Galesburg Reporter

Copley Township Architectural Review Board met Aug. 6.

Here is the minutes provided by the Board:

Ms. McPherson convened the Architectural Review Board meeting at 5:58 p.m.

Present were Melanie Friedman, Kelly McPherson, Christine Davis, Dale Couch and Rodney Kovacs. Joe Gregory and Dwayne Groll were absent. Also present were Shawna Gfroerer and Jeff Newman from the Department of Community & Economic Development.

Ms. Davis moved to approve the July 2, 2018 minutes as submitted, Mr. Couch, second. Ms. McPherson called for the vote. The motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS

APPLICANT: Martin J. Caruso

BUSINESS NAME: The Eye Site In Copley

LANDOWNER: Hazelwood Ugarte Group LLC (Jennifer Hazelwood)

PROPERTY ADDRESS: 3612 Ridgewood Road

PROPERTY LOCATION: PPN: 1504438

ZONING DISTRIC: Commercial-Office Retail (C-OR)

PROPOSAL: Permanent Ground Sign-§ 8.07 (D)

Ms. Gfroerer presented an overview of the applicants request for a permanent ground sign. Ms. Gfroerer stated that the building setback requirement is 30 feet or more and the applicant’s setback is 50+ feet from the edge of Ridgewood Road. Ms. Gfroerer stated that the applicant is permitted (1) permanent ground sign not to exceed 40 square feet in area, 8’ in overall height and must be located no closer than 10’ from the road right-of-way.

Ms. Gfroerer provided a description of the proposed sign stating that the applicant, Martin J. Caruso and landowner, Hazelwood Ugarte Group LLC (Jennifer Hazelwood) are in the process installing a permanent ground sign for their new location on 3612 Ridgewood Road. Ms. Gfroerer stated that the sign will be comprised primarily of culture stone over concrete block with masonry and stone wall caps; the words “The Eye Site In Copley” will be flat cut aluminum letters applied to a steel plated bolted to timber and secured by three steel plates; the sign will include address numbers mounted on the cultured stone. Ms. Gfroerer stated that the sign colors and materials would complement the architecture of the building.

Ms. Gfroerer stated that the applicant is permitted 40 square feet and 8’ in overall height and the applicant is proposing 21 square feet and 5’ in overall height and recommended approval of the sign on behalf of the Department of Community & Economic Development.

Ms. Davis asked if the sign would be illuminated. Ms. Gfroerer stated that the sign would be externally illuminated.

Ms. McPherson asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak regarding the proposed sign.

Mr. Caruso and Ms. Hazelwood were present and stated they were available to answer any additional questions from the Board. No additional questions were asked of the applicant or landowner.

Ms. McPherson called for a motion. Ms. Friedman made a motion to approve the sign.

Mr. Couch second. Ms. McPherson called for the vote. The motion carried.

APPLICANT: Cicogna Electric & Sign Company

BUSINESS NAME: Heritage Center

LANDOWNER: OCG Heritage Center LLC

PROPERTY LOCATION: PPN: 1702657

ZONING DISTRICT: Planned Development District (PDD)

PROPOSAL: Advertising Sign-UDC-§ 6.3

Ms. Gfroerer provided an overview of the application and stated that the applicant is permitted (1) advertising ground sign per use/per entrance not to exceed 15’ in height and 50 square feet and based on the proposed site plan with two entrances, the applicant would be entitled to (2) advertising ground signs at 15’ in height and 50 square feet. Ms. Gfroerer stated that the applicant is requesting (3) additional advertising ground signs.

Ms. Gfroerer stated that the proposed signs would be utilized to advertise the businesses located in the Heritage Center project. Ms. Gfroerer reviewed the Heritage Center parcels with the Board and stated that the sign may include 5-6 retail businesses, the Omni Senior Living Facility and (2) undetermined businesses.

Ms. Davis asked if all of the businesses would be located on the permitted signs. Ms. Gfroerer stated that there isn’t currently a full site plan for signage and that based on the applicants request, the signs would include businesses in the retail portion and the Omni Senior Living Facility and that there were other parcels still vacant with the use undetermined.

Ms. Gfroerer showed the proposed location of each sign requested and permitted and stated that (2) requested signs would be facing State Route 18 and (1) requested sign would face Heritage Woods Drive. Ms. Gfroerer showed where the permitted signs would be based on the proposed entrances. Ms. Gfroerer stated that the signs along State Route 18 are approximately 600’ apart in distance and 125’ from the edge of road of State Route 18. Ms. Gfroerer stated that the sign located along Heritage Woods Drive was approximately 80’ from edge of road.

Ms. Gfroerer provided an overview of the topographical map supplied by the applicant. Ms. Gfroerer showed that based on the map, there is approximately a 20’ elevation difference from SR 18 to the top of the hill where the sign is proposed.

Ms. Gfroerer provided an overview of requested Sign 1:

ADVERTISING SIGN 1: 16’ in overall height 165 sq. ft. in area Location: SR 18 The sign is comprised of a lamina stone base and surrounded by general shale red brick. The tenant panels will be made of Lexan placed on an aluminum sign cabinet with internal LED illumination. The header “Heritage Center At Copley” will be routed aluminum with acrylic copy and LED illumination. The sign will be topped by an aluminum cap painted to match the colors in the base stone.

VARIANCE REQUIRED: (1) Additional Sign (2) Sign Height (3) Sign Area

Ms. Gfroerer stated that due to the nature of the Uniform Design Criteria standards in the Planned Development District, there are not specific regulations regarding Business Center Signs and therefore, the department felt that some type of larger ground sign would be best utilized to serve the purpose of a Business Center Sign in other commercial districts.

Ms. Gfroerer stated that the tenants would also be entitled to identification signs which could be of the wall, pole or ground type and there is a potential for those tenants to request an identification sign for the back of their building facing SR 18.

Ms. Friedman asked if the applicant could fit all of the tenants not facing SR 18 on the requested sign and then leave the wall signs as identification for those tenants facing SR 18.

Mr. Osborne stated that as the landowner, they would not permit any additional ground signs on this parcel. Ms. Gfroerer stated that this request could be a condition of the approval.

Ms. Gfroerer provided an overview of requested Sign 2:

ADVERTISING SIGN 2: 16’ in overall height 165 sq. ft. in area Location: SR 18 The sign is comprised of a lamina stone base and surrounded by general shale red brick. The tenant panels will be made of Lexan placed on an aluminum sign cabinet with internal LED illumination. The header “Heritage Center At Copley” will be routed aluminum with acrylic copy and LED illumination. The sign will be topped by an aluminum cap painted to match the colors in the base stone.

VARIANCE REQUIRED: (1) Additional Sign (2) Sign Height (3) Sign Area

Ms. Gfroerer stated that the Department was concerned with the proposed placement of Sign 2 in relationship to Montrose West Avenue. Ms. Gfroerer stated that there is potential for drivers to mistake the Montrose West Ave. entrance for the entrance into Heritage Center.

Ms. Davis asked if there was a way to connect Montrose West to Heritage Center. Ms. Gfroerer stated that there is not a direct route and this sign may divert traffic through the residential neighborhoods in order to gain access onto Heritage Woods.

ADVERTISING SIGN 3: 8’ in overall height 41 sq. ft. in area Location: Heritage Woods Drive

The sign is comprised of a lamina stone base and surrounded by general shale red brick. The tenant panels will be made of Lexan placed on an aluminum sign cabinet with internal LED illumination. The header “Heritage Center At Copley” will be routed aluminum with acrylic copy and LED illumination. The sign will be topped by an aluminum cap painted to match the colors in the base stone.

VARIANCE REQUIRED:

(1) Additional Sign

Ms. Gfroerer stated that this sign would meet the size and height requirements. However, due to the applicants request that this be an additional advertising sign, it would require a variance.

Mr. Helsel asked to clarify the applicants request stating that they did not want to take away the ability for the tenants in the parcel to the east to advertise as this would be a shared driveway which is why they are asking for the additional signs.

Ms. McPherson asked if there were any members of the audience who wished to speak regarding the proposed sign.

Mr. Jerry Helsel, Project Manager from Cicogna Electric & Sign Company and Mr. Lance Osborne on behalf of OCG Heritage Center LLC were present on behalf of the request.

Ms. Davis asked why the applicant chose 8 panels and are the size of the panels based on a study conducted for what is appropriate for their location. Mr. Helsel stated that the panels and size requested take into consideration the topo of the site, the fact that the signs on SR 18 would be over 600’ apart and that anything under a 20” panel would lose impact for drivers. Mr. Helsel stated that the initial goal was to minimize the number of signs on the parcel, add the “At Copley” at the request of the Township, and to account for the vegetation growth at the berm of which they do not own or have control over.

Ms. Davis asked if it was possible to receive a sign package for the entire site. Mr. Osborne stated that they did not want to limit the other parcel owners as they did not own the other parcels.

Mr. Osborne stated that Signs 1 & 2 would have different tenant information.

Ms. Friedman asked about the number of non-retail businesses. Mr. Osborne stated that there would be approximately 5-6 retail businesses and possibly 3 restaurants plus the Omni Senior Living and that currently, Omni has proposed expanding their facility to encompass the remaining two parcels yet undeveloped.

Mr. Osborne stated that due to the nature of the businesses, they would want to reserve the ground sign for businesses without frontage on State Route 18 as well.

Ms. Davis asked if they could make Sign 1 smaller to include those without frontage and exclude those with frontage.

Ms. McPherson asked if anyone had an issue with the 15’ in height permitted versus the 16’ requested. There were no objections to the additional 1’ in overall height.

Mr. Couch stated that he would recommend 1 sign by State Route 18, but not Sign 2 near Montrose West.

Ms. Davis stated that Sign 1 would be OK, Sign 3 would be OK, Sign 2 would not be OK and she did not see having 2 additional permitted signs.

Mr. Osborne stated that they would not ask for any additional ground signs on the parcel.

Ms. McPherson asked if there were any others wishing to speak regarding the sign proposal.

Ms. Jane Scott, Copley resident, addressed the Board stating that she was there as a resident, but also sits on the Zoning Commission. Ms. Scott stated that she is not in favor of seeing additional sprawl of signage along SR 18 and that there is a desire of residents not to continue the pattern of large signage we see in Montrose. Additionally, Ms. Scott stated that the overall work of the Zoning Commission on the Zoning Resolution over the last several years has been to limit the overall height and number of signs we see in the Township. Based on the Zoning Resolution, she would recommend against permitting additional signs and signs larger than the recommended 8’ in overall height.

Ms. McPherson asked for discussion from the Board.

Ms. Davis stated that she thought Sign 1 fit in aesthetically and created a gateway boundary for entrance into the center.

Ms. McPherson stated that by having a sign with multiple tenants such as Sign 1, we would be eliminating the need for sign sprawl that we see in Montrose and that is a concern of the residents. Ms. Friedman expressed her concern with the ability of this sign to limit the number of other signs to potentially come from other tenants. Ms. Gfroerer stated that there could be another sign or signs permitted by the second parcel facing SR 18.

Mr. Osborne stated that they would use one of the permitted signs as their requested sign. Ms. Gfroerer asked if they planned to change their request for the Board and would they look at changing their request for the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. McPherson stated that they preferred to look at the request at hand and base their decision off of that request.

Ms. McPherson called for a motion. Ms. Davis made a motion to make a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals to approve Sign 1 as an additional sign at 16’ in overall height and 82. 5 square feet, deny request for Sign 2 as they believe it contributes to traffic pattern confusion and they anticipate additional ground and wall sign requests for those businesses facing SR 18, and approve Sign 3 as an additional sign. Ms. McPherson second. Ms. McPherson called for the vote. The motion carried.

BUSINESS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Ms. Gfroerer reviewed the current status of the Tree City USA application. Ms. McPherson suggested that in light of Mr. Gregory’s absence, the Board postpone work on the Tree City USA definitions until September. The Board members concurred.

Ms. Gfroerer stated that Copley Township, in partnership with a grant from Summit County Health Department, is collaborating with EDG (Environmental Design Group) to evaluate complete street initiatives which work to make the Township more pedestrian friendly for future years to come. Ms. Gfroerer stated that part of the evaluation is geared towards an audit of the Zoning Resolution and will include proposed changes in areas such as sidewalks, bicycle parking and minimum setbacks. Ms. Gfroerer stated that the department is working on text amendment proposals relating to this area and hopes to present them at the September meeting of the Zoning Commission.

Ms. Gfroerer highlighted large and small to mid-scale commercial and residential “Projects On the Move” ongoing in the Township. Ms. Gfroerer highlighted the Architectural Review Board’s work on the Tree City USA and provided an overview of Director Springer’s work with the Summit County Land Bank.

Mr. Newman provided an overview of a partner project he conducted with the Summit County Health Department. Mr. Newman stated that he was contacted by the Summit County Health Dept. Mosquito Abatement Program Partnership and they requested his assistance in identifying abandoned tires in the Township. Mr. Newman assisted in the removal of 65+ abandoned tires from vacant and nuisance properties in and around the Little Farms Neighborhood. Mr. Newman stated that the goal of the program is to help eliminate mosquito infestation and remove unwanted nuisance.

Ms. Gfroerer concluded her report with the July Activity Update stating that we have processed 31 permits resulting in over $2.7 million dollars in new investment and that Mr. Newman is working on 83 property maintenance sites.

With no further questions, Ms. Gfroerer concluded her report.

Ms. McPherson asked if there was any Business From The Floor. No was no business from floor.

Ms. McPherson stated that the next meeting was scheduled for September 10, 2018.

With no further business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:51.

https://www.copley.oh.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_08062018-349