BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES

 

JANUARY 10, 2005

 

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Thornton at 7:05 p.m.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Harry McMannis, Richard Mickley, Barbara Timmons, Kelly Thornton, Terry Wertz

 

OTHERS PRESENT:  Zoning Inspector McCoy, Clerk Patterson, Bruce Daniels, Bob Schorr, Steven Kelly, Kevin Atwell, John & Charlotte Eufinger, Greg Scheper

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  There being no additions or corrections, the minutes for the meeting of November 15, 2004 were approved as distributed.

 

REORGANIZATION:

 

1.     Elect Chairman

Mrs. Timmons nominated Mr. Thornton, seconded by Mr. Wertz.  Nominations closed.  Unanimous vote for Mr. Thornton as Chairman.

 

2.     Elect Vice-Chairman

Mr. Wertz nominated Mrs. Timmons, seconded by          Mr. Thornton.  Nominations closed.  Unanimous vote for Mrs. Timmons as Vice-Chairman.

 

3.     Review Rules of Procedures

Board discussed number of items on an agenda at one time and referred to #14 of the Rules of Procedure.  No changes were made to the Rules of Procedure.

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

1.        Requesting variance for three freestanding subdivision/identification signs, two 45’ in height, one 55’ in height to be located at the entrance to Coleman’s Crossing at Charles Lane, entrance to Coleman’s Crossing at Industrial Parkway along S.R. 33 between Honda Marysville and proposed Home Depot site.  Sign ordinance does not regulate such signs in a commercial subdivision.  TOC and SD-1 zoning districts.  Filed by Civil & Environmental Consultants for Marysville Land Development, 3600 Park 42 Drive, Suite 130B, Cincinnati, Ohio  45241.

 

COMMENTS OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR CITY PLANNER:

 

Ms. McCoy stated the sign regulations for the SD-1/TOC business zoning districts do not regulate the type of signs Coleman’s Crossing is requesting.  Mr. Thornton asked if they are permitted.  Response was, “it’s silent.”  In the residential zoning district, it regulates subdivision identification signs, but not in the commercial areas.   There is no definition for a subdivision sign; however, in the residential sections of the sign ordinance, it refers to identification signs for subdivisions and/or multi-family.  It does not refer to such in the business section of the sign ordinance.   The signs also need approval by the Design Review Board for height and design.  If the Board of Zoning Appeals grants a variance, the Design Review Commission is still required to approve the overall design of the signs.  If Design Review Commission rejects the signs, the applicant may appeal that decision with the BZA within 20 days of the date of the decision.  Ms. McCoy noted that Coleman’s Crossing has reserved spots of land on which these signs would be located, so, therefore, these signs are not considered off-premise signs. 

 

COMMENTS OF REQUESTER:

 

Mr. Steve Kelly, Bear Creek Capital, addressed the Board.  He displayed a drawing of Coleman’s Crossing, showing where the proposed signs would be located.  He also gave an overview of the planned development.  Mr. Kelly wants a cohesive and planned signage scheme for this development.  He is asking for three project ID signs, one at Delaware Avenue, one along Rt. 33 and one at Industrial Parkway.  With these signs, they want to show a consistent look through the project and identify anchor tenants and certain tenants that will be more neighborhood within the project. Will restrict 25’ signs within Coleman’s Crossing, which would allow 6’ cabinet signs for the corporate logo.  Out lots would be allowed 5’ cabinet signs.  Request is for the interstate sign to be 55’ high.   There is a need to have signage requirements before bringing in tenants.  Appropriate sign placing is critical to this development.  There is hardship with the limited amount of frontage within the development on either side.  Wants to set up a covenant for signs through the development.  Real key is to bring together a signage scheme.  Will provide to the Board an actual covenant, which is usually done in ECR (Easements, Covenants and Restrictions) agreements for the project.   Mr. Thornton asked what would prevent a business from coming in and erecting a large, freestanding sign of their own.  Ms. McCoy stated there would need to be a condition passed with the variance or else the tenant would be able to erect the 25’ signs permitted by the width of their property. 

 

Mr. Thornton asked how the plan takes into consideration future tenants?  Response was there is an association that would be maintaining the reserve areas.  There would also be a basic ownership of those reserve areas with a maintenance responsibility for those signs.  A signage program would be implemented and followed today and with future owners within the development. 

 

Mr. Thornton asked what would be done to insure that this is what people are going to do?  Response was a convenant on this land would be filed with the City and recorded at the County Courthouse.  This would be recorded in the form of an ECR.  This would restrict all signage within this project as defined.  Noted this could be a condition of this Board granting this appeal. 

 

Mr. Mickley asked if this document would be a plat and if so, is the City a party to this document?  Mr. Kelly stated sometimes there is a plat listing the convenants.   This convenant is different.  This is a declaration that will be placed on the land that runs with this project. 

 

Mr. Thornton asked what recourse the developer had if the business does not follow the covenant.  Mr. Kelly stated legal action would be taken.  A property management company will enforce the restrictions in the covenant.  Mr. Greg Scheper of Bear Creek added they would enforce a consistent signage program because of the aesthetics of the program and also to make sure it is maintained.  Any of the other tenants would have standing as well.  The City would also have the ability to enforce through zoning non-compliance action.  Mr. Thornton asked Ms. McCoy for her comments on City enforcement.  She responded that conditions should be added that you would have to follow their application.

 

Mr. Thornton asked if all of this is just one piece of property.  Response was that it is platted and under a single ownership, but is about to be divided up.

 

Mrs. Timmons asked if each business would be purchasing or leasing the land?  Walmart is a planned purchase of the land, as well as Home Depot.  The out lots would be leased parcels.   The retail center and other retail centers will be built and those spaces leased.   Mrs. Timmons expressed concern for businesses going out of business and then the building setting empty. 

 

Mr. Thornton asked for the total number of tenants, date of full occupancy, how will you maintain unused lots and what would you consider a minimum percentage of occupancy or is it one anchor that gets you where you want to be? 

 

Total number of tenants is 56.  As far as occupancy for the short term, there is a TIF involved and there is a threshold of paying those payments.  Over the next year, there is a threshold of getting the retail center built, the Honda dealership, Wal-mart, Home Depot and another number of out lot uses developed.   This will secure a certain amount of TIF payments.  Sees this as being a five-year project, but looking to develop and bring the anchor tenants.   Mr. Thornton expressed concern that a massive sign is being requested and there may be only one anchor in the project and the remainder of the sign being blank.   Mr. Kelly confirmed that to be correct.  Feels at first there would be four tenants within that sign, then other businesses would follow.   An example of this signage can be found in Cincinnati and Sandusky.   Signage programs have worked well in these locations with all tenants.  Feels a vacant sign allows them to re-tenant in that space.

 

Mr. Thornton asked what the success rate is in enforcing a signage program.  Response was very successful. 

 

Building signage is not a part of this program.  Freestanding signs only.

 

Ms. McCoy asked if there was any way of compromising and reducing the height of the signs?  Mr. Kelly referred to other signs in the area identifying a single business sign is 38’ tall.  He does not believe a 45’ sign for an entrance and a multi-tenant sign is high, compared to a single tenant 38’ tall sign.  Some of the tenants will have buildings that are 32-35’ in height.  The signs cannot be reduced to 4’ on these anchor stores. 

 

Mrs. Timmons questioned a safety issue as it relates to driving and having to slow down to look at a tall sign.   Mr. Kelly feels the signs and locations proposed allow more safety than what’s allowed in the code.    The signs will be double faced. 

 

The applicant’s hope is to have full occupancy by five years.    The signs would be built this year.  Mr. Thornton questioned them setting empty for two years or forever.  Mr. Kelly agreed that is a possibility. 

 

Mr. Mickley confirmed that as part of granting the variance, the Board would be approving the Signage Scheme packet.  Mr. Kelly said, “Yes.” 

 

Mr. Thornton asked if the developer considered any other sizes other than the 5’4 relative to the fact of the 65 MPH highway in one location versus a 35 or 45 MPH location at the other points?  Mr. Kelly stated typically interstate pylons are 65’, which work better with the tenant panels.  With the number of anchor tenants, 45’ seems very appropriate with the other roadways.   

 

Mr. Thornton asked if the Coleman’s Crossing logo on the top of the sign was included in the 45’ and 55’.  Response was yes. 

 

Signs will be required to be centered on each lot.  All lots have to be at least 125’ in width and must be at least 60’ from the side lot line.  Setbacks will have to be at least one foot of the right-of-way, but each one will be looked at individually to see where the driveways are and to make sure there is no obstruction.  Mr. Kelly pointed out that the code specifies that the signs need to meet view triangles. 

 

Design Review will be reviewing and approving all signs.

 

COMMENTS OF CITIZENS:  Mr. John Eufinger stated he has no problem with the placement of the signs.  Feels the requests are valid.  Has no objection to what is being proposed.

 

Mr. Eric Phillips stated he has seen anywhere from 55- 70’ interstate signs, which seems to be typical.

 

DISCUSSION BY BZA MEMBERS:

 

Mr. Thornton was most interested in the two 45’ ID signs at each end of Coleman’s Crossing Blvd.  Not a big fan of 55’ sign.  Importance is relative to the speed.  From a safety and usable view, 38’ signs not very eye appealing as a resident.  Concern for sign setting empty.  Suggested signage not being erected until there are two or three anchor stores in the development. 

 

Mrs. Timmons had a problem with signs being 45’ tall.  The slow speed at which cars would be traveling would allow for smaller sign, possibly 30’.  She had no problem with the 55’ interstate sign.

 

Mr. McMannis commented that the developer has done a nice job on this project and does not feel they will do anything detrimental to the project.  If this is what the developer feels they need, he’s okay with it. 

 

If sign was reduced, Mr. Thornton would need assurance that the open space between the ground level and top would not be filled in.  Mrs. Timmons commented that open space would be needed for visibility.  Mr. Kelly confirmed there would be a 6’ clearance. 

 

Mr. Mickley moved to accept the variance conditioned on the fact that the signage scheme, as presented, is approved except for the two 45’ identification pylons be maximum of 38’ with interior cabinets being 4’ x 8’ and 2’ x 8’ and minimum ground clearance of 6’, seconded by Mrs. Timmons and the question put, stood:

 

Mrs. Timmons  YES  Mr. Thornton  YES  Mr. Mickley  YES  Mr. McMannis  YES  Mr. Wertz  YES

 

2.      Requesting variance for freestanding identification sign; 100 sq. ft., 30’ in height vs. 72 sq. ft., 25’ in height freestanding identification sign permitted.  Maximum square footage of signs permitted is 300 sq. ft., total signage requested is 467 sq. ft.  SD-1 zoning district.  Filed by Da-Nite Signs for Honda Marysville, 630 Coleman’s Crossing Blvd., Marysville, Ohio  43040.

 

COMMENTS OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR CITY PLANNER:

 

Honda is requesting a freestanding ID sign that is larger than is permitted by Sign Ordinance 1143.18(d)(3).  Honda’s total requested sign package totals 467 sq. ft.  Ordinance 1143.18(d) states maximum total sign face area shall not exceed 300 square feet.  The Zoning Inspector issued a sign permit for a wall identification sign and three business signs for total square footage of 241.5 sq. ft.

 

COMMENTS OF REQUESTER:

 

Mr. Thornton requested the applicant describe the entire package then the Board will act independently on each agenda item.

 

Mr. Bob Shore of DaNite Sign Company and Mr. Bruce Daniels of Honda Marysville addressed the Board.   Applicant is requesting 28 additional square feet on the pylon sign.  This sign is oriented to Rt. 33. Asking for a 10 x 10 pylon reading HONDA. 

 

Lettering is 16” high.  Smaller sign is 12” high lettering.  Recommendation for pylon sign is 100 sq. ft., 30’ high proportionate-wise as a standard pylon sign. 

 

The 24 sq. ft. freestanding sign “Certified Used Cars”.  This is not oriented to Rt. 33 and has been lowered from the original plan. 

 

The two directional signs in the parking area are for internal directions to the various departments, Sales, Parts, Service, etc.. 

 

Five small wall signs are being requested.  A total of three signs on the property are permitted.  These are for internal use and are not visible from Rt. 33.  Signs will read Service Reception, Delivery Center, Express Change, Express Wash.  The signs being requested are a part of the facility design.

 

Referring to the layout, Mr. Thornton noted areas marked “Future Honda” and asked what kind of signage was anticipated for these areas?  Mr. Daniels anticipates the signage would be similar with Motorsports.  They will be requesting a pylon sign in the front, which will be kept in conjunction with Coleman’s Crossing development. 

 

COMMENTS OF CITIZENS:

 

Mr. John Eufinger commented about the lighting scheme for the Honda dealership.  He has no objection to their lighting.  He added he liked the concept of having Honda as a gateway to Marysville.

 

Mr. McMannis commented that the whole project has been very well done.

 

DISCUSSION BY BZA MEMBERS:

 

Mr. Mickley moved to grant the variance, seconded by Mrs. Timmons and the question put, stood:

 

Mr. Thornton  YES  Mr. Mickley  YES  Mr. McMannis  YES  Mr. Wertz  YES  Mrs. Timmons  YES

 

Variance granted.

 

3.      Requesting variance for 24 sq. ft., 11’8” in height freestanding directional sign (Certified Used Cars) vs. 6 sq. ft., 4’ in height freestanding directional sign permitted.  Maximum square footage of signs permitted is 300 sq. ft., total signage requested is 467 sq. ft.  SD-1 zoning district.  Filed by Da-Nite Signs for Honda Marysville, 630 Coleman’s Crossing Blvd., Marysville, Ohio  43040.

 

COMMENTS OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR CITY PLANNER:

 

Section 1143.18(d)(12) restricts size of freestanding directional sign to 6 sq. ft., 4’ in height.  Honda would like 24 sq. ft. to help customers find their used car lot easier.  Again, Ordinance 1143.18(d) states maximum total sign face area shall not exceed 300 square feet.

 

Mr. McMannis moved to grant the variance, seconded by Mr. Mickley and the question put, stood:

 

Mr. Mickley  YES  Mr. McMannis  YES  Mr. Wertz  YES  Mrs. Timmons  YES  Mr. Thornton  YES

 

Variance granted.

 

4.     Requesting variance for two 11.2 sq. ft., 4’6” in height freestanding directional signs (Sales, Parts, Service, Parking) vs. 6 sq. ft., 4’ in height freestanding directional signs permitted.  Maximum square footage of signs permitted is 300 sq. ft., total signage requested is 467 sq. ft.  SD-1 zoning district.  Filed by Da-Nite Signs for Honda Marysville, 630 Coleman’s Crossing Blvd., Marysville, Ohio  43040.

 

COMMENTS OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR CITY PLANNER:

 

1143.18(d)(12) restricts size of freestanding directional signs to 6 sq. ft., 4’ in height.  Honda would like two 11.2 sq. ft. directional signs to help their customers find the sales, parts, service and parking areas easier.  Again,

Ordinance 1143.18(d) states maximum total sign face area shall not exceed 300 square feet.

 

Mrs. Timmons moved to grant the variance, seconded by Mr. Wertz and the question put, stood:

 

Mr. McMannis  YES  Mr. Wertz  YES  Mrs. Timmons  YES  Mr. Thornton  YES  Mr. Mickley  YES

 

Variance granted.

 

5.      Requesting variance for five 16 sq. ft., oval wall directional signs (Service Reception (2), Delivery Center, Express Change, Express Wash) vs. 6 sq. ft., wall directional signs permitted.  Maximum square footage of signs permitted is 300 sq. ft., total signage requested is 467 sq. ft.  SD-1 zoning district.  Filed by Da-Nite Signs for Honda Marysville, 630 Coleman’s Crossing Blvd., Marysville, Ohio  43040.

 

COMMENTS OF ZONING INSPECTOR AND/OR CITY PLANNER:

 

1143.18(d)(13) restricts size of wall directional signs to 6 sq. ft.  Honda would like five 16 sq. ft. oval directional signs over their service center doors to help customers find the service reception, delivery center, express change and express wash areas easier.  Again, Ordinance 1143.18(d) states maximum total sign face area shall not exceed 300 square feet.

 

Mr. Mickley moved to grant the variance, seconded by Mr. Wertz and the question put, stood:

 

Mr. Thornton questioned the size of the sign over the garage doors, 8’ x 2’?  Mr. Daniels pointed out the doors are 10’ wide.  The signs are proportionate over the doors.

 

Mr. Wertz  YES  Mrs. Timmons  YES  Mr. Thornton  NO   Mr. Mickley  YES  Mr. McMannis  YES

 

Variance granted.

 

Mrs. Timmons noted she would not be able to attend the February and March meetings.

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.