PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
CITY HALL,
TUESDAY, DECEMBER
14, 2010
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. Binkley, Mr. Blake, Mr. Nicholas,
Mr. Bosch and Mr. Sauer were present.
Mrs. Evans was absent. Others
present were: Susan Crotty, Joe Henderson, Karen Risher, Mitch Banchefsky, John
Monebrake, Brian Hoy, Matt Maynard, Frank Petruziello, Seth Dorman, Mr. Buck
Wentz, Michael Kolb and others.
2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of November 9,
2010: Mr. Binkley moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr.
Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake and Mr. Nicholas voting
“Yea”. Motion passed, 6-0.
3. SCHEDULED
MATTERS:
A. A public hearing and review and request for a motion to
approve a Conditional Use Permit for Horvath Towers LLC., for a
B. Review and request for a motion to
approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Site
Plan for Seton Parish located at 500 Hill Road North. Mr. Blake stated the applicant has requested
that this be tabled. Mr. Bosch moved to table; Mr. Hackworth
seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr.
Nicholas, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
C. Review
and request for a motion to approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate
of Appropriateness for Site Plan, Landscaping, and Lighting for Windmiller
Medical Campus Phase One, Pediatric Associates located just south of Kroger’s.
Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to the Commission and stated the
applicant is proposing to develop phase one of the Windmiller Medical Campus
(lot 14). Phase one contains approximately 1.59 acres (lot 14) with a 12,500
square foot medical building with 82 parking spaces. Phase one would have a full movement curb cut
along
1. That cross access easement agreements
among Lots 10, 13, and 14 shall be recorded.
2. That the plans shall be certified by a
landscape architect before receiving a zoning certificate.
3. That all mechanical equipment shall be
screened from public view.
Mr. Seth Dorman stated he was the Development
Planner for Skilken Pickerington LLC and also present with him are Mr. Frank
Petruziello, a partner with Skilken, and Mr. Buck Wentz, the project
manager. Mr. Dorman stated they understood the
conditions and are in agreement, and would be happy to answer any questions the
Commission members might have.
Mr.
Nicholas clarified that the applicant had not brought material colors or sample
boards tonight. Ms Crotty stated that they were submitted and the architectural
consultant reviewed them. Mr. Henderson stated that the consultant’s report
refers to some of the minor aspects of the building that were not
submitted. Mr. Nicholas stated that on
the southeast corner of the building there is an angled element and the
consultant had a concern with how that would be tied into the main roof. Mr.
Nicholas clarified that this has not yet been resolved. Mr. Wentz stated this area is integral with
the building and is the part of the building that faces
Mr. Nicholas stated on the north elevation the front
entrance is facing west and there is a return that does go back to zero. The
main feature that faces the street and the main entry should be similar in
appearance. He further stated he was
fine with the applicant working this out with staff. Mr. Wentz stated that the intent was for this
area and the one at the front to be consistent with each other. Mr. Nicholas clarified the issue with the
details around the windows has not been addressed. He stated that he felt staff
and the architectural consultant could work with the applicant on this issue.
Mr. Nicholas clarified that when the building directly opposite this one is
developed it will look similar to this one and the one in the center will have
more architectural treatment as it will have two fronts.
Mr. Binkley clarified that the fire department
requirement for fire lanes is 25 feet and this submittal shows 24 feet as the
aisle width. Mr. Bachman stated he would work with the Fire Department on
this. The 24 feet is just one component
of the whole width area, 18 feet on each side of that is parking so there is
actually a 60 foot area. Mr. Binkley
clarified that the road right-of-way along
future. Mr.
Bosch stated he echoes Mr. Nicholas comments on the entrance and the massing on
the area that faces
Mr. Hackworth clarified that the Columbia Gas
easement mentioned by the Staff Engineer is not related as this is lot 14 and
the easement is on lot 13. He further
clarified that the trees being planted along the fence by the South Central sub
station will not get so large that they will interfere with the sub
station. Mr. Petruziello stated that the
fence is actually three or four feet inside of South Central’s property line. Mr. Hackworth clarified that at this time there
will not be sidewalk along
Mr. Nicholas stated that he noticed that the
restrooms and some other plumbing fixtures are in such locations that the roof
penetrations might be toward public view. Mr. Petruziello stated that the
stacks do not have to go straight up and they will keep all of the roof penetrations
on the side toward the sub station. Mr.
Henderson stated that one of our codes is that any penetrations have to match
the color of the roof.
Mr. Nicholas
moved to approve with the following conditions:
1. That cross access
easement agreements along Lots 10, 13 and 14 shall be recorded.
2. That the plans shall be
certified by a landscape architect before receiving a zoning certificate.
3. That all mechanical
equipment shall be screened from public view.
Mr. Bosch
seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr.
Nicholas, Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Sauer voting
“Yea”. Motion passed, 6-0.
D. Review and request for a motion to
approve Building and Ground Signage for Windmiller Medical Campus Phase One, Pediatric Associates located just
south of Kroger’s. Mr. Henderson
reviewed the report provided to Commission members and stated the applicant is
proposing building signage for the 12,500 square foot Pediatric Associates building
on Lot 14 and ground signage for all of Windmiller Medical Campus located just
south of Kroger’s along Old Diley Road.
There would be two ground signs, one would be located in an off-premise
easement located along
Mr. Henderson stated the other ground sign is
smaller and located along
Staff supports the amended Comprehensive Sign Plan
for the Building and Ground Signage that complies with the minimum zoning code
requirements and the following conditions:
1. That the height of the ground sign
along Hill Road North shall not exceed 17 feet above the adjacent sidewalk
grade next to the sign.
2. That the height of the ground signs on
lot 10 shall not exceed 9.5 feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade next to the
sign.
3. That the bricks for the ground sign
shall match the building.
Mr. Dorman stated he was the Development Planner for
Skilken Development. He stated that they had received the staff reports and
they are in agreement with the conditions and will comply with the color
requirements. Mr. Nicholas stated this
is different look in that the brick does not cover the end of the sign however
he thinks this is great. Mr. Binkley
clarified that the signs are internally illuminated. He clarified that the original colors on the
ground signs were silver, black, blue, red and green. It will actually be
silver and black, and will shine through as white when it is lit at night. Mr. Bosch stated with the rounded or bowed
area the sign will not be open, it will look nice and he welcomes the different
look.
Mr. Hackworth clarified that when lot 12 develops
there would be a sign allowed there and there will not be a lot of room there. Mr. Petruziello stated the
Mr. Binkley
moved to approve with the following conditions:
1. That the height of the ground sign
along
2. That the height of the
ground signs on lot 10 shall not exceed 9.5 feet above the adjacent sidewalk
grade next to the sign.
3. That the bricks for the ground sign
shall match the building.
Mr. Bosch
seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Bosch, Mr.
Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth and Mr. Blake voting “Yea”. Motion
passed, 6-0.
E. Review and request for a motion to
approve an amended Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Patio for Happy
Endings Pub located at 1128 Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report
provided to the Commission and stated the applicant is proposing to amend Happy
Endings Pub’s Conditional Use Permit for an outdoor patio to allow seasonal
side curtains on the canopy. The
seasonal side curtains would be made of a flame retardant polymer fabric and
clear plastic windows. The patio is
approximately 276 square feet and has seating for approximately 26
patrons. This is exactly as it was
presented in January of 2010 when the applicant received a Conditional Use
Permit to allow the side curtains conditionally until April 15, 2010,
or until guidelines for patio enclosures are established. At this time no patio
enclosure standards have been established. It was brought to staff’s attention
that this was reinstalled. Mr. Henderson
further stated after conversations with the owner of the business staff was
made aware that there was a misunderstanding on the applicant’s part on last
year’s condition regarding the November 1, 2009 to April 15, 2010 time frame as
to whether that was just for last year or for all years. Staff suggested that
they resubmit for approval because as of today it does not meet code as it is
installed. Staff did advise the
applicant to leave it up until this meeting. This particular item is not
addressed in the Nonresidential Design Standards or the Outdoor Service
Facility Regulation. The Planning and Zoning Commission has the discretion to
consider approving outdoor patio enclosures on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Blake
stated that our architectural consultant’s professional interpretation is to
not approve this and staff’s consideration is to stay neutral and let the
Planning and Zoning Commission determine the appropriate action. Mr. Blake clarified this is the same architectural
consultant we are using today and is the same one that met with the Commission
in attempts to come up with a standard.
Mr. Brian Hoy stated he is the applicant and owner,
also here are his partner Matt Maynard and John Monebrake of Advanced Awnings.
He stated he had been under the impression this was an ongoing approval and is
asking for approval of this conditionally and hopes that at some point in the
future the Commission will come up with some sort of standard guidelines for
wind curtains and at that point he would work with the Commission for a
permanent solution. Mr. Hoy further
stated that he has read that a few people have stated they are not pleased with
the aesthetics of these wind curtains and he is not sure how they could be made
more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Hoy stated he does not see the wind curtain as
an eyesore to this building, he thinks it improves the building.
Mr. Sauer clarified that the awning was approved and
is there year round, this request is to add a temporary wind curtain. He stated
the question that keeps coming up in his mind is trying to figure out who
stands out on a patio when it is as cold outside as it is today. Mr. Hoy stated that people go outside for a
variety of reasons; to use their cell phones, to cool off as it’s kept warm
inside the building, and the patio area provides a space for people to smoke
and it is legal for them to smoke. Mr.
Blake stated this is something that the Commission can not and will not address
at these meetings. Mr. Blake clarified
with Mr. Banchefsky that this is not in the Commission’s jurisdiction and it is
not for the Commission to question what they are using the patio for. Mr. Hoy stated that seating for 26 people is
incorrect, there is
no way they could have tables and chairs in that
space for 26 people. It is tight quarters for 15 people standing. Mr. Sauer stated he would have a hard time
approving this as we are looking for something that is more permanent in nature
with a roof and landscaping. Mr. Hoy stated he agreed that would look better,
however they are working with an existing structure. Mr. Sauer stated he does
sympathize with this situation, however he thinks what the Board is going for
is less of a visual impact along the corridor and that is why he is in favor of
something that blends in with the building and this doesn’t do that.
Mr. John Monebrake stated he represents Advanced
Awning, the company that installed this. He clarified that something more
aesthetically pleasing would not necessarily be a drop down curtain. Mr. Sauer stated something that is pushed
more toward the background and that has some kind of an element in front of it
that gets the primary focus of the eye as you are going down the road would be
more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Monebrake stated they have done these side
curtains in many cities around
Mr. Maynard stated that he is the co owner of the
business and suggest that if the plastic window was separated into smaller
windows perhaps this would make it more aesthetically pleasing. They are willing to change to any kind of
standard that is established once the Board has gotten to that point and he
knows they are currently still spinning their wheels on that. Mr. Bosch stated
that the Commission has spent about one and a half year to two years trying to
develop some sort of standard. This side curtain for Happy Endings was approved
temporarily last year because it was one that looked half-way decent. After doing an extensive review and seeing
the different styles and materials for side curtains or a more rigid structure,
in his opinion, this Commission has not found something they can settle on as a
standard. He strives for consistency and
if there is nothing to use as a standard then personal preference does come
into it. He stated he can’t support any
type of a side curtain at this point in time.
Mr. Binkley stated in this case he does not have a problem with this,
although he has been one of the biggest opponents and the Commission had not
really seen anything that looks appealing.
He further stated the City doesn’t have the most beautiful existing
buildings in some areas and those do need to be treated differently. He stated he personally does not understand
the reasoning for covering up a patio and if a business needed more square
footage then they should have rented something larger. Mr. Binkley stated
Council made it very clear the Commission will have to go on a case by case
basis and we are going to have to exercise our individual preference or
thoughts on these. He further stated he
wanted to thank staff for including the information from the Franklin County
Board of Health and if things like this were shared with anyone coming in to
the City before they outlay capital perhaps they will understand what the
guidelines are. Mr. Hoy stated that he
hopes that each case would be taken on an individual basis and that it be
remembered
that not every situation is equal because each
building is not equal, however they all should be treated fairly.
Mr. Nicholas clarified that the patio is not
heated. Mr. Hoy stated that it is an
open air environment but the curve of the building creates a wind tunnel. Mr. Nicholas stated Mr. Hoy is correct on the
wind tunnel around there. He stated he
has seen worse, however, this could look better. Mr. Nicholas further stated if this is
defeated tonight he would suggest that the applicant work with staff and the
City’s architectural consultant as they said in their report they cannot
recommend approval of this at this time. Mr. Hoy stated that none of the
Council members nor the City’s architectural consultant has contacted him
regarding this and as far as he knows the architectural consultant giving his
opinion on this has never been at his business.
Mr. Henderson stated that when the application is submitted to staff the
report is forwarded on to the consultant.
Mr. Henderson stated that he believes the consultant did come by this
location. Mr. Hoy inquired whether the consultant came inside the building and
stated he assumed he would be contacted by someone wanting to review the
premises. Mr. Henderson stated they
review off the materials that you submit and stated that he could not speak for
the consultant as to whether he was in the applicants building. Mr. Nicholas stated he recommends that the
applicant work with staff on the building codes regarding this. He stated that perhaps Mr. Lee Gray, the
owner of the building, would consider doing a shared cost venture to put in a
raised garden flower bed with plant material to help breakup the large expanse
of the curtain to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Hoy stated that he
is asking to be allowed to maintain this with the same conditional use permit
that he was granted last year. He would
then work with staff and Mr. Gray to come up with some type of landscaping to
improve the look of this. Mr. Sauer
stated he thinks Mr. Nicholas’s suggestion is a good compromise. He further stated that as this is already up
he does not have a problem with leaving it up for his year and then work on
some of the improvements for the future.
Mr. Blake stated that we have to look at this on a
case by case basis. Council sent a message
that they do not want to regulate this and they do no want it in our code and
so it is kicked back to the Commission to decide. In this instance, thus far this is the best
he has seen in Pickerington. Mr. Blake
clarified it would require four affirmative votes tonight to approve this. He stated that there is one Commission member
absent and the applicant has the opportunity to request this be tabled. Mr. Blake stated if this is turned down the
applicant could resubmit and pay a new application fee. Mr. Hoy clarified that tabling this would
mean there would be another meeting on this application.
Mr. Nicholas stated if the Commission allows this
until March 1, 2011 and along with that the condition that the applicant would
have to work with staff and the owner of the building during the winter to come
up with a plan for a more permanent solution to present to the Commission
before March 1, 2011. Mr. Blake stated it should be the applicant’s
responsibility to see that there is follow up on this. This was put up the
first time without first getting a conditional use permit. The applicant came in after it was already up
and asked for the permit and the Commission allowed it. It was then put up again without getting the
conditional use permit and it was very clear that the first one was temporary.
The side curtain has been put up twice without prior approval and he wouldn’t
want this to happen a third time. Mr.
Hoy stated that he was under the impression that it was not temporary. Mr. Sauer stated that perhaps this could be a
temporary permit that would basically state it is under the understanding that
some sort of a landscaping arrangement would take place before it could be put
up again. Mr. Blake stated if this would
pass tonight it needs to maintain a conditional use. Mr. Henderson stated staff
would not have a problem with this either way. Ms Crotty stated the Commission
could approve this on a temporary basis with an end date
that it has to come down and then if the applicant
wants do something next year they would have to come back before the Planning
and Zoning Commission would have to do something different that does show that
it is more aesthetically appealing.
Mr. Blake stated he thinks this is a fair
proposition. Mr. Banchefsky stated that
there is a difficult challenge here because there are not specific standards to
deal with this other than what is in the conditional use ordinance. It is challenging for the Commission and near
impossible for staff. The critical thing
is that there is a certain date when the curtain comes down and at that point a
violation notice will be sent out and it becomes an enforcement issue. Mr. Hoy clarified that the first permit was
for November 1 through April 15. He stated if they could maintain this as is
for those same dates it would give them the opportunity to figure out how they
can make this more appealing. They would
have the understanding that the side curtain cannot go back up November 1, 2011
unless they have come back in again with something that would make this more
aesthetically appealing and it is approved by the Commission. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the patio is
tapered because prior to becoming a patio in 2007 this area was a loading dock. Mr. Henderson stated at that time staff had
serious concerns about the width of the access drive around the patio as that
goes to the back of the building and there is
truck traffic going back there for deliveries. The tapered end makes the
width of the access at that end more accessible for truck traffic.
Mr. Hoy stated if he asks for this to be tabled
there would be the same discussion at next month’s meeting. Mr. Henderson stated if there is a vote
tonight and it a negative majority vote staff would start the process to have
the curtain removed. The applicant would be able to reapply for another
conditional use and there would be another application fee. If it is a positive vote then the applicant
would apply for a zoning certificate and make sure that it meets the building
department requirements. Mr. Nicholas
clarified that if this is tabled the side curtain would not have to be removed
as staff had informed the applicant the City would not pursue having this
removed while it was submitted for to the Commission for review. He further
stated he would defer to the City Manager and the Planning and Zoning Director
on this. Ms Crotty stated there is an expense to the applicant to have this
taken down and put back up. Mr.
Banchefsky stated there is not a problem with a general conversation on where
each member stands on this issue before a motion is made.
Mr. Blake stated he has no problem with this staying
up as long as next year we are not dealing with this again, and that the proper
channels are followed. Mr. Sauer stated
he is of the same opinion as Mr. Blake.
Mr. Hackworth stated he would not support this. Mr. Bosch stated it is a patio and there
should not be a side curtain. Mr. Binkley stated that council made it clear the
Commission has to deal with this. In this case he would be in support of
this. He prefers the idea of this as
temporary and then seeing what the applicant comes back with for next year. Mr.
Nicholas clarified that an item can remain on the table for six months and then
it fall off. Mr. Nicholas stated he would not be in support of tabling this and
if it is put to a vote for conditional use he does not think he would support
this. Mr. Hoy requested that this be
tabled.
Mr. Blake moved
to table for one month until the January meeting; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr.
Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Binkley and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea” and Mr. Nicholas
voting “Nay”. Motion passed, 5-1.
4. REPORTS:
A. Planning and Zoning Director
1. BZA Report. Ms Crotty the Board of
Zoning Appeals did not meet in November. There is one item for the December
meeting and that is a request to approve a front yard parking setback variance
for the Offices at Stonecreek along
2. FCRPC.
Mr. Henderson stated there was one item in
5. OTHER
BUSINESS:
A. Request for motion to reconsider
Certificate of Appropriateness for Architecture for Volunteer Energy. Mr. Blake clarified that the owner’s
representatives are here. He stated at the last meeting that the neither the
developer, a representative of the developer, or the owner were present. Mr. Blake requested a motion and second to
reconsider this. Mr. Hackworth clarified
that this will open this for discussion and it is not an approval.
Mr. Sauer
moved to reconsider; Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr.
Bosch and Mr. Binkley voting “Nay” and Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Sauer and Mr. Blake
voting “Yea”. Motion failed, 3-3.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recessed at 9:20
P.M. and reconvened at 9:25 P.M.
B. Temporary
sign regulations regarding banners. Ms
Crotty stated that there have been discussions with several business owners and
organizations that put up banners on a temporary basis and staff has discussed
this as well. From a business
perspective, they would like to see flexibility with their temporary signs and
a change in the timing. Currently we
allow temporary banners to be put up for three 30-day periods throughout the
year for a total of 90 days. For the most part the businesses do not need these
for a 30-day period and they might want to be able to have them up more
frequently. Staff is proposing a change
to the code to still allow the 90 days per year, with a total of six times a
year, for a maximum of 15 days each time.
It would be the same number of days, spread out more throughout the
year. Mr. Henderson stated that staff wanted to bring this up for discussion
tonight and if it appears that the Commission is in agreement with this then
staff will move forward next month with the text amendment change. Ms Crotty stated staff is asking for the
Commissions member’s feedback.
Mr. Blake stated he does not think the 90 day total
matters because we don’t enforce it. He stated he has seen banners up for months
and no one does anything about it. He is all in favor of helping the businesses
that are going to do the right thing. He further stated that Auto NV has had a
banner up for a long time. The Green Leaf Grill had a banner up for a year. The
businesses who want to do this right get punished and then you have other
businesses that do whatever they want.
Mr. Blake further stated he is confused as to why they get by with
this. Ms Crotty stated this year staff
was asked to get some feedback from the business community because we had
complaints about temporary signage, not necessarily just banners.
Staff was asked to withhold enforcement for a period
of time until the feedback was received and staff could bring this before the
Planning and Zoning Commission, so there was a period of time when there was no
proactive enforcement. Staff has worked with the Chamber of Commerce in getting
feedback, discussed that, brought it before Planning and Zoning, brought it to
Council and it didn’t seem to warrant any significant changes in our
policies. Mr. Blake stated we really did
not get a lot of feedback; we had six people that opened an email and two that
responded. Ms Crotty stated since that
time the Building Department has been proactively going out and contacting
businesses that have banners up.
Mr. Blake stated his concern is why we have a rule
if we aren’t going to enforce it. Karen’s
Doggie Spa had a banner as her sign for two years. He stated he thinks it’s a wonderful idea to
promote any business that is out there. His concern is that if we say they can
have it up for 15 days for six times a year, they’re going to keep it up for six
months and no one is going to do anything about it. Mr. Henderson stated on the
application there is date installed area.
We have a chart now that we have used for the last few months that has
the location, the date approved, the date installed and the date it is to come
down. The Chief Building Official
reviews this and if a banner is up past the allowed date he starts the
process. Mr. Blake clarified the process
is that he pays a personal visit to the business and in the past the first step
was to send out a letter. The second step is to follow up with a letter and
after a reasonable amount of time it is then followed up with enforcement. Mr.
Banchefsky stated this can be a payable citation similar to a traffic violation
that could be paid as opposed to having to go to a hearing. The problem is they
may view it as a cost of doing business, pay the fine and leave the banner up.
Mr. Hackworth asked if there is currently a penalty for violation of the
ordinance and what the violation is classified.
Mr. Banchefsky could not confirm the classification of the penalty
without research; Ms Crotty stated that letters have been sent in the past that
specify the penalty and that it includes the potential jail time. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the regulation
applies to all temporary signs.
Mr. Henderson stated that current code states the
size of the sign shall be limited to 32 square feet, shall not be closer than
40 feet from the edge of the street or curb unless located on the front wall of
a structure, building or any window of the same. So these are signs that are
attached to some sort of structure and that could be the building or a ground
sign. Ms Crotty stated staff did suggest
that we have discussion and clarification on whether a banner attached to a
structure such as a monument sign is something we want to allow or
prohibit. Mr. Blake stated there
currently is a pizza restaurant that a banner actually is their monument sign.
Mr. Blake clarified that technically this is legal as it is on a permanent structure
per the code. Mr. Henderson stated they
built a permanent structure on four by four posts that they put flowers on and
then they used that as a permanent structure to put their temporary banners on.
Mr. Nicholas stated he does not think banners should
be on the ground signs. He further stated that if this goes to the six times
per year he thinks the same processing fee should be charged as it involves the
same amount of work and time to process. Mr. Nicholas stated the more difficult
signs are the ones on metal posts, the ground stake signs. At one point the City would pull those and
the applicant would pay a fee to pick them up.
Mr. Henderson stated the City cannot go onto someone else’s property to
remove signs, the only way the City can take them only if they are in the
right-of-way. To his knowledge there has not been
a fee charged in recent years. Mr. Blake clarified that if the City pulls
the signs and someone comes in wanting their sign back it is given to them and
they are informed of the policy. Ms Crotty stated that this has been enforced
on some weekends as well.
Mr. Nicholas stated that he can see how someone
could turn the 15 days that were approved into the banner being up for 45 days
and in the process costing the City in time and effort with the Chief Building
Official making the calls, sending out two notifications and finally the banner
is taken down prior to being cited. Then they come in and apply for second of
six allowed per year, do the same thing and eventually could end up with having
a temporary banner up for most of the year. Mr. Blake stated the ones that know
how to play the game certainly could do that. Mr. Nicholas stated not everyone
will comply. Mr. Binkley stated we are dealing with an enforcement issue that we
can’t enforce. We can either ban them or get something on the books that we can
enforce and then leave it up to the Chief Building Official to enforce. He further stated he does not think banners
should be allowed to be placed onto ground signs. He stated if the applicant
can identify on one application the times they want the banner up for the 15
day period then he feels the fee should just be $25.00 whether they are doing
one or six. Mr. Henderson stated the fee pays for the time for staff to process
it. Mr. Bosch stated that the fee would cover the time to process the
application whether it was for one event or six, however it will not cover the
cost of the Chief Building Official to check on this per each event and
enforcement time if necessary. He further
stated that if this were totally enforced the resulting number of applications
would be higher than it is now. Ms Crotty stated that recently the banners that
are out there were inventoried and there were 22. Mr. Henderson stated that in
the process of a year there are probably 75-100 of these per year. Mr.
Henderson stated he is not including the five location temporary signs in the
100 figure. Mr. Henderson stated that the schools and other nonprofits within
the City and
Mr. Bosch clarified that not all of the non profits
apply for a temporary banner permit when they put up a banner on their property
and if we start to enforce this it will have to be enforced for everyone and
the 22 could easily go up to 100. Mr.
Bosch stated he is talking about the on site banners, not temporary signs. Mr.
Bosch clarified this would be the banners that the schools put for plays, that
churches put out on vacation bible schools etc. Mr. Nicholas stated that he
would not be in favor of allowing more than one 15 day banner for the fee of
$25.00 because of the work and time involved for staff in trying to track these.
It should be one fee per 15 day incidence or appearance. Mr. Hackworth
clarified that 440 survey emails were sent out, there were approximately 128
were opened and there were six responses.
Mr. Blake stated 120 knew what they were opening and didn’t care to
respond. Mr. Hackworth clarified that the comments received regarding a
business being located off
and not just the time to approve it. Mr. Nicholas stated the terminology could be
written as per occurrence, not per application and if there are three
occurrences on one application the fee would be $75.00.
Mr. Sauer stated he is in agreement with most of
what has been said. He stated he agrees
with the $25.00 fee per 15-day occurrence and he does not want to see these
mounted on ground signs. He stated that for those who want a permit for a
30-day occurrence that we give them the option of 15 or 30 days. Mr. Blake clarified maxing this out at 90
days per year and it could be three 30-day permits, or six of the fifteen day
permits, either/or. Mr. Henderson
clarified that if there were two time periods on one application, with a gap in
between the two, Mr. Sauer would prefer that it be $25.00 per each one, if they
did one for a 30-day period it would be one fee.
Mr. Blake clarified with Mr. Banchefsky that if a
business is habitual offender in violating the intent of the 15 or 30 days, the
City does not have the right to deny a permit to them. Mr. Bosch clarified that someone with a
history of violation has to be treated the same as someone who is always in
compliance. Mr. Binkley clarified that
there is massive due process involved before the Department of Alcohol can deny
a license. Mr. Banchefsky stated it is
not impossible to do so however you do not see this in the area of zoning. Mr. Sauer clarified that if someone has a
banner up that is in violation and it is not taken down within three or four days and the Chief
Building Officials checks this and sees that it is still up, the City could fine them for each day it is
up past the expiration date. Mr.
Banchefsky stated that every day is a separate offense. Mr. Bosch clarified
that the fine for a minor misdemeanor is $150.00 and if it is a minor
misdemeanor there is no jail time. Mr. Banchefsky stated if you want to be real
aggressive you could enhance a second violation to make it a fourth degree
misdemeanor which could result in 30 days jail time. Mr. Binkley clarified that
code enforcement would have to observe a violation. It would be at the
discretion of code enforcement regarding how many days to give them before the
notice is sent, or a citation is written.
Mr. Nicholas clarified that the $25.00 fee is in the General Fee
Schedule. Ms Crotty stated that Council
usually makes any changes to this in January or February. The fees are reviewed
and compared with other areas of central
C. Sign color regulations. Ms Crotty stated
this is a topic for discussion and is something that has come up many times and
staff often deals with this in working with applicants on the color
regulations. She stated that almost every time a sign application comes in
staff hears concern about the restrictions on sign colors. Many have expressed
concern that black and white are considered colors. Staff is proposing a change
in Zoning Code Section 1292.06(g) Design and location requirements to allow
three colors plus black and white. Over
the past few years the Planning and Zoning Commission, along with staff, has
spent countless hours discussing colors on signage. The proposed changes would still maintain a
strong regulation on signage color but would also allow business owners more
creativity with their signage and thus would be more business friendly. This zoning code change would affect wall
signs, single tenant sign ground signs and temporary signage. The code is quite
clear on this however staff does have long discussions with the applicants
regarding this.
Ms Crotty stated the suggestion would be to discuss
the size of the logo as 10 percent is fairly small when you look at the whole
area on a lot of the signs. Mr. Henderson stated the way the code is written it
states that a registered trademark of multiple colors is ten percent. Registering a trademark is a significant cost
and the small businesses are at a disadvantage compared to the large chains
that do have a registered trademark. He stated when he reviews the application
if they say this is a trademark he does go to the
United States Patent Trade Office website to verify
it is a registered trademark. A proposed is changing registered trademark to
company logo. Mr. Henderson stated there has been a slight modification in the
interpretation of the code in past few months. Ms Crotty stated she considers
shades of a color to be the same color and she does not think other staff
members have interpreted that way, it is not really clear. He stated an example
is the BP sign, they have two shades of green on there and that would be two
separate colors. Mr. Bosch stated the way they used it he would agree. Ms
Crotty stated she brought this up as being a shade of the same color and not
two colors. Mr. Henderson stated he
spends two to four hours a week discussing colors with applicants and sign
companies. Mr. Hackworth stated he has
no problem with not counting black and white as colors. Mr. Binkley stated that
perhaps black and white could be counted when it is used a primary color of the
sign, and not counted as a color when it is used as accents and
highlights. Mr. Blake stated the City is
not unique in this area when it comes to having Nonresidential Design
Standards. He hears how tough we are on this issue and yet we are not as
restrictive as some of the other suburbs are and people still come in and
complain about our Nonresidential Design Standards and sign regulations. He
stated he was in
Mr. Binkley stated he thinks it is more important to
have it as we have been doing along the corridor by having the brick face on
the monument signs. Mr. Henderson stated
this is not proposing a change to the multi-tenant ground signs. The way our
code is today a multi-tenant ground sign is allowed two colors. He stated he
does not think there are any issues with this as he has had applicants tell him
they like this as it is. He stated he
does not have a problem with the three colors; he is trying to save time for
staff and the Commission members. Mr.
Bosch stated he will use the BP sign as an example. They came in and argued and when they found
out the Commission was sticking to the code they pulled out a three color sign. He stated he would rather go to four colors
instead of trying to interpret that in one case black is an accent but in
another case it is a primary color. Mr. Henderson stated he thinks this needs
to be precise. Mr. Hackworth clarified
that the code is written that temporary signs are limited to three colors
also. Mr. Bosch stated if we would allow
more colors on the temporary signs he thinks what would happen is that more
businesses would try to leave their temporary signs up and not get a permanent
one because they could use whatever colors they want in the temporary
sign.
Mr. Nicholas stated he does understand about small
businesses, however as Mr. Bosch stated,
larger businesses have been in front of Boards and Commissions like ours
for years and know what they will try to
get approved and what will actually
work. They will have sign designs that are two colors and on up. He stated as an example, he has seen a
McDonald’s and Wendy’s sign on Avery Road that is a stone monument with letters
on it and that’s it. Staff or the Commission should not feel they have to cave
in to applicants when they say that Corporate tells them they have to have five
colors, they can’t do anything else. We
should then say that the applicant needs to table this and go do their
homework. Mr. Nicholas further stated we can’t treat small businesses
differently than we treat the corporate businesses. He is in favor of allowing
black and white as colors that we do not count as such and leaving it at three
colors, so someone could come with black, white and the three colors. He is
unsure at this point on changing code as far as the size of the logo. He stated
he feels that shades of colors are different and thus would count as more than
one color. . Ms Crotty stated it would
be easier for staff if it is limited to three.
There are people who come and talk and talk in attempts to convince the
Commission to allow them to have a black
or white accent in addition to the three
colors. This issue does take up a lot of
staff’s time. Mr. Henderson stated business people seem to think that the
bigger their sign is the better their business will be. Ms Crotty stated a lot of people have their
corporate colors and say they cannot change from that when they apply for a
sign. Staff talked with someone today that insists on having their corporate
colors. Mr. Henderson stated there are instances where an applicant denied that
a corporate sign was available in two colors and yet he found on their website
that there was a two color corporate logo.
Mr. Sauer stated he does not have a problem with the black and white
being in addition to the three colors.
Mr. Henderson stated we require channel letters and the code stipulates
that the casing of the channel letters has to be one of the three colors and
this gives it a finished look. Mr.
Banchefsky stated he would add that as long as the definition is clear as to
what accent is and how it will be applied. Mr. Binkley clarified that what
staff is looking for is the ability to tell the applicant they can outline the
letters in black or white
Mr. Bosch clarified that the issue with the logo is
that the logo often appears too small in proportion to the size of the sign and
currently on a 50 square feet sign the logo can only be five square feet. Mr.
Bosch clarified that the procedure on an odd shaped sign that is not square is
to take a square and draw it around the object. Mr. Binkley clarified that this
it trying to put it in proportion to the actual text or line as opposed to the
sign. Mr. Bosch stated the logo should
be in proportion to the rest of the sign. Mr. Blake suggested it may be as easy
as saying they can have three colors plus white and black. Mr. Bosch stated he would like to look at
some of the signs they struggled with in the past, to look at them as to what
we would be doing if we were applying the suggested code with the suggested
changes. Ms Crotty stated they could look more closely at how they would define
black and white as accents. Mr.
Henderson stated today alone he sent 14 emails back and forth with a sign
company over a certain issue. He further
stated he would want the sign code as precise as possible. Mr. Binkley suggested that perhaps someone
from one of the sign companies could come in to a meeting and speak with the
Commission regarding this. Mr. Henderson
stated he could have arrange for someone from one of the local sign companies
come in, however they do not necessarily agree with our sign policies. Mr. Blake stated that would be fine. Mr. Bosch stated it would be a work session.
Mr. Blake clarified there was nothing further on this at this time.
D. Refugee Road Corridor Study. Ms Crotty stated due to the reduction in
staff, the goal is to work with a consultant on this and hopefully we will have
something for the February Planning and Zoning meeting.
E. Planning and Zoning Consultant
Services. Mr. Henderson stated that it
has been suggested that staff look at getting a Planning firm on retainer so
that if in the future staff needed assistance to get something done that we
would have a negotiated rate. This would be something similar to what the
Engineering Department has. He stated he
is just asking if the Commission would be in support of this. Mr. Blake stated his feeling is that staff
knows what they need more than the Commission does. Mr. Blake asked for all in favor to raise
their hands and five out of six were in approval.
F. Commission Discussion. Mr. Hackworth stated that with the Happy
Endings side curtains issue tonight, he feels that we should have given the
applicant the information that was in our packets from Franklin County Board of
Health regarding smoking. If we improve the enclosure and people smoke in there
then the owner will be getting citations from the Board of Health it won’t seem
like we have done the applicant any kind of service. Mr. Blake stated all the Commission will have
done is to approve the enclosure. Mr. Hackworth stated then we should make the
owner aware that he can’t allow
people to smoke in there. Mr. Blake stated he did
not think that was the Commission’s position.
Mr. Hackworth stated he heard it is the City’s position. Mr. Sauer stated it was the owner’s due
diligence as a business owner to make sure he understands the laws that impact
him. Mr. Hackworth stated this is why he
put the curtain up. Mr. Blake stated we do not know that. Mr. Sauer stated that is making a judgment
and he thinks when it comes down to it the business owner is the one that is in
the best position to know what does him a service as a business to earn a
profit. Mr. Hackworth stated the
business owner stood up here tonight and said it is legal to smoke in
there. Mr. Blake stated he did not say
it was legal, he said people were using it to smoke in there, and that it is
legal to smoke. Mr. Hackworth stated the business owner is responsible. Mr. Blake stated we can’t regulate what he is
using that structure for. Mr. Banchefsky stated that the City has no
enforcement powers on smoking.
Mr. Binkley stated this is one of the biggest reasons
he changed his opinion on this. After Council came down with their decision,
the Commission is going to have to deal with this. The Commission cannot tell
someone what to do with their business. We can hopefully guide them along the
way to make sure it looks decent. We have to assume the owner has done his due
diligence. We know what they are using it for. When the business comes to the
City and brings this up staff should advise them they might want to read this
and give them the same information from the Franklin County Board of Health on
no smoking enforcement that was given to the Commission. Mr. Hackworth stated
if the applicant got this information then they have been informed. Mr.
Henderson stated that a few years ago staff started receiving memos from the
City Engineer, the Chief Building Official and Violet Township Fire Department
that address various issues that their departments have. Mr. Hackworth
clarified that the applicant does receive copies of the memo. Mr. Henderson stated on the Friday before the
meeting he emails the applicant a copy of the staff report, including any of
the memos associated with the report, up to the maps that the applicant
submitted with the application. He
further stated that some of the things that applicant stated earlier indicates
that he may not have reviewed all of the material sent to him. Mr. Henderson
stated the Chief Building Official is the one who obtained the information from
Franklin County Board of Health and he did an excellent job of getting the materials
to the applicant on this issue. Mr.
Hackworth stated that he happy that this was done.
Mr. Binkley stated where the City could step in is
if we established guidelines that followed the Ohio smoking law which
essentially states smoking is allowed if the side curtains are on no more than
50 percent of the patio, or if it doesn’t have a roof. We can establish
guidelines that fall in line with the state smoke free law but we can’t enforce
it. Mr. Blake stated he feels Council decided to leave it up to the Commission
to decide on a case by case basis where this goes instead of trying to regulate
it. Mr. Nicholas stated he is of the
opinion that the design of the patios we are presented with are a direct result
of the Smoke Free Ohio law. The Commission needs to take this into
consideration as we review. There are
restrictions in the Ohio Building Code pertaining to the no smoking law that if
a over a certain percentage of an exterior patio is enclosed and there is a roof over the
patio then smoking is no longer allowed as it has now become an enclosed
space. He stated perhaps if we included
this information received in our packet from staff and made it part of the
application packet that they receive for patios it would serve as a reminder to
them if the intent is for people to smoke there it can’t be enclosed more than
50 percent. Mr. Henderson stated these
are topics that would come up during a growth management meeting if the
applicant comes in for a meeting. They know what they are doing and are willing
to take the gamble. Staff and the Commission have to assume they are following
the state law and if they break it that is the state’s job to enforce it. Mr.
Henderson stated he will try to include the memo that the Commission received
tonight with the application packet so they will be made aware, however he does
not think this will deter anyone. Mr. Binkley stated
the City does not have any standards established, and suggested that we at
least establish a standard that follows the policy of the state regarding
patios and the smoke free law as to when a patio is not enclosed and when it is
determined to be enclosed. Mr. Blake stated it could be a day care coming in
for side curtains to make an area out of the wind so the children could still
be outside. Mr. Blake stated that
penalizes people that we know aren’t using it for what we think the other
people are using it for. Ms Crotty
stated if we say it is only allowed to be enclosed 50 percent than we have to
have some standards for the curtains. Mr.
Henderson stated that the material used by Happy Endings is good material. Mr.
Bosch stated it is the best material we have seen. Mr. Nicholas stated he would
say that any side curtain design needs to blend with the architecture of the
building.
Mr. Nicholas
stated the post office sign is in the right-of-way. Mr. Bosch stated when that went in it was
stated that is federal and we had no jurisdiction and that is false. He has dealt with several of these in his
profession and he made them follow the same code as everyone else. Here they just did what they wanted to and we
have allowed it to continue. Mr.
Henderson stated the sign is now rusty and clarified that the fact that it has
been there for a long time does not mean it can’t be enforced now. You can’t go
back and get them for ten years of continuing violation. Mr. Hackworth stated there also is a sight
line safety issue and clarified that is a higher level of urgency.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further Mr. Nicholas
moved to adjourn, Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Binkley, Mr.
Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Blake and Mr. Bosch voting “Aye”. Motion carried, 6-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
adjourned at 11:07 P.M., December 14, 2010.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
______________________________
Karen I. Risher, Administrative clerk
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Susan Crotty, Development Director