Document Sample
578_5.22.12 Powered By Docstoc
					                                Planning Commission
                                May 22, 2012 Meeting
                                City of Huber Heights

I.     Chair Terry Walton called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m.

II.    Present at the meeting: Mr. Wilson, Mr. Layton, Ms. LaGrone, Mr. Rodriguez,
       and Mr. Walton.

       Members Absent: None.

       Staff present at the meeting: Scott Falkowski, Engineer and Interim Assistant City
       Manager; and Margie Muhl, Planning Administrative Secretary.

III.   Opening Remarks by the Chairman and Commissioners


IV.    Citizens Comments


V.     Swearing of Witnesses

       Mr. Walton explained the proceedings of tonight’s meeting and administered the
       sworn oath to all persons wishing to speak or give testimony regarding items on
       the agenda. All persons present responded in the affirmative.

VI.    Pending Business

       1. MINOR CHANGE – The applicant, NEW SEASON MINISTRY INC., is
          requesting approval of a Minor Change for the installation of an LED
          sign at property located at 4925 Fishburg Road (ZC 12-20).

       Scott Falkowski stated that this Commission previously heard this case at their
       meeting on May 8, 2012, wherein the applicant requested approval for a new
       ground sign to be located where the present sign now exists. The proposal is for
       an electronic changeable copy sign. The point of contention appeared to be the
       amount of changeable copy that would be acceptable in the area. This brought
       up the matter of permissible copy for other areas of the City.

       Mr. Falkowski stated the requested sign meets City Code requirements. The only
       issue was in regard to the changeable copy. The existing Code states that
       electronic changeable copy signs are permitted in B Districts with no more than
       25% of the sign. The proposed sign would be located in a mainly residential area.
       To the east is another church and the former City swimming pool property.

       Staff and the Commission requested the applicant to return with additional
       information regarding lighting for the sign, and hours the sign would be
Planning Commission Meeting
May 22, 2012

      Mr. Falkowski stated that he wanted to correct a statement he had made at the
      previous meeting which was that street lights do exist along Fishburg Road in the
      area of the church. This would make a difference in regard to permissible lighting
      levels. He explained that the lighting code states the lighting level was to be at .1
      foot candle at the property line. The submitted lighting calculations show that the
      lighting levels of the sign meet the City Code for lighting at the property lines.
      Staff is comfortable with the lighting levels. Since this is still a residential area,
      staff is recommending that the electronic changeable copy portion of the sign be
      turned off from midnight to 6:00 a.m.

      Mr. Walton asked for some further clarification regarding the foot candle
      distance. Mr. Falkowski explained that the 100’ was at the sidewalk and was
      further away from any residential dwelling. Mr. Walton asked about the
      calculations for the foot candle distance. Mr. Falkowski provided some examples.
      He added that .1 was minimal and would blend in with the street lights.

      Kent Johnson, Pastor of New Season Ministry, stated that the top part of the sign
      that has the name of the church on it would be illuminated with fluorescent
      lighting. He asked if that part of the sign could remain illuminated in the off hours
      for the changeable copy. Mr. Falkowski confirmed.

      Mr. Wilson asked if the calculations being provided for the sign are acceptable to
      the church. Mr. Johnson stated this is what they were requesting.

      Mr. Walton asked about landscaping for the sign. Mr. Johnson stated that the
      existing landscaping far exceeds the Code requirement. He added that they are
      going to do some maintenance to the landscaping, along with some replanting.


      Mr. Layton moved to approve the request by the applicant, Kent Johnson on
      behalf of New Season Ministry, Inc., of a Minor Change for signage at property
      located at 4925 Fishburg Road (ZC 12-20) in accordance with Staff’s Revised
      Memorandum dated May 17, 2012, and the Planning Commission Decision
      Record attached thereto.

      Seconded by Mr. Wilson. Roll call showed: YEAS: Mr. Wilson, Mr. Layton, Ms.
      LaGrone, Mr. Rodriguez, and Mr. Walton. NAYS: None. Motion to approve
      carried 5-0.

      Mr. Walton asked about the next step for the applicant. Mr. Falkowski stated that
      the applicant should contact the Zoning Department for a permit for the sign.

      Mr. Johnson thanked the Planning Commission for their consideration. He
      proceeded to ask about temporary signs placed on their property over the
      weekends. He added the signs were placed at the far side of the sidewalk. He
      asked if such signs counted against them for temporary signage even though
      they did not belong to the church. He further asked if the church had the right to

Planning Commission Meeting
May 22, 2012

      remove them from the property because he had done so. He asked about
      guidance for such matters.

      Mr. Falkowski explained that signs in an area from the sidewalk to the street
      were not permitted and could be removed. He added that the City has not
      approved signage in right-of-ways for any purpose.

         is requesting approval of a Special Use to operate a worship facility in
         an R-1 Residential District. The property is located at 4545 Fishburg
         Road (ZC 12-05).

      Scott Falkowski stated that he would refer to this case as a resubmittal. The
      applicant first submitted in 2006 for a Special Use for the same use at this
      property. Minutes from that meeting were included in the Commission’s packet.
      There were a number of issues raised at that time about utilizing the six acres for
      a place of worship. At that time, the applicant had purchased the property and
      wanted to utilize the existing buildings at the site for their use. The matter was
      tabled because additional information had to be provided so a decision could be

      The applicant met with an engineer and had plans made, along with the binder of
      information regarding the existing use at the site and future plans. The issue
      before this Commission is the Special Use. The next step would be official
      engineering drawings to be approved by staff. The packet provided is a guideline
      of answers to questions that had previously been raised. Presently, the applicant
      wants to utilize the site as is, and work on the plan submitted in the packet for
      future development.

      Mr. Falkowski stated that six years have passed, and a gravel parking lot has
      been installed at the site. The entrance remains the same, and the site is being
      utilized as is. One of staff’s concerns is the gravel parking lot. In reading the
      previous minutes, an item of concern was drainage. Adding the additional
      parking lot would increase the flow into the existing creek. Previously, this was a
      concern of the Planning Commission, along with some of the neighbors.
      Therefore, one of the first things that need to occur would be the detention basin
      for the site which would help improve drainage in the area, while planning for
      future development.

      Another issue of concern was traffic. An engineering plan was submitted showing
      a new entrance further to the west from the entrance which currently exists. The
      applicant met with the engineering staff, and discussions occurred regarding
      various issues. The engineering staff is comfortable with moving the drive. The
      detention basin would outlet underneath it in a pipe, go across the road, and into
      the existing culvert with a new manhole attached to that. Engineering felt this was
      a good way to resolve some of the issues at the site.

Planning Commission Meeting
May 22, 2012

      The gravel parking lot is not compliant with Code. Code requires parking lots to
      be paved. The buildings as they exist are to be utilized as in the past six years.
      This is not the proper way to go about things. The use should have been
      approved before the site was to be utilized. The situation is what it is, and the site
      has been utilized for the last six years without the special use approval and
      without an occupancy certificate. Tonight, the applicant is attempting to resolve
      some of the issues.

      Mr. Falkowski stated that he spoke with the Zoning Department regarding
      complaints about the site for any reason, and in the past six years there have
      been no complaints. There is public water at the site. Regarding public sanitary,
      in the future they would need to connect up to the north to the Lexington Place
      Subdivision. The current subdivision would have to develop to that point to make
      such a connection. They have an existing septic tank. Without knowing when the
      sewer connection would be possible, once the facility is expanded they would
      install a new septic system. This would be acceptable to the City if sewer
      connections were not available to them. The drainage needs to go to a detention
      basin. Calculations have been worked on with the engineer, along with parking
      calculations for future needs.

      Mr. Falkowski continued stating that when the applicant comes forward with
      plans for their new building, they would have to meet all building and fire code

      Staff recommends that in order to bring the site into compliance, if the Planning
      Commission approves the special use, they would be able to expand in the future
      and follow the requirements for straight zoning in the area. Staff believes there
      are two main issues that need to be addressed within a reasonable time frame.
      Staff is requesting the time frame of one year. Those issues are paving the
      parking lot, and handling the storm water drainage with a detention basin. The
      occupancy certificate can be issued within the month, and then the parking lot
      could be paved. It is possible to have this work done yet this year. The applicant
      has requested a two-year time frame, but staff feels they already had six years,
      and believes two years would be too long to wait for the property to come into
      code compliance.

      Mr. Layton asked if the Fire Marshal would be attending tonight’s meeting. Mr.
      Falkowski stated he would not be present tonight. Mr. Layton stated he was
      concerned and referred staff to Tab #7 in the applicant’s binder which showed an
      unsecure propane tank by the building. He asked if the Fire Department has
      been to the site since the property has been used as a place of worship. He
      believed this presented a potential fire hazard. Mr. Falkowski stated he did not
      know if a representative of the Fire Department had been to the site, but he
      would mention the issue to the Fire Marshal for his review. Mr. Layton believed
      the issue should be addressed before the Planning Commission grants the
      special use approval. Mr. Falkowski stated that could be contingent on the Fire
      Department’s review at the site as they normally do reviews for businesses at
      certain times.

Planning Commission Meeting
May 22, 2012

      Ms. LaGrone asked if that would be added to the Decision Record. Mr. Falkowski
      stated the condition might be that the applicant should meet current fire codes at
      the site.

      Mr. Rodriguez asked for clarification that once the property met all code
      requirements, and if this Commission grants special use approval, what would be
      the next step. Mr. Falkowski stated that when the applicant wants to build their
      new building, the use would be there and they would not have to come back
      before Planning Commission. The applicant would work with staff to make sure
      code requirements were being met.

      Mr. Layton clarified that the applicant was to address the parking lot and
      drainage issues within one year. Mr. Falkowski stated that was his

      Mr. Wilson asked if any of the abutting neighbors had responded. Mr. Falkowski
      explained the residents had been notified of the meeting, and reminded everyone
      that the site had been used as a place of worship for the last six years and no
      complaints had ever been received. Mr. Wilson stated he was concerned about
      the residents, especially with regard to the proposed new construction.

      Ms. LaGrone stated that by approving the special use, they were not approving
      the future buildings. The Commission was not presently being asked to do so.

      Mr. Falkowski stated that notices were sent to the adjacent neighbors providing
      them with the opportunity to review the plans for the project.

      Ms. Muhl stated that one neighbor did come to City Hall asking what the
      Commission was being asked to approve. She did not provide her name or
      address, nor did she have any objection.

      Dave Eubank stated he is the attorney for the Buddhist Meditation Temple. He
      stated that representatives from the Temple were in attendance this evening. He
      further stated that Timothy Cooper, Vice President of the non-profit corporation
      representing the Temple, was in attendance tonight. He added that the Temple
      has formed a project team, including himself, John Brumbaugh, Engineer, and
      David Flannery, architect. He stated that samples of their work were included in
      the materials provided by the applicant.

      Mr. Eubank stated the propane tank that was referenced to would be removed
      within a week. He stated that an affidavit would be submitted in that regard if the
      Planning Commission so desires. He stated the subject property was a half-mile
      west of Old Troy Pike, and slightly shy of being six acres. He proceeded to show
      the conceptual site plan for the site. He showed where the main entrance was
      located. They are proposing moving the main entrance approximately 100’ to the
      west in their future development. At present, there are three buildings at the site.
      The main building was labeled on the drawings as “A,” and is a 1 ½ single-family
      home and is used as the residence for the monks and the administrative offices.
      Another building labeled as “B” was a garage and is used now as the worship
      facility. The other building labeled as “C” is used only for storage.

Planning Commission Meeting
May 22, 2012

      Mr. Eubank stated that 25% of the site consisted of mature vegetation, and used
      as a meditation walkway. The site is about 860’ in depth and almost 350’ in width
      at the maximum point. The future use at the site would be the same, except with
      the addition of a Temple building. Conceptual drawings had been provided in the
      materials. The maximum capacity for that building would be 299. Presently, the
      Temple does not hold any events or other functions attracting a large number of
      people. Typical capacity for the meditation space is about 25 people at this time.
      About twice a year there are events where the capacity could reach 50 people.
      Capacity for 299 is hope for future expansion. Sufficient parking will be made

      Mr. Eubank further stated that there are residential homes to the east, and lots
      were very deep. There is mature screening along the fence line. He stated that
      he has no knowledge of any complaints from the neighbors. He proceeded to
      mention some other residences in the nearby area. Mr. Falkowski also
      mentioned the zoning of surrounding properties.

      Mr. Eubank stated the applicant did not disagree about being held to a time
      frame regarding the paving of the lot and the resolution of the drainage issues at
      the southwest corner of the site. The applicant is requesting an additional six
      months to the deadlines proposed in the Planning Commission Decision Record.
      Therefore, the applicant is proposing a deadline of December 31, 2012 for
      obtaining the Certificate of Zoning Compliance, and a deadline of November 30,
      2013 to pave the existing parking lot and install the detention basin.

      Ms. LaGrone asked what the reason was for the request for additional time. Mr.
      Eubank stated the time would allow them to deal with financial issues in
      connection with the proposed improvements. He reiterated that they did not
      disagree that the issues need to be addressed, but they want some additional
      time to work on the financial aspects of the improvements.

      Mr. Layton stated that he lived in Laos and Thailand for several years and had
      visited many temples, and therefore, he questioned the entrance being on the
      east side of the building. Mr. Eubank stated that he was not that familiar with the
      Buddhist reasons why, but it was his understanding that it was important for the
      main entrance to face east.

      Mr. Layton stated the applicant is requesting approval for a special use, but yet
      they were submitting what would be considered as a Basic Development Plan
      which is not part of the request. Therefore, he asked if a Basic Development Plan
      was also being submitted for consideration. Mr. Falkowski stated the applicant is
      just requesting approval for a special use. The additional information provided
      would help answer the question whether a special use can be granted, and if
      issues such as traffic and utilities were being taken care of.

      Ms. LaGrone stated that since the property was not in a PUD, the Commission
      would not review the Basic Development Plan. The property is straight-zoned,
      and the Commission is only dealing with the special use request.

Planning Commission Meeting
May 22, 2012

      Mr. Eubank stated the request is for a special use, and the future improvements
      will be submitted to City staff for administrative review and approval.

      Mr. Layton clarified that straight-zoned districts would not bring Basic
      Development Plans before this Commission. Mr. Falkowski confirmed.

      Mr. Rodriguez thanked the applicant for sharing their plans with the Commission
      in regard to their future development. He asked whether the detention pond
      mentioned in Tab #5 was one and the same being discussed this evening. Mr.
      Falkowski confirmed. He added that it could be phased. It could be built now for
      what currently exists, and then expand it in the future for future development.
      They could also build the entire basin at this time which would save money down
      the road.

      Mr. Eubank stated that was a reason why they were asking for the additional six
      months. They want to make sure they could get financing in line for their project.

      Mr. Wilson asked if the City is providing specifications to the applicant in regard
      to the detention pond. Mr. Falkowski stated that it has to follow the Montgomery
      County Storm Water Regulations. The engineer for the project is very familiar
      with such regulations.

      Mr. Layton stated that back in 2006 many comments had been made regarding
      the creek on the west side, and asked if anything had been done to address the
      flooding issues. Mr. Falkowski stated that since he came to the City, he had not
      heard of any problems with the creek. He added that the detention basin would
      only improve the situation.

      Mr. Eubank proceeded to thank staff for their assistance.

      Ms. LaGrone stated that she belonged to a small church also, and she
      understands the financial aspects raised regarding this project. Therefore, she is
      inclined to be in favor of the additional six-month time frame.

      Mr. Falkowski stated that staff understood six months for construction, but in
      order to become Code compliant and receive their Certificate of Zoning
      Compliance, it was not a financial issue. He did not understand a six-month
      extension in that regard.

      Ms. LaGrone stated that paving the parking lot and putting in the detention pond
      were not cheap endeavors.

      Mr. Rodriguez stated that he would agree with staff’s recommendation.

      Mr. Eubank stated that they were requesting the additional six months in
      connection with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance so they could make sure it
      would not create a deadline to meet if they received six months on the other
      items. He asked if the Certificate of Zoning Compliance would start the clock
      ticking in regarding to commencing construction.

Planning Commission Meeting
May 22, 2012

        Mr. Falkowski stated that if Planning Commission agrees to grant the additional
        six months, the Planning Commission Decision Record would provide a specific
        date, and it would have nothing to do with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance.
        He clarified that would be the six months after the May 22, 2013 date. It would
        not be tied to the other.

        Mr. Eubank stated they did not object to coming in and applying for the
        Certificate of Zoning Compliance, but they did not want to create a deadline that
        would interfere with their other deadlines. If that is not the case, he would
        withdraw the request for the additional six months for that specific item.

        Mr. Wilson asked if the extension is granted for additional time, and if the items
        are not addressed by the deadline, what happens. Mr. Falkowski stated there are
        some options. The applicant can return before the deadline and request
        additional time again. If that is not done and the deadline arrives and the items
        are not addressed, then the Zoning Department would issue a violation. He
        proceeded to briefly explain the violation process. Eventually, a lawsuit could be
        filed and there could be a halt placed on the services held at the site.


        Ms. LaGrone moved to approve the request by the applicant, Buddhist Meditation
        Temple, Inc., for a Special Use to operate a worship facility in an R-1 Residential
        District for property located at 4545 Fishburg Road (ZC 12-05) in accordance
        with Staff’s Memorandum dated May 17, 2012, and the Planning Commission
        Decision Record attached thereto as amended.

        Seconded by Mr. Layton. Roll call showed: YEAS: Mr. Layton, Ms. LaGrone, Mr.
        Rodriguez, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Walton. NAYS: None. Motion to approve carried

        Mr. Walton asked about the next step for the applicant.

        Mr. Falkowski stated the next step would be for the applicant to remove the
        propane tank from the site, and then submit their application for the Certificate of
        Zoning Compliance.

VII.    New Business


VIII.   Additional Business

        Aquatic Center Update

        Mr. Falkowski stated that an application for a Major Change to the Aquatic
        Center recently came before the Planning Commission. At that time, no one
        responded against or in favor of the project either by mail or in person at that
        meeting. The Planning Commission approved the major change 5-0. The next

Planning Commission Meeting
May 22, 2012

      step was for the recommendation to go before City Council for approval. Again,
      notices were sent to property owners in the surrounding area regarding the City
      Council meeting. At that time, staff began receiving phone calls about the matter
      asking what was actually going before City Council. The residents were asking
      how this matter went before Planning Commission without them being aware of

      At the Administration Committee meeting which is held before the City Council
      meeting, this application was discussed. The Committee reviewed the
      recommendation made by the Planning Commission as a positive thing and were
      going to recommend approval at the City Council meeting. At the City Council
      meeting, the residents were in attendance. No one attended the Administration
      Committee meeting, but specific notification is not sent out for that meeting. The
      large group of residents had many concerns about the Aquatic Center that
      ranged from what was on the agenda and beyond. The first major complaint was
      that the residents had not received notification of the Planning Commission
      meeting. Staff reviewed the case records and notifications had been sent. Some
      how one property had been missed being placed on the mailing list. Other than
      that, mailings were sent but no one knows what happened. A couple of
      individuals admitted they received the notification.

      Ms. LaGrone stated it was easier for the residents to say they didn’t receive

      Mr. Falkowski stated the residents were permitted to speak longer than what was
      normally allowed at the meeting so all concerns could be aired. From that
      meeting, some issues raised surprised City Council because they were not
      aware of those matters. There were three major issues raised. One was the road
      itself because the residents did not want a road behind their property. They were
      concerned about the mounding and the landscaping since it was not yet mature
      vegetation. Another concern was having individuals walk through their yards to
      get to the Aquatic Center. The Planning Commission stated there could not be
      pedestrian access from Charlesgate Road. When the gates were installed, there
      had to be some clearing which caused gaps on the sides. Therefore, people
      could walk right through the area, and the gate would not prevent that from
      happening. Discussions occurred about what could be done with the gates.

      Ms. LaGrone stated she did not want anyone, outside of the Fire Department, to
      be able to get through that area.

      Mr. Falkowski stated that with the new approval for the additional access, the
      Fire Department said they no longer would need those gates. They would not
      use that area once they could go down Shull Road and through the new access

      Mr. Falkowski continued stating that City Council charged him to come up with a
      new plan that would answer the question about the drive and whether it could be
      moved to the other side of the soccer fields. Safety issues would be involved and

Planning Commission Meeting
May 22, 2012

      had been one of staff’s earlier concerns. In addition, another major concern was
      the dumpster. He proceeded to show the location for the dumpster, and the
      residents were concerned about noise and odors. The residents requested that
      a fence go along the complete property line with no gates that would prevent any
      pedestrian access.

      Mr. Falkowski stated that he revised the plan, but some of the things were not
      shown on the aerial. One was the dedicated pedestrian crossing that would be
      installed and have an island in the middle. There is still ongoing discussion as to
      whether stop signs would be installed there or if yield to pedestrian signs would
      be used. Mr. Walton asked about the exact location. Mr. Falkowski explained it
      would be north of where the existing playground was located behind the YMCA.
      He stated that the parking lot was added for the soccer fields. The dumpster
      would be placed in that parking area behind the YMCA. The fencing would be
      installed from Shull Road to the lift station with no breaks. The residents
      requested to have their own gates. Ms. LaGrone stated she was not in favor of
      that. Mr. Falkowski stated that the City’s Law Director explained there were
      liability issues involved because the fence would be 3’ onto City property. This
      would provide room for maintenance purposes. Due to the fact there were a lot of
      trees in that area, it would be difficult to put the fence right on the property line.
      City Council denied the request for the gates for the residences, along with denial
      for connecting the private fences to the City fence. A stipulation was placed that
      if a resident wanted to maintain the area, they would have to sign a waiver
      stating it was City property and giving the City the ability to walk around the area
      to maintain the site.

      Mr. Falkowski stated that he wanted to provide this update tonight since City
      Council had amended the Planning Commission recommendation.

      Mr. Layton stated that previously when this matter first arose three
      recommendations had been made. One of which was not quite the same as what
      was currently agreed to, but there had been a large number of residents
      complaining about the road and the fence and somehow that got lost in the

      Ms. LaGrone stated that she hoped the Aquatic Center would be a great addition
      to the City and loved by all. Meantime, all the people will have to go to Shull
      Road in order to enter the site.

      Mr. Falkowski added that once the Aquatic Center closed for the season, there
      would be a Town Hall meeting. Residents would be invited to provide their input
      regarding their likes and dislikes about the Center, along with what improvements
      could be made.

      Mr. Layton stated the road would be primarily for the athletic fields and the
      aquatic facility, and therefore, when the events are over for the season would the
      road be blocked until Spring so it could not be used.

Planning Commission Meeting
May 22, 2012

      Mr. Falkowski stated that fire access had to be considered, along with the use of
      the amphitheater. He did not know how long that season would run. There would
      also be a connection to the Sinclair parking lot.

      Mr. Walton asked what the reason would be to shut down the road.

      Mr. Layton stated there was another access on Shull Road close to the new one.
      Ms. LaGrone stated that most people would just not use it. If someone was going
      to the YMCA, the access was inconvenient because you would have to drive all
      around the site. Mr. Walton stated if someone was going to Sinclair, it would be
      easier to come out the new road than go through the parking lot.

      Mr. Falkowski stated that the distance between the existing YMCA entrance and
      the new access road was a little over 200’. The City’s Code for drives is greater
      than 200’. It is larger than some street connections.

      Mr. Layton asked who would be responsible to clear the area of snow. Mr.
      Falkowski stated that the YMCA has a maintenance contract with the City for the
      site. He further explained that the City would get money back from the Aquatic
      Facility which was designed to pay for itself. If the Aquatic Facility does not make
      money, it would have to be paid for by the City. The YMCA would get paid more
      if the Aquatic Center makes money, and that provides incentive for them to make
      sure the facility works.

      Mr. Layton stated that when the season is over and the Town Hall meeting is
      held, one item of discussion should be whether there is a profit or loss from the
      center. Mr. Falkowski stated that the City would address such issues.

      Mr. Rodriguez asked about the athletic fields. Mr. Falkowski stated that the fields
      would be moved over, but there will be some grading done in the area. The
      walkway would remain in that location and would be 6’ in width.

      Mr. Walton stated that there is a bikeway/walkway in the area where the Planning
      Commission had approved a roadway. Mr. Falkowski stated that particular
      walkway had always been included on the plans. He feels it is better not to have
      a walkway right next to the road.

      Changeable Copy Signs

      Scott Falkowski referred to the church that requested a larger portion of their sign
      be allowed for changeable copy. This caused some discussion among staff and
      this Commission. The Code for this matter is from the 90’s, and the technology
      for such signs have changed. Types of signs have changed over the years. He
      referenced the sign at North Park Plaza. He stated the question is whether such
      signs should be in commercial areas, but if installed in residential areas what
      affects would there be on the surrounding residences.

Planning Commission Meeting
May 22, 2012

      Mr. Falkowski stated he had done some research on this issue, and there is a
      wide range of regulations from city to city. Some are antiquated like ours, and
      some areas, such as Vandalia, prohibit flashing and/or animated signs.
      Electronic signs are totally prohibited. He stated that Tipp City only permits
      changeable copy signs at gas stations, and Kettering permits 50% of a sign for
      changeable copy. Xenia lists more detail regarding what is permitted on such

      Ms. LaGrone stated that she can remember easily two other occasions when this
      Commission varied from the sign code. One was for the high school, and the
      other was for St. Peter’s.

      Mr. Falkowski reference the sign at Precision Tune.

      Ms. LaGrone stated that her inclination is to allow 50% of a sign for changeable
      copy, but then pay attention to lighting, especially in residential areas.

      Mr. Falkowski stated that he would take this Commission’s suggestions and draft
      new language. Then, he would bring it back for this Commission’s review. Once
      approved, it will be forwarded to City Council.

      Mr. Layton asked if there was a separate section of the code for pole signs. Mr.
      Falkowski stated there could be. Mr. Layton referenced the sign at Rooster’s. Ms.
      LaGrone asked if the existing poles had been used at that site. Mr. Layton stated
      that it was a new sign and new pole. Mr. Falkowski stated that he did not know
      anything about that sign. Mr. Layton stated that possibly a standard height should
      be set for pole signs, especially depending on the topography of an area. Mr.
      Falkowski explained there was a specific code for commercial property that was
      next to a highway.

      Mr. Falkowski stated that other types of signs to be looked at are political signs.
      Other sign issues can be reviewed at the same time.

      Ms. LaGrone stated that she feels this Commission had not turned anyone down
      applying for up to 50% of changeable copy. Mr. Falkowski stated that there was a
      denial for the church on Chambersburg Road, but other issues were also
      involved besides changeable copy. Ms. LaGrone stated the issue with the church
      was location. Mr. Falkowski agreed and added that the height of the sign was
      also a problem.

      Mr. Layton stated that he was not thoroughly convinced that the changeable copy
      should be allowed up to 50%. He feels it should be less than that. He added that
      the banner at the top advertised the activity, and the changeable copy further
      defines the activity. He feels if the areas are equal in size, something would be

      Mr. Walton stated that he feels that should be up to the organization as to
      whether they want their name or the title of the event shown in greater detail. He
      proceeded to explain various scenarios that could be used for such signage.

Planning Commission Meeting
May 22, 2012

      Mr. Falkowski stated that another city states that 1/3 of their signs must be
      permanent identification.

      Mr., Walton stated that he liked the overall size of this City’s signage, but if
      someone is going to pay a lot of money for a sign, it should be up to them as to
      what space is used for changeable copy and identification purposes. He referred
      to the Athletic Foundation’s sign and stated it was strictly changeable copy. Mr.
      Falkowski added that the sign was on the wall of the building.

      Mr. Wilson stated that he would be agreeable to allowing 50% of changeable
      copy. He preferred there be limitations on signs in residential areas, including
      hours of operation.

      Mr. Falkowski stated that lighting levels can be added to the sign language. In
      business areas, the code could be different. He referenced North Park Plaza.

      Mr. Walton stated that the people in the residential area adjacent to the church
      might provide their input on the sign.

      Ms. LaGrone stated that due to the lighting information received, she stated that
      the residents may not even notice any difference in the sign.

      Mr. Layton stated he did not feel the residents would be the issue, but drivers
      being distracted on the road by the sign.

      Ms. LaGrone commented that the particular sign in question was located at a 4-
      way STOP sign. Mr. Falkowski added that it was set back 60’ behind the

      Mr. Walton stated that Aldersgate applied for LED signage for a future Planning
      Commission meeting. He continued stating that this was the new technology
      being sought after, and the Commission would probably see more and more of
      such requests. Mr. Falkowski stated there were a lot of manual changeable copy
      signs still around.

      Mr. Falkowski stated he would draft language and bring it back to the Planning
      Commission. It appears that 50% of electronic changeable copy would be
      accepted from tonight’s discussion. Lighting levels should be added for
      residential areas, along with hours of operation. He asked if the Commission
      wanted space for permanent identification on the signs.

      Mr. Walton added that some signs were adding graphics also. He further stated
      that possibly other portions of the sign requests could be considered on a case-
      by-case basis.

      Ms. LaGrone stated that guidelines are needed for these signs. She feels the
      Commission could deny a request if it was for more than 50%.

      Mr. Layton asked about the ABC Supply site. Mr. Falkowski stated that was a
      different applicant.

Planning Commission Meeting
May 22, 2012

      Mr. Walton stated that if any of the Commissioners had any other ideas regarding
      language for this matter, they should contact Mr. Falkowski.

IX.   Approval of the Minutes

      Without objection the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 8,
      2012 were approved.

X.    Reports and Calendar Review

      Mr. Falkowski stated there was a sign request scheduled for the next meeting,
      along with a request for a special use on Uehling in connection with an auto
      repair shop. There is also a request for a Special Use and Basic Development
      Plan for the Dayton Amateur Radio Association on Bellefontaine Road. The
      Association wants to expand the facility. The special use would be for the
      existing towers at the site.

      Mr. Walton asked if the property where the radio towers are located was sold as
      part of the Artisan Walk project. Mr. Falkowski stated that the subject site was
      just north of that area. The property is presently zoned Agricultural, and they are
      requesting to be rezoned to Planned Public.

XI.   Adjournment

      There being no further business to come before the Commission, Mr. Walton
      adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:30 p.m.

__________________________________                 _____________________________
Terry Walton, Chairman                             Date

___________________________________                _____________________________
Margaret A. Muhl, Administrative Secretary         Date


Shared By:
wuxiangyu wuxiangyu
About Those docs come from internet,if you have the copyrights of one of them,tell me by mail,I just want more peo learn more knowledge.Thank you!