Galesburg Reporter

Copley Township Architectural Review Board met July 2.

Here is the minutes provided by the Board:

Mr. Gregory convened the Architectural Review Board meeting at 6:02 p.m. Present were Kelly McPherson, Joe Gregory, Dwayne Groll, Christine Davis, Dale Couch and Rodney Kovacs. Melanie Friedman was absent. Also present were Sue Schultz, Shawna Gfroerer and Jeff Newman from the Department of Community & Economic Development.

Ms. McPherson stated that the Board of Zoning Appeal (BZA) minutes from May did not include the recommendations from the ARB. Ms. Gfroerer stated that this was an oversight and that the recommendations were included in the presentation and amended minutes will be submitted to the BZA in August for consideration and approval.

Ms. McPherson moved to approve the May 7, 2018 minutes as submitted, Ms. Davis, second. Mr. Gregory called for the vote. The motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS

APPLICANT: BUSINESS NAME: LANDOWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: ZONING DISTRICT: PROPOSAL:

Jim Harlow (Henderson Roofing & Construction) Creekstone Subdivision Creekstone Homeowners Association of Copley Inc. PPN: 1507547 Planned Residential Development District (PRDD) Entrance Signs--$ 8.06 (D)

Ms. Schultz presented an overview of the proposed entrance signs. Ms. Schultz explained that the applicant is permitted two (2) subdivision identification signs not to exceed 32 square feet each and located no closer than 10' from the road rightof-way. Ms. Schultz stated that the applicant, Jim Harlow i and landowner, Creekstone Homeowners Association of Copley are in the process of replacing two subdivision entrance signs. Ms. Schultz stated that per the application, the Creekstone Homeowners Association is responsible for the sign and maintenance and sets aside funds each month for this. Additionally, the Creekistone Homeowners Association understands and accepts the terms of the rightof-way associated with the placement of these signs. Ms. Schultz gave a description of the proposed signs stating that the signs will be comprised primarily of cinder block with a veneer culture stone cover and will include a veneer culture top cap and a 12" x 24" concrete footer with the word "CREEKSTONE" etched into the inlay limestone. Ms. Schultz stated that the applicant is permitted and proposing 32 square feet per sign and the sign is located 70' from Copley Road and 30' from Spafford Dr. Ms. Schultz stated that the department recommends approval for the proposed subdivision identification signs.

Ms. McPherson asked if the sign was going on the existing location. Ms. Schultz said yes, the sign was going on the existing location.

Ms. Davis asked about lighting for the sign. Ms. Gfroerer stated that the sign would have external lighting

Mr. Gregory asked if they are using the existing lights. Ms. Gfroerer said yes, they are using the current lighting.

Mr. Gregory asked if they were replacing both signs. Ms. Schultz said yes, they are replacing both signs.

Ms. Davis moved to approve the subdivision identification signs as proposed. Ms. McPherson, second. Mr. Gregory called for the vote. The motion carried.

APPLICANT: BUSINESS NAME: LANDOWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: ZONING DISTRICT: PROPOSAL:

Jason Littlebear Copley Coffee & Games Mike Plevris 1442 S. Cleveland-Massillon Road PPN: 1501067 Commercial General Retail- (C-GR) Wall Sign-$8.07 (D)

Ms. Schultz presented an overview of a proposed wall sign. Ms. Schultz explained that the applicant is permitted 1.5 sq. ft. per linear ft. of building frontage. The building frontage measures 54' for a total of 81 square feet permitted. Ms. Schultz stated that the applicant, Jason Littlebear and landowner, Mike Plevris are in the process of adding a wall sign to the existing building. Ms. Schultz stated in that the applicant is proposing an opaque sign with AR black lettering and the sign will be internally illuminated with soft glow lighting. Ms. Schultz stated that the applicant is permitted 81 square feet based on building frontage and has proposed 21 square feec. Ms. Schultz stated that the department recommends approval for the proposed wall sign.

Ms. McPherson asked if there was a sign at the road. Ms. Schultz said yes, there is a current sign structure

Mr. Couch said that it would be nice if they could remove the sign for the hair salon. Ms. Schultz stated that she would look to see if the sign was an off-premise sign or business center sign.

Ms. Davis asked if there is anything which requires you to remove a sign. Ms. Schultz stated that there may be something in the Zoning Resolution which requires you to remove a sign if the business has been gone for a period of time.

Ms. Davis said that she appreciates the use of the Copley font in the sign "Copley Coffee & Games".

Ms. McPherson asked if we knew what the "games" actually are. Ms. Schultz stated that there will be games for youth and their families. Ms. Gfroerer stated that they plan to have board games and card garnes similar to "Magic the Gathering".

Ms. McPherson asked if they would be concerned that people will show up thinking this is an adult arcade. Ms. Schultz stated that with all of the social media promotion and the website it should be pretty clear.

Mr. Groll and Mr. Couch asked if staff could research to see if the option of having the other signs coming down could be enforced. Ms. Schultz said yes, she would look into this.

Mr. Groll moved to approve the proposed Wall Sign. Mr. Couch, second. Mr. Gregory called for the vote. The motion carried.

BUSINESS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Ms. Gfroerer reviewed the current projects proposed by the Architectural Review Board and provided updates on staff work. Ms. Gfroerer stated that staff had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Gregory and review proposed language for the Tree City USA application. Ms. Gfroerer stated that the Department of Community & Economic Development could support the necessary language for inclusion in the application including:

General Authority PROPOSED: The Service Director, is hereby given complete authority, control, and supervision of all trees which now or which may hereafter exist upon any public place in Copley Township. The Code Enforcement Officer is hereby given authority to regulate trees which exist upon any private property in Copley Township when such trees are in such a hazardous condition as to affect adversely the public health, safety, and welfare.

Order to Preserve or Remove Trees on Private Property PROPOSED: The Code Enforcement Officer shall have the authority and it shall be his duty to order the pruning preservation, or removal of trees or plants upon private property when such trees constitute a public nuisance or when he shall find such action necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare.

Dead, Dangerous, or Diseased Tree PROPOSED: Any dead, dangerous, or diseased tree in so far as it affects the public health, comfort, safety, and welfare is hereby declared a public nuisance dangerous to life and limb. For the purposes of this ordinance, a dead tree is any tree with respect thereto the Code Enforcement Officer or his designated agent has determined that no part thereof is living; a dangerous tree is any tree, or part thereof, living or dead, which the said Code Enforcement Officer or his designated agent shall find is in such a condition and is so located as to constitute a danger to persons or property on public space in the vicinity of the said tree; a diseased tree shall be any tree on private property in such a condition of infection from a major pathogenic disease as to constitute, in the opinion of the Code Enforcement Officer or his designated agent, a threat to the health of any other tree.

Ms. Gfroerer stated that currently, the Service Director and Service Department maintain trees on Township property as part of their duties and that the Property Maintenance Code could be amended to include duties of enforcement of private trees under the direction of the

Property Maintenance Code Enforcement Officer: Ms. Gfroerer stated that this proposed language would not be subject to a text amendment since it was not included in the Zoning Resolution.

Mr. Groll asked if the language would be subject to approval from the Board of Trustees. Ms. Gfroerer said yes, that if approved for consideration from the Architectural Review Board, the proposal could move forward to the Board of Trustees for approval. Mr. Groll asked if the Architectural Review Board could consider the language and approve at their August meeting and still have time for consideration at the Board of Trustees August Meeting. Ms. Gfroerer said that staff could request consideration at the August 28 Board of Trustees Meeting with ARB approval on August 6.

Mr. Couch expressed concern about the cost of tree removal to the homeowner. Ms. McPherson stated that the cost of upkeep is part of owning a home similar to the cost of repairing an air condition unit or heating unit.

Mr. Couch asked how the nuisance trees would be identified and who would have the authority to have them removed. Mr. Gregory stated that there are ways to specify nuisance trees and Mr. Newman, Property Code Enforcement Officer, stated he would work with Mr. Gregory to learn more about nuisance tree identification. Ms. Gfroerer stated that a possible nuisance tree list could be created which would help identify and discourage the planting of certain trees in new development

Ms. McPherson asked how we would be able to enforce nuisance trees. Ms. Davis stated that identifying and including the language in the Property Maintenance Code would be the first: step.

Ms. Davis asked if the process for removing trees would be the same as the process for other complaints. Mr. Newman stated that yes, once the complaint is received he would investigate and speak with the homeowner to resolve.

Mr. Gregory asked if the Board would like to review the proposed language and send comments/suggestions to Ms. Gfroerer for continued review in August. The Board agreed to continue review.

Ms. Gfroerer introduced the proposed Copley Tree Ordinance and handed the presentation to Mr. Gregory for full review. Mr. Gregory explained that the Township had provided the approved landscape plan for the Preserve at Miller's Farm of which he utilized to do a test of the proposed Model Ordinance. Mr. Gregory stated the Preserve at Miller's Farm encompassed a total of 111 acres and the developer was required to preserve 25% young and 50% mature trees. Mr. Gregory explained that under the proposed ordinance, they would have been required to preserve 63% young and 91% mature trees in order to achieve a designated canopy.

Mr. Gregory stated that based on the existing landscape, the site had approximately 24.87 acres of woodlands and 22.4% canopy (roughly) and based on the proposal of 63%/91%, the site would have remaining 12.1 acres young and 5.1 acres mature for a total 17.2 acres and 15.5% canopy.

Mr. Gregory reviewed the contents of the approved landscape plan which included the planting of 1,299 trees. Mr. Gregory stated that based on the preservation of 15.5% existing canopy and the canopy of 1,299 trees at mature canopy in 30 years, the total canopy would be approximately 18.3 acres and 16.5% Canopy Cover.

Mr. Gregory discussed options for achieving a required canopy percentage. Mr. Gregory stated that unfortunately, based on the exercise conducted at Miller's Farm, the results show that they actually started below any goal we'd likely set for RMD and they would need to plant 28,423 more tree to meet 40% goal, 16,335 more trees to meet 30% goal and 10,291 more trees to meet 25% goal Mr. Gregory concluded that the Model Tree Ordinance isn't a plan that would likely work for Copley, but that the ARB should continue to research canopy options such as; Can we add a third option payment in lieu of? Where do we set the goals? Agricultural conversions harder to meet goal/Wooded sites easier to meet goal.

Ms. Davis asked if there are some trees which provide more canopy others. Mr. Gregory stated that maybe we could publish something to show canopy at growth, but 40' is about an average.

Mr. Couch asked if you would actually count the entire 111 acres since you can't plant on some of the land. Ms. Davis stated that the canopy could be incorporated into the entire site.

Mr. Groll asked if this would this make the land undesirable such as in the Miller's Farm case and could we look at offering the developer an opportunity to purchase an easement for tree conservation and plant there if they couldn't reach it onsite.

Mr. Gregory stated that there could be a payment in lieu of or the percentage could be changed but after going through the exercise, he would say this ordinance model would not be for Copley, but would like us to consider options for meeting a canopy.

Mr. Gregory stated that when the ARB proposed a payment in lieu of fee structure that was overly restricted to those who own wooded lots, this alternative is the opposite where it is more restrictive to those who own clear lots.

Ms. Gfroerer stated that the staff had discussed the potential of a tree canopy survey in the Township and that this might be helpful to obtain a baseline.

Ms. Davis asked if there a point at which we appoint this project to a consultant and maybe looking at the canopy as an overall goal in the township and not just a specific site could be helpful

Mr. Groll asked if we could locate that map Mr. Springer produced which showed remaining land which could still be developed and that with the map and a possible survey, we might have a better understanding of where we are at regarding canopy.

Ms. Gfroerer stated that staff would come back in August with the map from Mr. Springer and would continue the discussion of a tree canopy survey and present findings in August as well.

Ms. Gfroerer reviewed the development Projects on the Move and stated that there are currently four commercial projects in progress including Planet Fitness, Dairy Queen, Dan's Wholesale Carpet and Copley Coffee & Games and 28 residential projects.

Ms. McPherson asked about the new project for the Eye Site. Ms. Gfroerer stated that we plan to include this as our highlight project once they open.

Ms. Gfroerer reviewed the Board and Department Projects on the Move and highlighted the Zoning Commissions work on the Land Use Plan update, the adoption of the Community Improvement Corporation's Strategic Plan and the new department website overhaul. Ms. Gfroerer gave a live demonstration of the new webpages and highlighted attention to core focus area alignment and our newest program, Neighborhood Ambassadors.

Ms. McPherson asked how individuals were made aware of new items on the website. Ms. Gfroerer stated currently, we use social media and email alerts and that the department is making a push to provide consistent updates utilizing the CivicPlus platform built into the website.

Ms. Gfroerer concluded her report with the June Activity Update stating that we have processed 25 permits resulting in over $2.3 million dollars in new investment and that Mr. Newman is working on 83 property maintenance sites.

Mr. Gregory asked if there was any business from the floor. No business from floor, Mr. Gregory stated that the next meeting was scheduled for August 6, 2018.

With no further business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:44.

For complete details visit; https://www.copley.oh.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_07022018-334