented does not show that. Ms Crotty further stated that the proposed location is in a City utility easement. The engineers have determined there are sewer lines in that easement, however they are fairly deep and location of the sign does not present a problem, however this is at the risk of the owner should there be repairs to the sewer line. Ms Crotty further stated there is an easement along the side of the property and the City engineer is not aware of what that easement is for.
Staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Ground Signage that complies with the minimum zoning code requirements and the following conditions:
1. That the brick on the sign shall match the brick on the building.
2. That there shall be no overflow light created by the spotlights for the ground sign.
3. That the height of the ground sign shall not exceed seven feet above the elevation of the parking lot grade adjacent to the sign.
4. That landscaping shall be installed around the sign instead of a brick base.
Ms Crotty clarified that Item 4 in the report should not be there. The history of this is that a few years ago Volunteer Energy came in for a sign and the plan was to match the adjacent property’s sign. The plan that was previously approved does show landscaping. Mr. Blake clarified that the applicant has brought in a new proposal for the sign.
Mr. James Brook of Advanced Sign stated he is here to represent the applicant. Mr. Blake clarified that the current proposal has the bottom of the sign filled in with concrete and that the location has changed and this is the proposed new location.
Mr. Bosch stated he thinks we need the base to be brick so it will meet the code. Mr. Nicholas stated he thinks the applicant can work with staff to determine the appropriate height with respect to the external illumination and landscaping. Mr. Banchefsky stated if there is an easement involved that will be between the applicant and whoever holds the easement and if the City wants to verify that we can ask the applicant to submit their findings however the City does not control that. Mr. Nicholas clarified if the sign is located on the City’s sewer easement that part of the approval process should involve a letter stating the applicant understands the sign is being put on an easement.
Mr. Bosch moved to approved with the following conditions 1-3 and
removing condition 4:
1. That the brick on the sign shall match
the brick on the building.
2. That
there shall be no overflow light created by the spotlights for the ground sign.
3. That
the height of the ground sign shall not exceed seven feet above the elevation
of the parking lot grade adjacent to the sign.
Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr.
Hackworth, Mr. Bosch and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea”. Motion
passed 6-0.
Mr. Henderson clarified that this was for the second location.
Mr. Blake stated he would excuse
himself from Item I and left the meeting.
I. A public hearing and review and request for a motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Horvath Towers LLC., for a Cell tower located at 671 Windmiller Drive.
Mr. Bosch opened the public hearing at 10:15 P.M.
Ms Crotty stated the applicant is
requesting to construct a wireless communications facility tower toward the
rear of the property at
Bob Josten stated he is an
attorney representing Sylvia Cook, the owner of three acres at the southwest
corner of
Ms Melissa Brofford stated she is
here on behalf of the applicant,
Ms Terry McMurray stated she lives across the street from this site in Windmiller Pond. She stated she can now look out her windows and see a water tower and bowling alley and if approved she would see this tower. She further stated there are other locations in Pickerington where a tower could be built without having homes right around it. She thinks the addition of this tower will make her neighborhood look like an industrial park and she does not want it there.
There being no further comments, Mr. Bosch closed the public hearing at 10:26 P.M.
Mr. Henderson stated than in Commission members packets there were letters from two individuals that were not able to attend this meeting.
Ms Brofford stated she had one other thing to add regarding the setbacks and safety. It is unlikely that this tower would fall however if it did, it would collapse in on itself and the fall rate would be half the height of the tower so it would be 80 feet and your code does allow some discretion.
Mr. Sauer stated he understands
the need for this technology, however we are building another tower near this
location. After reading the letters in
his packet and hearing the comments tonight, he is not able to support the tower
at this location. Mr. Hackworth
clarified this would be a five carrier monopole. Mr. Hackworth clarified in the City there is
a tower at
Mr. Nicholas stated with the information he has at this time he can’t support this. He feels staff has done their due diligence and they do not support it. Mrs. Evans stated she feels as if they do not have enough information to make a decision at this time and clarified that this can be tabled. Mr. Banchefsky stated it can be tabled, however because this is involves a federal communications act we have a 90 day window in which to make a decision and his understanding is that this application was filed on September 13th. Ms Brofford stated that she was not expecting a decision at this time and did expect that it would be tabled and are more than willing to entertain than.
Mr. Bosch stated there is not enough information available to be able to support this tonight.
Mr. Hackworth moved to table; Mrs. Evans seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mrs.
Evans, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea”. Motion
passed, 5-0.
J. A public hearing and review and request for a motion to approve text amendments to Appendix IV Nonresidential Design Standards to prohibit outdoor patio curtains.
Mr. Blake returned to the meeting at 10:40 P.M.
Ms Crotty stated a draft ordinance has been provided to the Commission. From past meetings it was determined that the majority of members wanted to prohibit side curtains of canvas or vinyl. The proposed ordinance would amend section 1286.34(b) to add that provided that no such outdoor service facility shall include temporary or removable side curtains or any temporary or seasonal design elements based on canvas, vinyl or other similar materials.
Mr. Bosch opened the public hearing for further comment at 10:41 P.M. There were no comments or questions and the public hearing closed at 10:42 P.M.
Ms Crotty stated that if someone comes in with a proposal then two-thirds of the commission could waive this.
Mr. Hackworth moved to approve and forward to the Service Committee; Mrs.
Evans seconded the motion. Roll call
was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans and Mr. Hackworth
voting “Yea” and Mr. Sauer voting “Nay”.
Motion passed, 5-1.
4. REPORTS
A. Planning and Zoning Director
1. BZA Report. Mr. Henderson stated BZA did not have a quorum in September and they met tonight and all four cases were approved as submitted. Three were for decks or patios and one was for a front yard fence. There will be one case for the October 28th meeting for a front yard fence.
2. FCRPC.
Mr. Henderson stated at the last meeting and there were no issues in or
near
3.
Discussion regarding potential
expansion of the Olde Pickerington Historic Business District. Mr. Henderson
stated the City is working with the OPVBA on discussion for different
opportunities and upcoming events they are working on. . Crotty stated that a copy of Chapter 1478
pertaining to the Olde Downtown Business District was included in the
Commission’s packet that can be used if the district boundaries are expanded as
this would also apply to the houses and this is something to consider when you
look at those options. Mr. Henderson stated there will be two sign plans coming
in for next months meeting and they are within this district. Mr. Vance stated that in 2011 there we will
be investigating a lot of
5. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Commission Discussion. Mr. Banchefsky stated he would distribute information on the federal requirements you have to follow regarding cell towers in the next packet. Mrs. Evans stated within the past few days she has had three business clients mention to her that the City is difficult to work with and they don’t want to encourage their business friends to come into the City and she has advised them there have been changes and procedure put in place to make it easier. Mr. Vance clarified that this is not due to a recent experience someone had. Mrs. Evans stated that this is the perception they had from past experience. Mr. Blake stated there were questions and comments about our sign regulations. The Chamber of Commerce recently sent a survey out. There were 440 emails sent, 129 were opened and there were only six responses. He stated that is less than one percent that responded. Mr. Vance said we provide the opportunity for their input and as we move forward we can say that we provided that opportunity to coordinate change and there were only six responses.
B. Refugee Road Corridor Study. Ms Crotty stated there was nothing to report at this time.
C. Code Enforcement. Mr. Nicholas stated there is a catch basin at
the northeast corner of Borland and Center near the sidewalk that is eroding
and on verge of collapse in the near future.
Ms Crotty stated she would have
staff check on that. Mr. Nicholas stated
a sign recently went up on
6. ADJOURNMENT: There being nothing further, the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:14 P.M. on October 12, 2010.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
______________________________
Karen I. Risher, Administrative Clerk
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Susan Crotty, Development
Director