Planning Commission

Office of the Clerk of Council City of Gahanna 200 South Hamilton Road Gahanna, Ohio 43230 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission David K. Andrews, Chairman Kristin Rosan, Vice-Chair Joe Keehner Jennifer Price Donald R. Shepherd David B. Thom Robert Westwood Stacey L. Bashore, Deputy Clerk of Council Wednesday, October 27, 2010 7:00 PM City Hall Commission may caucus prior to the Regular Meeting IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO HAVE A COURT REPORTER PRESENT, AT THE APPLICANT'S EXPENSE, IF THEY WISH TO HAVE A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING. COUNCIL OFFICE SHOULD BE ADVISED IN ADVANCE IF A COURT REPORTER IS GOING TO BE PRESENT. A. CALL MEETING TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Gahanna Planning Commission met in Regular Session in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 200 S. Hamilton Road, Gahanna, Ohio on Wednesday, October 27, 2010. The agenda for this meeting was published on October 22, 2010. Chair David Andrews called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commission member Bob Westwood. A1. SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBER Ray King swore in new member Joe Keehner. A2. ROLL CALL Present 7 - David K. Andrews, Jennifer Tisone Price, Kristin E. Rosan, David B. Thom, Donald R. Shepherd, Robert C. Westwood, and Joe Keehner B. ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA. There were none. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 13, 2010 A motion was made by Rosan, seconded by Shepherd, to approve the minutes of the October 13, 2010 meeting. The motion carried by the following vote: City of Gahanna Page 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 27, 2010 Yes: 6- Andrews, Price, Rosan, Thom, Shepherd and Westwood Abstain, COI: 1- Keehner D. HEARING OF VISITORS - ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA. There were none. E. APPLICATIONS: None F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None G. NEW BUSINESS: DR-0017-2010 Gard stated the applicant is requesting approval for a wall sign that is not within the Phase 2 criteria for Stoneridge Plaza; the criteria says that if a sign goes outside of the criteria it does have to come back to Planning Commission; this is not a variance change to the 1995 signage application; we also researched whether the drive thru window would be allowed for this location and there was a blanket conditional use approved in 1994 to allow for it; applicant is requesting a ground sign; we could not find anything that indicated that a ground sign could not be requested; will be similar in character and size to outlot signs. Bruce Sommerfelt, 527 West Rich Street; on behalf of Piada; Piada is starting a theme; trying to get some recognition and consistency; lack of visibility at this location; putting the sign above the sign band affords them some individuality; gives some balance; on west elevation there will be a pick up window for call ahead orders; traffic patterns are in the process of being worked out; we do have approval from the developer on the ground sign. Westwood asked what made this signage any different and why do you want to be above the sign band. Sommerfelt stated it is for logo consideration; signage is unique; very upscale design. Westwood asked if it would fit within the sign band. Sommerfelt stated it would cram the added dimensions; will be very tasteful. Westwood clarified applicant has okay from landlord for adding signage in the front. Thom asked what stops other restaurants from coming in and wanting additional signage. Gard stated it is not clear or defined that the wall signage has to be contained within the wall band; it does not appear to be prohibited. King agreed that it doesn't specifically prohibit. Gard stated this is not a variance to the Code. Thom clarified it was an amended application for signage criteria. Thom asked what stops anyone else in this establishment from wanting ground signs. Gard stated the landlord can. Sommerfelt stated this agreement would be written into the lease with Piada; they would have to look at the existing leases. Price clarified that the sign criteria that was previously passed does not specifically address ground signs. Thom stated he interpreted it to say no ground signs would be allowed for any tenant. Gard stated her interpretation is that section A deals with sign bands only. Keehner stated in terms of wall signs and visibility on the edge of the strip the fact that it wraps around the corner makes it more appropriate; in terms of aesthetics don't think it is inappropriate. Shepherd asked if the proposed traffic flow is going to create a problem. Gard stated this was not an issue for the city engineer; he is ok with that movement. Sommerfelt stated we spoke with the owner to make sure the traffic is going to go in a safe manner. Shepherd stated you could have a problem with a worker going to the back of the building and someone stepping out in front of a car. Gard stated no workers park in City of Gahanna Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 27, 2010 the back. Shepherd stated it is not out of the realm of possibility; what will prevent that. Gard stated it could happen now. Shepherd stated there needs to be directional signage to show people where to go. Sommerfelt stated we intend to have directional signage. Gard stated engineering has no issues with this. Shepherd stated he didn't see anything to show how we were going to control the directional movement. Shepherd asked if the fence will come back to us in a separate application; are they allowed to put something up without us seeing it. Tom Berry, 1890 North Boulevard; stated the fence would be black with a wrought iron look that would enclose the area; not looking to detract from the building just enclose the area. Shepherd asked if there was anything for the Commission to look at; are we allowed to ask you to take it down if we don't like it; why wasn't this application brought to us in complete form; will there be landscaping for the ground sign. Sommerfelt stated there will be a full landscape plan. Price stated she read the sign criteria to be as long as the sigs meet those criteria Planning does not need to see them; but when they go outside of the guidelines it triggers the need for Planning to look at them; the criteria doesn't say they can't do it. Thom stated in the past there was a five member Planning Commission that approved where the signs would go and there was a design review committee that approved the actual signs. Sommerfelt stated it has been through several checkpoints before it got to this point; went through tenant and developer. Rosan clarified that the ground sign would be consistent with Wendy's and Arbys; height 8 feet relativile gard that is what code requires; Rosan stated we have no way to gauge whether this will stick out like a sore thumb. Gard stated it will be relatively close to other signs in the area. Sommerfelt stated the developer has asked us to scale the sign back to 6 feet and not use the whole 8 feet. Keehner stated changes on the wall sign band don't require review; believe it would be the Planning Commission's right to review any sign changes; if they were not asking for anything different they wouldn't have to be here; sign merits are okay; seems like the two columns should be holding the sign up; first reaction is the stone part is too wide for the sign; will it across from the median strip. Sommerfelt stated it will be slightly east of front door; didn't want to entertain frontage of neighbors door. Shepherd asked if we approve the sign tonight what happens if someone else wants to put a sign close to this one and we don't think it is appropriate; love the sign and think it looks great in the center; want to make sure we don't create a bigger problem. King stated they are on the end of the property so there is more jusitifcaiton for their sign; and they are saying the landlord is prohibiting additional signage in the leases; you are setting a precedent but there is clearly some differentiation from this teant and others. Somerfelt stated the landlord is adament about not changing leases. Thom stated we have a development plan but landlords can change. Price asked if the location of this business gives a defense for allowing the additional signage. King stated he thinks this space is different from the other spaces but it is still setting a precedent. Thom stated he understood what everyone was saying but thinks we are violating the originally approved site plan without changing something; not against the signs; great idea. White stated this has been done before for comprehensive sign packages; Crazy Goat in Creekside was not totally in sync with the approved sign package and they came in and it was changed; this area has changed and built up; changed the whole profile of when this building was originally built; you have to be compelled to look at that as new tenants come on board; from a development standpoint we have to look at what we are competing against; we are competing against a lot of other buisnesses. Sommerfelt stated that is also needs to be taken on the merit of the need; can assure you that without the ground sign this business will not be viable. Shepherd asked if everyone was okay with whatever they are putting up for fencing. Rosan stated it was fine. King stated you can only approve the signage with this application. Gard stated they could provide us with manufacturer brochures for the files. Shepherd stated we need to make sure it is noted in the file. Westwood asked if we have any standards for fencing. Gard stated she didn't think there was any aesthetic guidelines. Price stated it could be black ornanmental fencing approved administratively. White asked if the fencing could be City of Gahanna Page 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 27, 2010 added to the application tonight so they can proceed and bring the information and samples back to us. King stated the applicant would need to amend the application to include the fencing. Somerfelt stated he would like to amend the application to include the introduction of the patio fencing with the submittal of the fence to come back for design review for approval. Westwood stated he liked the look of the sign; very unique; going to individual letters gives it a good modern look; signage out front is a nice eye catcher. Rosan stated she will be supporting both signs; it is critical that it is clear in the record that the wall sign being above the wall band is because the location is below street grade; it is at the end of the road and there are trees that obscure the view; there is no visibility for the business; we have to innovate with the times and the change in tenants; would be very short sighted of us to not approve signage on the wall; with respect to the ground sign I drove by and there is nothing on that end of the plaza to draw attention; need to have the ground sign there; very lucky to have a company like this coming to Gahanna and we need to make sure it is successful; sounds like the size of the sign is appropriate and consistent with the area; for those reasons I will be supporting the wall and ground sign; think we have consistenant looked at chagning things we have approved in the past don't see anything that legally binds us that is a non issues in terms of support for wall sign. Shepherd stated he would be supporting the signage for many of the same reasons given by the other members. Rosan stated because of the location this will define the corner; don't think it will set a precedent as long as we have ability to say no; has worked for this long; maybe we need to look at something new and continually grow instead of being stuck in the past. Price stated she echoed much of what her colleauges said; would be approving building sign and street sign; agree with it; exceptionally well designed; sign will attract customers to the entire center; all the tenants could benefit; this part of the building faces special circumstances. Keehner stated he was very comfortable with approving the wall sign; not uncomfortable with the ground sign; aesthetics weren't that interesting; very discreet in terms of relating to the area; seems to have a functional need. Andrews stated thank you for choosing Gahanna; appreciate you choosing us; thank you for your professional presentation; also going to approve the signs. A motion was made by Price, seconded by Shepherd, to approve the amended DR-0017-2010 which includes decorative ornamental fencing around the patio; further information and fence design to be discussed at the next meeting; said approval tonight limited to signage for Piada Italian Street Food. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 6- Andrews, Price, Rosan, Shepherd, Keehner and Westwood No: 1- Thom H. COMMITTEE REPORTS: Olde Gahanna Visioning Committee Rosan stated we are continuing work on the Code; have invited members of the committee to continue to come to our meetings and work with us to provide input. Hamilton Road Corridor Committee No report,. City of Gahanna Page 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 27, 2010 I. OFFICIAL REPORTS: City Attorney. No report. City Engineer. No report. Department of Development. Gard reported that Stygler Village will be receiving a grant for improvement of the exterior and interior; senior housing project on Imperial; we support the efforts of the Ohio Housing agency. Chair. No report. J. CORRESPONDENCE AND ACTIONS. There were none. K. POLL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT. No comments. L. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Price; Adjourned at 8:04 p.m. M. POSTPONED APPLICATIONS: CC-0002-2010 City of Gahanna Page 5