Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

for the now on Now I'd like to call the OK, for the 3rd time. We're gonna call this meeting to order tonight for the Board of Zoning Appeals for the city of Beaver Creek. Um Can we have a roll call, please, Mr. Raider. Mr. Roach, Miss Vest. Mr. Esman present. Um, Before we do approval of the agenda, I think what I'd like to do since we have a bunch of new members, we need to sort of reorganize. And uh I'd like to open up nominations for a chairman of the board of zoning Appeals. Is there anyone that would like to be nominated. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I would move that selfless harassment to be nominated for the position of chair. Is there a second to that. Then I guess we can vote all in favor say aye. opposed nay. Motion carries and I'll open, uh, nominations for vice president or vice chairman. Is there a motion for vice chairman. I will Ask you, sir, Mister, if you would like to, uh, serve as vice chairman. Is there a second to that? Any further discussion, if not all in favor, say I, I pose, nay, we have our Um Set of officers With that, the next item I'd like to do is move to the approval of the agenda or then any additions or deletions for the agenda this evening. Madam Secretary, any additions or deletions? Thank you very much for the approval of the agenda. Is there a second? Further discussion, if not all in favor, say I, I'll

oppose nay, the motion carries. Now I'd like to move on to the approval of the minutes. Are there any additions or deletions to the minutes. Hearing none, I will accept a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Yeah, good. I move for approval of the minutes. Is there a second for the approval? 2nd. I have a motion in the 2nd. All in favor say aye and oppose nay. Madam Secretary, I think we are. To the point now where uh. We can get down to some real business. Would you mind telling us what we're here for this evening. Yes, this is case number V25-1 and on application filed by Steve Robinson, 3655 East Patterson Road, Beaver Creek, Ohio,, 45,430. Requesting a variance from chapter 158.14 AE1 to allow an electronic copy sign that exceeds the 50% per side of total sign. The applicant is also requesting a variance from chapter 158.148 E1 to exceed Maximum 24 inches height requirement for the electronic copy sign. Lastly, the applicant is requesting a variance from chapter 158.150 B4 to allow the ground sign to be taller than 5 ft in height. Property is located on the southwest corner of East Patterson Road and State Route 835, further described as Book 2, page 16, parcel 206 on the Greene County Property Tax, Alice. Thank you very much, Matt. Do you have a presentation to give us? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, yes, tonight we're talking about, uh, various case V25-1 at 3655 East Patterson Road, uh, for Patterson Park Church, uh, basically, um, Patterson Park, if you're not familiar, it's on 8 8:35 and Research Boulevard, there's a, a picture that shows where it's at. I think most of

us are probably familiar with that location. Um, here, this is our, uh, for the new members, basically, we, we We show basically a drive-by of the property. Mr. McHugh's request. So this is, uh, on 8:35 going kind of north on 835. Uh, what you'll see coming up here in a second is the, the signing. Location that we're in discussion. Right there is the sign location that's. The existing sinus there. a big property this drive-by took a minute. Literally a minute. OK. So basically, um, on this um On this picture here, you can see they have marked, um, the red arrow pointing to the location of the proposed sign location that we're discussing tonight. So Patterson Park Church is located in an R1A zoning district and, uh, churches are a conditional use in an R1A zoning, uh, district, so they can get, you know, approval through planning commission with conditions on different things, uh, one of which is, uh, sign size and, uh, the number of signs and, um, in 2014, uh, Patterson Park, um, basically

submitted an application to planning commission for the sign that's, uh, they're looking at, um, basically. uh, replacing, uh, or upgrading, um, in 2014 to allow, um, Our, our code allows for a 5-foot sign, um, but planning commission can grant them height, additional height. So in that, uh, conditional use, uh, case that went to planning commission in 2014, planning commission granted them a six-foot tall sign, uh, an additional sign to the ground sign they had and they allowed the height to be 6 ft. So, uh, but today, um, uh, basically what they're asking for, um, is, uh, a from the zoning code, uh, to allow for a, uh, basically a 7 ft tall sign, um, the zoning code allows for 5 and they're asking for a seven-foot sign. Um, and the zoning code also allows for, uh, 50% of the sign area, uh, to be electronic changeable copy and 2 ft tall. So basically their existing sign, uh, which is this one, the electronic, the preschool, 6th grade portion of that is 2 ft tall and 5 ft wide, and they're asking for 3 ft tall and 5 ft wide, uh, and then increasing that, that height up, upward. Is what they're asking for. Um And that's what they're the new sign of what they're, what they're asking for. Um, so basically, um, they're asking for 3. 3 variances, one for the percent of sign. Uh, 1 for the height of the electronic percent of electronic changeable copy, one for the height of the electric electronic changeable copy, and then one variance for the overall height of the sign. Um, So, um So basically You know, we reviewed the, uh, the

criteria. And basically the first criteria is whether or not the property could, uh, You know, the applicant could get a reasonable return or beneficial use of the property without, without the variants and staff did not feel that this variance was or this, this criteria was met, uh, because there's nothing, you know, they, they still obviously have full beneficial use of the property, uh, even without the variants. Uh, the second is whether the variance request is substantial, uh, we kind of felt it was substantial just in the standpoint of the code requires a max height. of electronic changeable copy of 2 ft, uh, or yeah, 2 ft and they're asking for 3, which is, is almost a 50% increase of what they're allowed to have already, um, which is also, uh, increasing the height of the sign, um, but at the same time, the, the height of the sign, um, we felt like the, based upon the fact that the heights can be, they can get a high increase through planning commission through the conditional use. process, so they, they don't really need a variance for height. Uh, they, they primarily, uh, because that can be done through an, uh, through, through the planning commission. Uh, but planning planning commission cannot do, I, I guess I should clarify this early, that even though the planning commission can grant them height, there's a, a different section that limits that size to 50% and 2 ft. So even though they can have a taller sign, the electronic part of that is still limited to 50% of the sign and 2 ft. Um So the next criterion was, uh, is the extensions whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially off altered. We thought that, you know, that they met that criteria. We don't, you know, there's already a sign there with electronic changeable copy, um, so there, you know, there's no going to be no, uh, you know, detrimental impact on, on the neighborhood. Uh, the, the, the fourth criterion is whether the delivery of service would be

adversely affected and, and again, we didn't feel like it would be, uh, I mean, there's gonna be some argument to, you know, changeable copies signs can create traffic problems, things like that, but there's already one there. I mean, so we, I mean, there's really no Increased impact necessarily to that. So we felt like that criterion was met. The 5th 1, uh, whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restrictions, uh, at the time of purchase the property. We didn't feel they met that because they've been through this process before as far as the height of the sign they knew our, they they know what our code requirements were because they've been through a similar process before with planning commission, uh, back in 2014. Uh, criterion number 6, whether the, the property owner's predicament can be, uh, feasibly, um, you know, correct and use through another method other than a variance. And again, we don't feel that that meets that criterion, um. For, for a few, few different reasons, um. Let me actually back up a few slides back to our Um So basically, Applicant sign is here. is right here. So one of their concerns was the distance from the road. So they could actually could put a sign. Over here or. Down here and actually get the sign closer to the road if, if the, if the concern was, you know, say, visibility from the road or distance from the roadway, they could actually relocate a sign and put it closer to the road, which would, you know, uh, part of the concern was for their congregants being able to see the sign, coming and going from the prop from the parking lot and things like that. And if it was closer to their parking entrances, then obviously it would it'd be, uh, they would be easier for them to see, um, the other thing is they could actually put in the Max Python changeable copy is, uh, 2 ft So they could actually go with a wider sign. Instead of a taller sign and still meet their concerns as far as the, the amount of electronic changeable copy, they could go wider,

still have a 2 ft, and still be able to maintain their 50%. So, and, and again, it's a, you know, in that case, a variance also wouldn't be, uh, be required, and, and then as far as the height, um, they could actually go to planning commission and planning commission through a conditional use approval process could give them. Uh, increased overall height if, if they needed a much taller sign overall. So, and then, um, Be back to And then the last criterion, uh, whether the spirit intent behind the zoning requirement would, uh, be observed or substantial justice done by granting the variants. We didn't feel that me that either, um. Because, you know, the, the, the, the code was established, you know, not just obviously for this church, but for everyone in that zoning districts or similar zoning districts has, you know, those restrictions. And so, you know, as staff, we feel that to grant the variance requests would be almost granting a special privilege. To something that, you know, other, other businesses in similar or other churches or businesses in similar situations wouldn't be afforded, um, without a, you know, because there is no real practical difficulty, they would just prefer to have a larger sign, um, and, you know, again, You know, part of their concern was, you know, the improvements of technology and things like that, and if, if that's a concern as far as technology in our code, there's a process to, you know, to request, uh, you know, modifications to the zoning code to, you know, make those changes that are necessary without actually needing a variant. So we have a process for changing our code and actually, we're in the process of starting to revise our zoning code now, so, um, if there was some concerns about, you know, They feel that they need more like businesses or churches or organizations need more electronic changeable copy. There's certainly a way to do that through, you know, amendments to the zoning code. So, um, based upon, you know,

our review of the, uh, the criteria of, uh, staff makes recommendation to disapprove the variance request. Thank you, Matt. Any questions for? For Matt. to do the applicant first. I wanted to see you. I have a quick question first. Um So who has authority over this? Or zoning appeals or the planning commission. Well, the planning commission and, and, and council, you know, they, they, they make the law, the leg, you know, they're the, the legislative part of it. So they actually make the law. So, you know, as, you know, the role of BZA is you're looking to see, is there a practical difficulty. Is there something there that's not allowing the applicant to be compliant with the code as it states, as it currently states. And again, our, our position is they can, they can, they currently have, you know, they, they're allowed to have, you know, a 6 ft tall. I mean, they have it there now, um, you know, so they, they can have a sign that's compliant. They're just asking for something that's, you know, that's larger, and so, you know, and again, that's, that's where this board, you know, you're not here to, you know, to share your opinion of the, the law, but, um, necessarily, but is there, is there a practical difficulty there. And Ms. Tressman. OK the board if I, I think, address the question too is that uh from different aspects, I think. An application for for 3 variances were filed. One of which, as Mr. Funk says, Um, can be addressed through the planning commission. Right? Yes, correct. Yeah. location could be changed too, but the, but the height is one that planning commission could consider. But The applicant, though has presented, you know, to the city and as requested and

therefore that's why it's before you. Effectively rolled that one into two other variants, so there's really 3 variances here, correct? Yes, 3 different requests. And only one really. The height would go to the planning commission, the rest of them. Gift to be granted. On the height issue, we do have the authority then if we were to grant that variance, or is that something that has to go to the planning commission, I guess is my question. No, I think you I think you could grant you could grant it, but I think there is an argument that really should go to the planning commission. Um, but clearly if you grant All three, you would end up granting it effectively, yeah. Right, that was just a technical question. Thank you. Does anyone here from the applicant? Sure, go ahead, sorry. It's very fine. um, Mr. Funk, uh, There are a number of new members, some returning members this evening. I'm one of the returning camp, but haven't been here in a while. Do you prefer that we take questions while you're presenting so that we're not coming back to topics for future reference, or do you prefer it in this format where you've concluded the presentation and Then we chat about questions. Sure, typically how we would do it is I would give my staff report, the applicant would give their, you know, They would give their testimony or whatever, and then we would come back. Once we close the public hearing, the applicant and then whoever we'd close the public hearing and then, and then do questions at that point. OK. Um, because we're, we're sort of generally touching on the topic here about uh. dual jurisdictions and overlapping authorities. Um, there's a case, I believe you're familiar with Duncan versus Middlefield, right? And Duncan versus Middlefield is the Supreme Court case that says what the criteria has to be to grant variances as I understand it. Is that your understanding? Yeah, and that's OK. And those get codified by municipalities and in our

instance, it's uh 158.172. Is that right? Correct. All right, so this is the state law that we are forced to work with right. Uh, so we have some discretion, uh, but it's, it's not unlimited. When you showed the uh. Um The picture a couple moments ago about one of the ways to alleviate Um, this in a different fashion and accomplish the same goal as to move the sign closer to one of the roadways. There you go. Um, how did you deal with the concern that perhaps the applicant wants to make certain that it's visible from both aspects of each of the respective roadways. Uh, whereas where you're proposing to move it, it's closer to one or the other and the other direction can't see it from the other opposing room. Sure. And, and yeah, that's. You know, that's Purely up to the applicant as far as, you know, where they want to locate the sign and that visibility from alternate You know, they can, they can request not only, you know, the size, the height from planning commission again so all, all they can also ask for additional signage if they needed it as far as number of ground signs. So I mean that that can be addressed through planning commission through a conditional use process as well. OK. Because they they're allowed one in in an R1A zoning district, they're allowed one ground sign. But our code allows them to get through the conditional use process to um Planning commission can grant, uh, more signs, ground signs, or they can increase the height of ground signs. Thank you. Anyone here from the applicant that would like to speak? step forward and give your name, please. I'm Steve Robinson affirmed that the testimony that I'm about to give before the Board of Zoning Appeals of the city of Beaver Creek is the whole truth to the best of my knowledge. Thank you. Uh, my name is Steve Robinson. Uh, quick question, uh, is there a time limit? I know this is the

only thing on the agenda, so hopefully there's not a time limit, but We hope that you don't take any more than 3 minutes. 3 is a standard for, for public input, uh, I would try my best. I do have a lot of points to cover, and I do if acceptable to the board have a number of visual documents or photographs, essentially, uh, that I would like to be able to pass amongst you if, if, if you can. So I'm gonna cover the main points first that I've jotted down that in many cases will relate to what Mr. Fung said in their assessment. Um, but we may have to come back and look at those individually. So the main points I wanna cover is first and foremost the goal of our sign in our, in this case are a little taller sign. It is about providing information that is easily viewable from longer distance, whether it's directly the 70 ft setback from research Boulevard, or if you go all the way down to Patterson Road at that intersection at the stop sign there it's about 200 ft. So we're a little further back. Than your typical signs that I have seen throughout the city. And we want to make sure that our sign is readable. And the information presented is readable and is safe for people driving. I don't know if it was noted, but the speed limit here on research Bellfort is posted at 50 miles an hour. I'm not sure of any, everybody drives 50 because they are. Approaching, uh, you know, the, uh, research boulevard stop sign to the north, uh, or coming from Patterson Road, but there is a 50 mile an hour speed limit, which is Allows people to go a little faster. We want our sign to be readable at those higher speeds and that greater distance. So that's real important to us. Um Most of the signs that I have seen and I've lived in City of

Beaver Creek for. About 45 years. Back in the 90s, I actually was a member of the board of Zoning Appeals, so I appreciate you all serving. Uh, and, um, But I've looked at a number of churches and a few businesses that have either electronic copy sign or something similar to it in most cases, uh, especially churches in the south part of Beaver Creek and there are quite a few. The signs are all relatively closer. Um, secondly, as pointed out, at least in the, uh, video, uh, that, that Mr. Funk provided and I have additional photographs. I'm sure you saw that our sign, even though it's further back from the road, it's still in the swale or that drainage retention area and therefore, it is lower, uh, you can't even see the sign or barely see the sign from the south or the southeast or the west. The residences, and you can see one on the upper left hand corner. I have a photograph taken from the property line there and you can see about 6 inches or so of our existing sign, and it's very far away, so there's no negative impact. Of the existing sign or even the taller sign, the digital part wouldn't even be seen because you can just barely see the static sign above, similar to the southeast, um, uh, I have a picture there and you can't even see the sign. So no no negative impact. For is call sign to the neighbors. Uh, we think that's an important fact that the sign is located where it is. I wasn't part of that decision back in 2014 when that site was located and approved. Um, obviously they don't want to put it close to and they're about 10 ft from the, uh, right away, so they couldn't really get. But a few feet close to the right of way anyway, but because of this drainage well

they moved it up a little bit, but if you keep going out of the swell and up onto the top area of ground, um, then you're way back from the road. The Third point I want to make is that, and I touched on it that we want motorists and bikers, and we do get bikers in the area even though they go a lot slower. We want them to be able to quickly see and read our signs. Our signs aren't just the name of our church. We have a lot of community activities is, uh, Patterson Park has been at this location since. 1996. 1991. OK. Uh. A long time and we have things like a quarterly blood drive. We just had one. this past week. Uh, we advertise that. That was the example we gave in the graphic that Mr. Funk put up briefly showing our new sign was what we like to show for the blood drive. We have a 5K race that goes through the neighborhood. We have other activities, um, that are community focused. We're not just totally inward. Here's our church service. We have a lot of information we would like to provide to the community. And we've been doing that for wanting to do that or trying to do that with our digital sign. It's just not very effective. I, our sign is relatively small in comparison to the overall church site, you could say, wow, look, you walk up, take a picture and that's a tall sign, but when you look at our The size of our site, our campus, if you will. It is huge and our sign is dwarfed by the road fronty John Patterson and uh Research Boulevard. Um To ask for a 1 ft high sign is still infant, I would say was very small, uh, low impact. I think that was one of the points that they said is really no impact to the neighborhood, uh, for that taller sign. Um,

another factor not mentioned, but I think it's relevant to what this board does. And how you look at why a property might. Be deserving of the variances. If you can see that to the Northeast. That's all a combination of B4 highway business, which will never be developed and, uh, a one agricultural. It's wooded, it's. Probably in a wetland type area that will never be developed. So we're not causing any negative impact to the property to the northeast and to the north of Patterson Road, you do have the Islamic school there, uh, which is all in a B4 part of that B4 district. That As far as we're concerned, there's no negative impact to them as well. The code restriction of 24 inch height. In my opinion, it is very restrictive and probably in my opinion outdated. I looked through, uh, Centerville, Kettering, and City of Dayton zoning code, none of them have a height requirement. They have other restrictions. I understand that, but height requirement is part of the code. And I would love to see if the city does indeed go forth with updating the current code that that be modified or taken out. At least be considered 24 inch height. On a digital sign, if I do this from a distance. doesn't provide you a whole lot of information. And I'd like to see us, uh, I don't see that as, as, as a negative. Permanent ground signs located in the B district as well as according to 158.148, uh, section E1. It says permanent ground signs located in B districts as well as permitted conditional uses in agricultural, agricultural and residential districts may incorporate up to 50% per side of total sign area for

electronic copy with the maximum 24 inches. Um, the measurement for the electronic so excuse me, the electronic copy sign includes the entire area and so on and so forth. What I found when I went around the city of Beaver Creek was there are a number of signs already, uh, mostly churches that don't meet that requirement. Now I don't know if they got variances. I don't know if they just built the sign. I don't know that, but we aren't trying to set a precedent of hey. You know we're starting something here with a bigger sign or exceeding the 50%. For example, I have, um, The examples that I've found. This is the 7th Day Adventist Church, which is, uh, up here on Greenhall currently putting on a large edition on the front. They have a digital copy, obviously due to new construction, it's not operational, but they're digital sign is approximately 24 inches high by 80 inches wide. And the, the top section is only 12 inches high, so they exceed the 50% ratio. Right around the corner. Robinson. Yes sir. Yes, ma'am. May I ask you a question, uh, Mr. Chairman, um, Mrs. Robinson, it would be helpful as you're going through your photographs. Do you happen to know if the examples that you're showing us are, uh, also in R1A districts or some other districts because that will be material to some of the discussion. Do you know that? That's a good point. Off the top of my head, no, sir, I do not. I probably should have done that extra homework, I believe the second one. Again, the Seventh Day Adventists is, is up around Grange Hall. I don't know if you know Matt, what the trick that might be, but it, it's, you know, near residential, there's residential street, it's right next to the Latinos, the old, uh, park there, but I don't know the answer, sir. I could find out. This 1, 2nd 1 here is

the Norwood Church of Christ, which is just right around the corner from, uh, where our current church is. Right next to on CJ Drive, and even though they built a sign or constructed a digital sign that, uh, appears to be, I didn't go walk up and measure. It appears to be a 2 ft by 5 ft wide sign. The um Um, copy above or the the static copy above sign is again approximately about 1 ft high, so it exceeds 50%. Other signs that have other potential question mark. This is the Beaver Creek Christian Church on Shakertown. Um, and although the digital copy, which is in the middle here is, uh, appears to be with Less than 24 inches high. The overall sign is probably close to A 6 ft high sign. I'm not sure. I could go out and measure it, but if you look at that overall sign, it's a pretty large sign and it's very close to Shakertown Road. The last two photos I have, and I appreciate your time. I, uh I think they're relevant even though they don't match exactly. Um, and you could. Talk about it. I have 2 photos here of the same sign up on the Fairfield Road. It's in the PUD, but that's the Mike's car wash. It's 100% digital. And it's a 5x 8 digital sign right next to the road. And so, and it's flashing at people and neighbors probably adjoining neighbors or businesses probably don't care unless they're jealous, but it's a huge electronic copy sign that just goes to show that this is kind of the current and future. Of of media and signage is digital signage, OK? One other one I took a picture of, um,

It's not in the city. It's close to the city. It's Mount Zion Church over on She Shepherd Road, which is in the Country Club in the north area, and I went at night. My wife is standing beside it because she's 5.5 ft and it's all digital. Well, at the top there's a small little Mount Zion church you can see, barely see, but it's, it's a huge sign and, um, Yeah. Much, much, it's larger, I think it's a. 4 ft high digital signs, so it's 1 ft higher than what we were asking again, it's not in the city of Beaver Creek, but I think it's a relative in terms of Of um surrounding neighborhoods, um. So I talked a lot about that. If I can. Share these with staff. I've taken a lot of time and I would Enjoy the opportunity of. Going over Mr. Fong's specific points and, uh, I do know we have some other folks from church here that, that want to speak as well and they might be able to talk to some of those points as well. Any questions for me? Any questions? Uh, Mr. Robinson, would you like to have your additional photographs, uh, appended to the record. Yes, yes, I would if acceptable, yes, thank you part of the record. OK, I'll make that motion for you one other comment if I would make. You all is And I think Mr. Funk maybe help me out here is in the 7 points that we had to fill out in our application that was put up on the chart, uh, back. Are you controlling the slides tonight? Can you go back to that, uh, the table with all of the

checks and Xs that you put in there. These points here. Um The question I have and I, it may be spelled out in the code and I, if so, I don't remember seeing it. If the board Excuse me, if the staff had said, oh, the top two don't, 1 and 2 don't meet it, but all the rest. Do meet it. In other words, 5 out of 7 were checked and 2 weren't. Do you have to meet all 7 conditions to even be considered for approval, or is it just some, uh, no, the answer is no, you do not. OK. OK, thank you very much. I wasn't, I didn't think so from my memory, but one of the things have changed, excuse me, I wasn't sure. Um Comment number 2, where the variance is substantial, uh, In my opinion, it's not substantial granted. A 50% increase in height is. was considered to be substantial. But I think you have to take that in perspective of the area, uh, as well as the location of the sign and where it's at and who it's impacting. It's not, there's no negative impact, and I don't see why a there has to be a 24 inch height variance to make the sign wider. Which is an option. Yes, it is an option. One of multiple reasons we would not prefer that. I Conveying information and a long narrow sign is fine if you've got a moving sign or a scrolling sign, that's not the intent of the sign. Secondly, um, For us, that would mean Virtually tearing out the old sign, building a whole new sign and the cost of that just seems to be, in our opinion, unnecessary for that. Um I'll, I'll stop at this point because I've talked for more than 3 minutes. And be happy to answer

questions and or uh. During after the public hearing is closed, if you have additional questions for me, I'd be happy to come forward. Any questions for Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson, do you know if the sign as it exists today is what was requested in the prior petition to the um uh planning department. Yes, sir, and I, I'm glad you brought that up because I debated whether to bring this up. Uh, Matt, could you go to the, the graphic that shows the existing sign. This one right here. I do want to clarify and, and be part of blame you if you notice on the left it says 78 inches high, that's 6 ft, um, and 6 ft 6. And as Matt said, Mr. Funk said the original, uh, Uh, conditional use request was for 6 ft and 6 ft was approved. The 78 inches or 6'6 is when I went out and measured it myself is down to the foundation. There's a 6-inch, um. space along the bottom that starts the vertical structure before the masonry starts, so I think in reality, uh, when you look at the site, I drew a flat line across there, but it is a sloping grade and in reality, the sign height depending on where you want to measure it is really 6 ft high. The next Slide is a, um, only 6 inches higher. Not a foot higher we chose to try to make uh the existing sign a little bit smaller and only go up as much as 6 inches higher, so the request is not really a foot increase, um, and I would say it's probably fair to say it's not 84, it's more like, uh, 78 inches high. Above what was approved in the original

conditions. And uh as a follow up here, um, What I'm struggling with here is uh something that I think is obvious from the discussion. Um, A variance request to accomplish everything that you're seeking here is putting a lot of Round pegs into square holes and substantial ways. That Mr. Fox says is not consistent with the code or with the Duncan versus Middlefield standards. Whereas you have The opportunity to go to the same place that you went to before and got the relief that you wanted without establishing those precedences to exceed this by 50% and that by 30% and so on and so forth. Um, is there some reason that that's not a solution that you'd be willing to pursue. Um As clarification. Are you referring to going back to the planning, uh, department and asking for a height increase sir, this, this, the same folks that you went to before and said this is precisely what we want, and they went through their criteria and gave you precisely what you asked for. Yeah, I wasn't part of that original plan or the process, uh, in fact, we have very limited information. I hate to say that about the entire, uh, process of the package. I do, I did get a copy from back to my question, is there a reason that that's not a solution that you would be looking to here. In light of some of the um obstacles that we have. Our main interest, sir, is to get a 3 ft high sign that allows us the digital sign using newest technology because this sign is 10 years old and we need to replace it as exceeded its life. To get the taller digital sign my understanding is is not what planning commission or planning department would look at. They

would only look at total sign height, is that right? Yeah, I, I can address that. So planning commission through a variance or through a conditional use process, they can, they can. Increase the number of signs and the size of the overall sign. It so they could for on the the the the third request, go to planning commission, but the request for the additional percentage and the, um, and the height, the, the 2 ft height of the electronic copy would be something that they would have to do with a variance that planning commission can't grant that. That's, that's, so we're we're still gonna have the cap on the height because of the zoning district that we're in in Leser Saberians. Yeah, yeah or whatever the height of the electronic copy is limited electronic copy is limited to 24 inches and 50% of the total sign, regardless of planning commission gives them a 10-foot high sign or whatever, you know, if they could go through and get a taller sign, so that part, so we don't feel that the 3rd request, I mean, there are options there too, so they could go to plant commission and get. Height But, um, to increase the size of the electronic copy, the only way they could do that would be through a variance. So that's, so the, the first two requests, um, is, is why they're here for that, and I guess while I've got you here, although I apologize, Mr. Robbins, I didn't mean to use your time. Um, do you know if any of the examples that were presented in these additional supplemental materials or in an equivalent zoning district is what we're dealing with here. Not, I don't, I can't answer that directly one way or the other, but I would, I would say that they're probably in different zoning districts, uh, some of them could be in PUDs, uh, I mean, there, there might be all different reasons why. So they may not necessarily be an R1A zoning districts and all that kind of it might not be, you know, apples to apples. They're they're, you know, some of those might have been in a in a PUD just like he was saying with the Mike's car washer, or no it wasn't. What was the one

up on Colonel Glenn that you mentioned? Was it the car wash? Fairfield Fairfield Road, um, but anyway, the, the 5 by 8 some, I mean, that was done in a PUD, you know, so they can get those kind of approvals through the PUD process, so I mean, so, and again, that's a different, that's a whole different thing. That's not R1A zoning district conditional use, so. So again, our, our point is, you know. If, if they, if the applicant feels like there needs to be a change to the code. There's a process to change the code. You know, and it's not through various requests from BCA. OK, great. Thank you, Matt. To to the city he, could you change the, OK. When did that happen? Yeah, yeah. Mr. Robinson. Yes sir, just for the sake of the proceedings, um, I'm sure Mr. Funk will take those questions for you, but, uh, so we can move things along, um. Do you feel like there's anything else that you've omitted in your presentation that we still need to cover. Um Not really other than, uh, the height, the overall height increase, like I said, we, we're flexible on that even if you said no to that. And we decided to go to, you know, pay extra money and go to, uh, to, uh, a conditional use request for a height, we could do that. We felt it was. Easier just to put it in this one package. Uh, but the overall height increase is not significant issue to us. It's, it's the digital sign that we feel is the most important and for all the different reasons we, we shared. OK, great. Thank you. OK, thank you. At this point I'll open the public hearing. Anyone in the audience like to speak if you. Do please, uh, In your upper left hand corner, if you

could read that for us. I, Norberg, affirm that the testimony that I am about to give before the board of zoning Appeals of the city of Beaver Creek is the whole truth to the best of my knowledge. Thank you. Great proceed. Thank you. uh, Mr. Funk, thank you for taking this seriously. The analysis you've done is excellent. So thank you. I really appreciate that and thank you for an opportunity to, to talk uh with all of you. Um, so I, I attend Patterson Park, um, I, I also live in, um, in this community. Uh, when this sign was first installed. I was driving in the car with my wife, and she, her first comment was, oh, you can't even read that. That I'm not kidding. It was literally her first comment, and I was like, oh man. And so my first thought was, oh, did we just not plan this well, I think now we know that it's based on a limitation of of the code, but I, I think that's relevant, um, because really what we're trying to do here is, you know, the mission of Patterson Park is not to just communicate to the congregation. They're there on Sunday morning. We can communicate with them verbally, um, but, but our goal as a church is is also to reach the community for various reasons that I think are, are beneficial to the community. In this day and age, communicating if you are in any type of communicating type of uh position or career, you know, it's not just one method. You've got social media and you got multiple websites and you've got, um, I mean, there's so many ways we're, we're always dealing with the fact that someone says, I didn't know. And it's like, but we put it out in 50 different places and it's like, well, you should have done 51, right? I, I, I know you have probably experienced that. What we're trying to say here is we are

doing our best to provide a service. To the community, we're trying our best to communicate is in as many methods as we can, but this sign uh is, is not adequate to, uh, meet with the people who are driving by, who don't attend our church. Uh, there, there are many ways that they can, they can benefit from that. So I, I think that's a very relevant that we look at the communication. So when I, if I were to go down and, and look at the, the seven criteria, um, you know, to say that the That this would obtaining this. Sorry, let me read this. The denial of the variances request would not prevent Patterson Park Church from obtaining a reasonable return or deny the beneficiaries of the property. I would respectfully disagree with that. I would say, so what he's saying here is that um you can still attend church. You can still have church without the sign. That's a true statement. What this request is not so that we can continue to Have church. It is so that we can communicate with the public in another method that I would argue is probably not. Um, effective. And so, um, so I would say that uh I would say that that is. The opposite. Uh, the other thing. That I wanted to, to point out was, you know, as, as it relates to number 2, with the, with the, the signage. I think there's adequate um. precedent in the community with large digital copy signs. I think, um, I, I think what we're trying to do is, is. is a reasonable request. If we were saying, hey, we want a 20 by 30 ft sign and it's gonna be seen from, you know, when you're

flying into Dayton Airport. OK, that's unrealistic, and I also appreciate that you guys are kind of the last line of defense of people making really crazy decisions and doing things that probably are not in the best interests of the public. Um, I think what we're asking here is, is very reasonable, um, you can't really see the digital signs from either corner. Um, and to take the suggestion, Mr. Funk of, of moving the sign would be Um, one, very costly because you have to run a new electrical line. So I mean there's, there's way more than just, oh, well, we'll just move it. You got the electrical, you've got, um, you've got permits, you got to dig a trench, um, you basically have to scrap what's currently there. So it would be extremely costly for us to move that signage, um. And then also, uh, Mr. Roach, I believe you had pointed this out that if, if we were to move it to one of those locations, you couldn't see at both locations. So we'd have to do two signs and it would Uh, duplicate the cost, uh, even more. So, um, So greatly appreciated that point, sir. Uh, and then as far as the, uh, Yeah, I think I already made that point. Um, and then lastly, I, I just think that, uh, what we are asking to do is, is reasonable to communicate. Um, we are trying to be good stewards of, of the funds that we have that the congregation does. provide Um, and so we feel that scrapping the sign when it, it's a very nice sign. It just, it's very hard to read from the road. Uh, we would like to, we would like to make it more readable to, to, uh, everyone in the community. Can I answer any questions, uh, for anyone. Thank you for your comments, thank you. Is there

anyone else who would like to speak in the public hearing. please approach and read the upper left hand corner, please. I, Christopher L. Simons, affirmed that the testimony that I'm about to give before the board of zoning Appeals, the city of Beaver Creek is the whole truth to the best of my knowledge. I'll fudge a little bit and say I have 56 minutes of prepared material, but I'll condense it to 3. Thank you very much. OK. We appreciate that. Yes, sir. Um I, I'm, I'm not here to debate, uh, or discuss really. Um, anything other than the fact that. Patterson Park Church. Uh, does everything or most everything, any project is done with the consideration of the neighborhood. And the neighbors and the surrounding neighbors. Uh, we like to keep our property nice. We like to provide good upkeep. We like the appearance to be nice and we like to be friends with our neighbors, and I, I believe we are, Uh, or have been to, to this point. Um And so we want to sign so we can communicate to the local community, as has been said, but the, the purpose is for a global impact, not so much just the city of Beaver Creek Churches bring a, a presence in the community that Uh, is only for good. I mean, we, we, we espouse that you love your neighbor. And so suggestions relative to changing the code. I'd say that's a fairly lengthy process. I don't know, but it's fairly lengthy and relative to building another sign, of course, we could do that. But you know what? We could feed 50 or 60,000 people for a year for what it's gonna cost to build another sign. We could also build a church in Thailand for what it's gonna cost to do another sign. We would much rather stick with our mission rather than having to put up another sign. And I guess if we

have to, we'll stick with the sign we have, but I would certainly appreciate your gracious consideration of this request. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in the public hearing? Again, in your upper, uh, left hand corner you could read that for us, please. I wear my heels, um, I, Denise Simons, affirmed the testimony that I am about to give before the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Beaver Creek is the whole truth to the best of my knowledge. Thank you. Um, thank you for hearing us today. I am the new operations, um, administrator at the church. So one of the things that I'm in charge of is communication to um to the church as a whole and to the rest of the community. I have a graphic designer that's worked with us for about 17 years now, and the preferred way of communicating digital signs is with a 16 by 9 ratio. I don't understand how that works. That's not my job, and that's not her job, but 16 by 9 is the size of a 3x5 sign, not a 2 by 5 sign. So when we want graphics that people can safely see while they're driving down the road and can communicate important information, that's what we're trying to achieve, uh, a long group of texts, of course, is going to be much harder as you saw with the car going by, you, there's not a lot of time to read that sign, and we understand that, and we don't want to be a distraction, but there are ways that we are helpful to the community and we want to reach out to them, um. I want to cover first the cost for the sign. Where it is on the same foundation is about $40,000 to put in new electric and foundation would just be prohibitive. So that's just not something we were considering. We were coming and hoping that we could just increase the sign, digital signage, and, and, and changed a little bit at the top

in order to keep it closer to the ratio. We do have a 13 acre property. We saw it was a large amount going around, so I just wanted to give you that information, um, we feel that we are good neighbors. We're good neighbors to the community. We work with the police department. They, um, came over to our lot just a couple months ago and took pictures out there with the K9 units, the motorcycles, and everything else for the website. We are glad to host them there. I've been talking with Officer O'Neill. We are going to host a safety training for active shooters for the southeast part of Ohio at our church, allowing outside members to use the church for something like that. We want to continue to be good neighbors. The Beaver Creek wetlands are across the street from us. They park in our lot and we host them there when they do cleanups in the, in the wetlands. We also have a youth outreach every year. Our students go out and they offer to clean the neighbor's yard, so we have a lot of elderly neighbors and we offer to take care of their gutters and clean out their, their um their yards and do whatever we can for them. What we're looking to post on the sign is not, hey, come get your car washed, but we do have a blood drive. We do have ways that we serve the community and if you have time tonight, I'd suggest you look on Channel 2's news. We were just featured on their good news report today. We have a special connections ministry at our church, um, so if you look for that, they did a great story on us. We're celebrating our seventy-fifth anniversary of the church this week, and we have a great big event happening on Sunday. You're all welcome to come to a picnic. Speedy, um, but special connections is a ministry of our church, which is unlike any other ministry around here that we are growing by leaps and bounds for children and adults with special needs and their families to serve them. These families that have special needs, especially adult children in the home, get very little respite. And we can offer them an opportunity to come into our church, and when they're having problems at home,

we deliver them meals and we serve them and those adults and children can come into our church. We offer deaf interpretation for them and a lot of other things. Those are the type of things that we want to offer for our community that are really challenging to do with the sign that's only 2 ft high. So I just want to mention that to you and I very much appreciate all of your time today. Have a good evening. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in the public hearing. Anyone? You'll get your chance. Hearing no, I will close the public hearing. Ladies and gentlemen of the board. Any questions, comments? discussion a question. Um, the way we normally do this is you can have seconds too. We'll go around and then you can go. So he can start. I'm starting, OK. OK, so, um, my question would be, I believe for for uh the applicant. Um, one of the things that we're we're talking a little bit about is, is, you know, the sign being 10 years old and there's, there's new technology. Um, which, which I certainly agree with, and, and one of my questions is, Presumably the new technology. With the new LEDs and stuff like that will in of itself be more visible from the road. So is there a possible solution or consideration here that could or maybe has been made to just increase the overall height in the new sign technology along with putting it a little higher up. May address. Those concerns that you're trying to address with making the electronic sign bigger. And staff can tell me if I'm out of line on that or that wouldn't make any sense, but, but I'm just wondering if that's been considered or would you be willing to consider

something like that. So what we would hope to do is keep it in the same footprint at the base of the sign. In order to reduce the cost. At this point, as I said, just replacing that low part it's gonna be $40,000 if we went up 3. Right now, at a 2 by 5, which is what we have 5 across, 2 panels high, 2 of our panels on one side. are broken. They're 11 years old and they have no, they don't have new ones and they won't be able to replace the other ones. We obviously don't want to put pieces on that are just going to get to breaking. So we need to at least do 2 x 5 everywhere. The new technology, what they're saying it offers is brighter colors in a single bulb instead of multiple bulbs in there and that they dim at night, so they're not as bright when you're driving at night. Um, those are the only benefits to the new sign that the sign company has told us that we are going to get from this. And the current technology. We're obviously not going to replace pieces of it. We need to replace it at least 2 x 5. So we can do something with it. I just can't get. graphics to look like people can see them at 50 miles an hour from that distance with the 2 x 5 sun. Thank you. Yeah That's it for now. Thanks. I do have one question, uh. Looking at the sign, are you keeping the stone area and just replacing the center part. OK. OK Any further discussion? Sure. Like. OK, yeah, um, the other pictures, the other church signs. Can we find out if they were also R1A. Districts. I mean, it's, it's possible that we could, it's,

it's not necessarily. Directly relevant to this case just because a variances site specific. Um, so really it, it, it's based upon this, um, this particular site, um, I don't, I don't know that it's necessarily completely relevant. Um, I would, I would venture to say that many of those are probably in different zoning districts, but I, I can't speak 100% I would think they probably are in different sewing the shirt plus one was apparently not in the city too, if I understood correctly, so. Obviously that'd be different jurisdiction. So a couple things I'd like to just to reiterate is, you know, cost is not necessarily a factor when considering the variants, um. So, you know, that's not him. And, um, you know, we, we certainly appreciate everything that Patterson Park does in the community. We, we, we certainly see them as an asset as, as far as staff. Um, but at the same time, you know, we have to, you know, try to apply the law. Equitably across the board and, and again, if they feel like there's changes that need to be made to the, the sign portion of the code, then there's a process to do that and it's not necessarily a variance, um. And uh But, and, you know, again, it's, you know, they do have a large size of their site is, is large, but at the same time, our sign code does not, you know, that portion of the sign code is not based upon, you know, the size of their site. It's based upon, you know, um, a set guidelines, so again, that's, that's not necessarily uh a factor, um. So, you know, I mean, I think, you know, When you're looking at the the practical difficulty part of things without. You know, economics factored in, uh, you know, we just, as far as staff just don't, as much as we appreciate Patterson Park. We don't necessarily see, see the, the variance. Um there, so. I don't think so. No, we. Thank you I was asked earlier, that's all. We'll get back to you if

we need be. I, I don't have any further questions. I will say in the, in the nature of comments, um, I, I I want you to understand that uh Uh, I very much respect your presentation. Uh, you thanked us for hearing this. You don't need to thank us. That's, uh, that's part of the job. You get a fair hearing. Absolutely. I wish I could come along with you. to do this for you. Um, but the problem that I face is there are questions here that are past my pay grade. I have the law that's given to me. And I can't just ignore it because I'm not in control of how high signs can be. And then I've got constraints on the standards. I have to make those things. fit a record where they could be defended because somebody else is going to come along and say I want this too. And after all, we're very nice people. No one's complaining about it. Why not do it? At that point, there's no point in having a zoning code. We'll just decide what everybody gets and, and that's unfortunately not how it works. So, um, everything about this, there's nothing that's. Um, not palatable to me. I'd love for you to, to have it. I think it all sounds very reasonable. I just don't see a way to get you there without doing something that is You know, I'd have to do something inappropriate. So I'm sorry I can't, but I, I'd have to be a no on this one. I just wanted you to hear it from me. Any other questions or comments? T I 1 maybe, maybe question comment, um, staff had mentioned, and I, I know it's the, the, the city has communicated about the, the reconsiderations that we're making to some of the zoning code, would there be an opportunity to discuss something like this in those meetings or if they've not happened or anything like that, these particular, um, issues that they're bringing here, well, could they have an opportunity possibly to be heard in that meeting. Would that be an appropriate for them to talk about shameless plug for our, we're in the process of redoing our zoning code and

so we, we are gonna have some public meetings and, and uh the uh the public can go to, I think it's Plan Beaver Creek.org, uh, I think is the website to, you know, see where we're at in that process to put in comments, uh, you know, there's gonna be opportunities for public input. There's I think there's gonna be. Surveys and different things like that. So certainly there's going to be opportunity for public input on, on those changes that are going to be made, and eventually they'll be public hearings too. I mean, that's the more the informal part design, but eventually it will go to the planning commission for further discussions of One of which discussion would be potentially the size, right? size and height, um, and then that then will ultimately go to city council where there'll be another opportunity to Have the Make your same points. It could be, you know, I thought that was determined worth putting out there because, because it came up and, and, you know, I think, I think I share some of the concerns with this, to me, just kind of being an issue of not being maybe the proper venue for this at this point. So that's why I wanted, I just wanted to make sure that there would be an opportunity to discuss like these specific issues in those meetings, so and I, Ms. Frank, just for avocation of the applicant here too. Um A lot of that will be going on this year, correct? Oh yeah, it's currently going on. I think our 1st 1st public input thing is June. 4th or 5th, I can't remember the date, but it's moving forward. Any other questions or comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion on the uh. On the issue before us. Anyone, Your Honor, I would move for the denial of the application and for uh uh the adoption of the proposed resolution denying the

application. And on what basis are you? On the basis that uh. The criteria under 158.172 H5A. One you And with respect to request number 3. Um 6 And with request number 2, also 6 and with requests with respect to request, I'm sorry, the petition number 7 with requests to, uh, 1 with respect to request 12, and 3. Great, thank you very much. Is there a second on that motion? 2. Any further discussion upon the motion. If not, can we have a roll call vote, please? Mr. Roach Yes. is best. to deny. Mr. Es. Yes. There being no further business, is there, Madam Secretary? There being no further business before this body, I will accept a motion to adjourn. Mr. Chair, I'd like to move to adjourn. I have a motion to 2. We are adjourned.