PLANNING
COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES OF MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman called the meeting to order at
6:30 p.m..
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Pete Griffin, John
Cunningham, Don Bergwall, Patrick Soller, Ken Kraus, Roger Yoder Alan Seymour –
absent.
OTHERS PRESENT:
Greg DeLong – City Planner
CITIZEN
COMMENTS - None
OLD
BUSINESS:
Commercial/Industrial Subdivision
Signage regulations
Mr. Kraus stated everyone should have the draft he sent out. There have been some changes that are in bold
print. We currently have nothing in our
code right now that allows for commercial subdivision signs. He stated one of the things in the revision
is there shall be one subdivision sign per primary entrance as determined by
the Planning Commission. It states that
it shall be a maximum height of 25ft. It
also states that no other free standing identification sign shall be located
within 100 ft.
Mr. Griffin stated he doesn’t understand why some of them go around the
code, such as Coleman’s Crossing. Mr. Kraus stated one when something is
approved, they can take it to BZA but we also have every right to also go to
the meeting and make sure they meet the code.
If we look at the conditions in granting a variance, one of the key ones
is it has to be a hardship. Most of them
can’t prove a hardship.
Mr. Bergwall asked what the maximum height is for a commercial. Mr. Kraus stated it would depend on the
zoning district. Mr. Bergwall stated he
thought it was 35ft. Mr. Kraus stated this
is not for the signs in front of the building; it is for the subdivision
identification. Mr. Bergwall stated his
concern is you could have a building that would block the view of the sign
depending on the placement. I don’t know
that a specific height is as big of a factor as the location and what is around
it. What looks
nice are the commercial subdivisions where they do not allow the freestanding
ID signs above 6 ft.
Mr. Kraus stated there is a tool in place to control that now and it is
having it as a commercial PUD. They have
to come up with a zoning code for that area and it then becomes a zoning issue
and we can deal with it.
Mr. Griffin stated he doesn’t see why it should differ from 25 ft.
unless we find out some reason why it should be different.
Mr. Bergwall stated this does not cover a sign such as the one along
the freeway in Coleman’s Crossing. Mr. Kraus stated we could add something that
would state an extra sign may be permitted for exposure to limited access
highways at the discretion and approval of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cunningham stated this is the movement of the city. We have these signs at Coleman’s Crossing, we
are going to have one probably at City Gate, the old Walmart
plaza will eventually develop and they will want one there, after Bob Evans
moves there is the possibility of the old building coming down and new
development coming in and wanting a sign.
We are going to have all of these 25ft. signs every quarter mile.
Mr. Kraus stated the only downside with drawing a line right now is
there are a lot of other people that will have grandfathered signs and we can’t
force them to take them down.
Mr. Cunningham asked how do you get to the
quality of buildings that you want then.
Mr. Bergwall stated he believes that you start with a vision of what is
it you want then you write code that matches that vision. Everything new they match the vision. You don’t let people come in and compare to
what used to be.
Mr. Cunningham asked what direction the commission wanted to head.
Mr. Bergwall asked about the location of the signs. He asked if there were any state
standards. He stated depending on the
right of way to the pavement you could have a sign that is placed in there but
overhangs. Are you talking about the
post or the overhang of the sign? Do you
consider flag poles the same as a sign?
Mr. Kraus stated no.
Mr. Kraus stated under 1143.08, it states this chapter shall not govern
American flags, but it does consider any flag with a commercial logo
prohibited.
Mr. Cunningham stated the question right now is for a commercial
park. What do we want to do, is
twenty-five ft. too high?
Mr. Soller asked how Coleman’s Crossing got their signs. Mr. Kraus stated because there was not
anything in the code so Planning Commission had no authority over it, so they
had to go to BZA. This was another issue
because I don’t think BZA can allow a use that is not in the code. They can permit a variance as to height,
location, etc. from what the code states, but if it is not in the code, how can
they permit a variance.
Mr. Bergwall asked if 25ft.
was the standard for an individual business.
Mr. Kraus stated yes it is for certain zoning districts. Mr. Bergwall stated it would not make sense
to him to have this any more restrictive than what an individual business is
allowed.
Mr. Cunningham asked then how does the last part of what is proposed
fit in if it is going to limit the businesses that are close to the commercial
park sign. Mr. Kraus stated the way he
reads the paragraph is that if a developer wants to put up a commercial subdivision
identification sign, then on the road going back there will not be any other
freestanding identification signs for 100 ft. Mr. Kraus stated this verbiage
came out of the code for industrial park identification signs.
Mr. Yoder stated as a point of clarification, is a commercial park going
to apply to a development such as Coleman’s Crossing
where most of the businesses are retail.
Mr. Kraus stated yes.
Mr. Kraus asked what about an addition of, “an additional sign may be
permitted along limited access highways with the approval of the Planning
Commission.” Mr. Bergwall stated that is
inviting developers to ask for that type of sign. Mr. Griffin stated the way it is worded now
it allows for that. Mr. Cunningham
stated it does not because it states they are only allowed one per primary
vehicular access.
Mr. Soller stated his concern is are we
granting ourselves power that BZA should have.
Then we are creating a regulation to where we have the power to grant a
variance. Mr. Kraus stated if we write
it in the code and City Council approves it then they believe we should have
that authority and the applicant should not have to go the extra step to go to
BZA. If the applicant does not like the
height or size then they will have to go to BZA.
Mr. Soller stated what he doesn’t understand is in here we are able to
write regulation that restricts the size of the signage. Yet if a developer comes to us and wants to
put up a sign we can’t tell them no, because there is no regulation. Mr. Cunningham stated it gives the
implication that we can say no. Mr.
Soller asked why we wouldn’t write the regulation that says all signage has to
be approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Kraus stated because you don’t want to have to deal with the dozens
of signage request that come through. In
other words, the code establishes guidelines and when people come in and their
application meets the guidelines then the zoning inspector can issue the
permit. What we are trying to establish
is some guidelines. In the case of a
subdivision, which we look at anyway, why not look at signage too.
Mr. Soller stated they why wouldn’t we then put in the minimum
threshold in which we don’t want to review them. Such as all signage that are less than 10ft.
high, we don’t need to review.
Mr. Kraus stated they only thing we are going to have to review for
example is if City Gate came in said I have one signage that is permitted at my
vehicular entrance, but because of my exposure to SR 33, I would like to have a
sign towards the back. That we should
take a look at because you have residential area there and you wouldn’t want
the sign to sit in the residential peoples back yard.
Mr. Soller stated most of the discussion is that most people are
alright with the ground level signs but once we get above ground level we are
concerned with how high we let it go to.
What I am thinking is we write the regulation to the bare minimum we are
completely fine with then everything else we review.
Mr. Bergwall stated he has a question with saying a maximum of 25ft.
shall be permitted, that 25ft. when it is at or near a roadway, it can be 25ft.
above the road or finished grade. With
City Gate, it is 25ft. relative to what because part of SR 33 is well above
this property. Mr. Kraus stated the
height of the sign measurement is addressed in the code.
Mr. Soller stated the amount of signage is reviewed by us anyway,
right? Mr. Kraus stated if it is with a
subdivision. Mr. Soller stated if we are
reviewing everything else why wouldn’t we just want to
review all signage that is above ground level.
Mr. Kraus stated if it comes in as a PUD then we would be able to
control it. However, if it is a standard
subdivision the signage is reviewed with the individual buildings and they have
to follow the code.
Mr. Soller stated that is why he would feel more comfortable if we set
the regulation at 6 ft. and then it comes to us.
Mr. Kraus stated what if they take out the verbiage “along limited
access highways” and put in “to meet exceptional conditions”.
Mr. Kraus stated he will come back with the changes.
Mr. Kraus stated the commission has had a
change to talk to Gary Lee regarding the proposed uses in their area. It is the understanding that they want to
keep the land under government control.
He stated he can see this being used to rezone several other parcels and
not just the county ground on SR 4. I
can see the high school, middle school, the
Mr.
Soller asked what the necessity was for a new district as opposed to the
current districts we have. Mr. Kraus
stated we don’t have a district that deals with the county uses. Nothing fits.
Mr. Soller asked then the other districts
cause hardship for these types of agencies.
Mr. Kraus stated it doesn’t cause hardship, but Mr. Lee’s comment was he
felt that to get any change in zoning for these areas, they didn’t want it to
be easy.
Mr. Griffin asked where the county agricultural
facilities fit into the permitted uses.
Mr. Kraus stated Agricultural Production. Mr. Bergwall stated that would be
farming. Discussion held as to where it
would fit in. Commission decided it fit
under the SIC code 96.
Mr. Bergwall asked you have code 92, is there
any conflict with having Elementary and Secondary Schools within a certain
proximity of prisons and detention centers.
Discussion regarding what to list as
permitted uses in this district.
Mr. Soller stated he just wants to make sure
it allows the commission to have more control of the land by placing this
zoning district in the land.
Mr. Yoder asked how the process would
work. We would recommend this new
district to city council, they would approve it and it would become an
ordinance. We would have to determine
what areas are to be zoned this. Mr.
Kraus stated yes, it would have to go through just like any other rezoning.
Mr. Griffin stated any changes in uses should
only be made with the support of the controlling government agency. He stated in the case of the county
commissioners property off of
Mr. Cunningham stated the request can either
come from the property owner or by us.
Historic District Zoning (Residential) –
Non- conforming lots of record zoning
Mr. Kraus stated there is sample language which
deals with the 5000 s.f. and the lot width as two
separate issues.
Mr. Griffin stated then this deals with the
smaller lots in town.
Mr. Kraus stated yes, there are two
issues. One is the small lots. If the lot is less than 5000 s.f. in area then they get a little more lot coverage. The second issue is people that have narrow
lots, they get relief from the front and side setbacks.
Mr. Bergwall asked if Mr. Kraus knew why it
stated the driveway shall have a minimum of 10% grade. Mr. Kraus stated it should probably be
1%.
Mr. Bergwall stated the way the driveway is
run, he wonders if you can get driveway curb cuts that are 3 ft. wider than the
driveway pavement. Mr. Kraus stated he
raised the question before and the answer is that it is in the public right of
way so you can do it. You may have two
drives that come together but it can be done.
Mr. Kraus stated he is comfortable with the
language presented, except for the 10%.
Mr. Kraus looked in the code and told the commission that this came
right out of the current code it is not a change being made. Commission members stated that it is too
steep.
Mr. Cunningham stated there is the question of
how big of a problem is this whole thing really. Does this really need to be done to rectify
this? How many people are totally
discouraged from making changes to their lot because they have to go to
BZA?
Mr. Bergwall stated he does not have a problem
with adding this new verbiage.
Mr. Kraus stated based on the discussion here
driveways should say they shall not be less than 1 ft. from the side property
line and drop the whole lot grade issue and let the engineer deal with it.
Mr. Bergwall stated if it is part of the code
in another part, then it is something that still needs addressed.
Mr. Bergwall stated another area of question is
where it states the maximum % of lot occupied, principle and accessory
buildings (40%). In other areas of the
code it doesn’t include the accessory buildings. Mr. Kraus stated they are covered in all
zoning districts. Mr. Bergwall stated in
R-2 it states that it is all items under roof, but does not include accessory
buildings. Mr. Kraus stated yes it does.
Mr. DeLong stated most codes address all areas
of the lot that are covered. This
includes homes, garages, accessory buildings and driveways.
Mr. Bergwall stated if it is checked with Mrs.
McCoy, she would probably tell you that it doesn’t include accessory
buildings. I had this discussion with
her regarding a lot in Green Pastures and we couldn’t put on it what we
wanted. Mr. Kraus stated by the
definition in the code all enclosed buildings on the lot are to be
included.
Mr. DeLong stated he believes parking areas and
driveways should be included too. He
stated in reading Mrs. Michel’s letter, it is concerned about having toys
outside so you need a garage to store them in, but you can have a yard full of
cars as long as they are licensed.
Mr. Kraus stated that is a valid point.
Mr. DeLong stated he is also concerned
regarding the allowance of gravel driveways.
It gets drug into the streets.
Mr. Cunningham stated we are with you on that.
Mr. Kraus stated he did run this by the Mayor
and he is in favor of this type of approach.
It is a start. We do have the
requirement to go through the code every 5 years and now that we have a planner
on board, he can help us in that manner.
Mr. Griffin stated when this was first brought
to our attention it was because of the smaller older lots and not being able to
improve them and this verbiage is an attempt to help elevate that.
Mr. Soller stated his concern is how we
establish the district for this. Mr.
Kraus stated that is why it is written the way it is. I don’t think you can draw a line to define
an area. That’s why it was written the
way it is.
INDIVIDUAL
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS:
Don Bergwall -
None
Pete Griffin- None
Roger Yoder- None
John Cunningham -
None
Alan Seymour -
Absent
Pat Soller- None
Ken Kraus- None
ADJOURNMENT:
Commission made a motion to adjourn.