Bza Meeting - Regular Meeting

Sure. Mr. Wallenhurst here. Mr. Roberts here. Miss Musky here. Mr. Cox and Mr. Wexbrooks are absent. Thank you. All right. Uh before we get in, I'll go ahead and uh approve the meetings from the November 17th agenda. There any comments or concerns? I motion you approve them. I'll second. Okay. All those in favor? I call. Oh, sure. Mr. Whurst here. Yes. Mr. Roberts? Yes. Miss Musky? Here. Yes.

Okay. All right. Um, we need to make a couple uh need a motion to amend the agenda to for a few modifications. Uh, first one being uh item number four on the agenda has asked to be tabled or continue to the next meeting. That's Mr. Kramer with ASI signage for Divinity Landing. And uh to move item number five, uh Mr. Blackwell with Embridge uh is proposing to review the storm water plan for the Twinsburg Station on Shepard Road. They need to move uh request to move that to number one on the agenda.

Motion to approve it. Second. All those in favor? I I Okay. All right. Go ahead and get started. Uh, Mr. Blackwell, you could come forward, please. Thank you, Mr. Cox.

Mr. Just let the record arrive.

Yeah. as opposed to you know you're good to stay here but just make it Yeah. So, if you just let the uh record reflect that Mr. Cox is now in attendance for the meeting.

Yep. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Uh Mr. Lo, uh if you want to just give us an introduction to the project and uh what you're here to do, we'll go from there.

Yes, sir. No, the we had previously submitted the project for storm water approval um as part of a replacement of all facilities and assets station. The installation of that work was completed and due to budgetary reasons in the abandonment and final um site development was pushed out this year and next year we had some minor changes to the driveways. their configuration alignment uh relative to the approved plan um due to changes in design um location of our tanks and assets and mechanical facilities on the site. We had some minorities accordingly. Um however there was no increase in the earliest area uh on this site what had been previously approved um handled that calculations for us to submit the plans and that is going to submit and get approval for our work before we commit to final work next year. already done work on site to facilities and that work. However, the final work to all the roads in place and things of that nature for next year.

Okay. Go ahead and let Mr. France go through his comments that he had. Sure. Um, so welcome back. Uh I remember when we went through this whole process it was we had quite a few meetings as we talked through this and um so it took took a minute when I went back to look at some of these you know sort of how things kind of unfolded at that time.

Um and so I have a report dated December 7th which just speaks to where we are now and what was approved at that time. And so there were a few things according to my my notes that were outstanding from that 20 2021 approval. So um there was a lot combination that needed to occur because buildings were going over property lines like literally they were dividing the the building in half. So um you folks had agreed to combine the properties and would submit that application. Um I don't believe that's ever occurred. it's still showing as two separate properties on the county website. So, that needs to be done, a lot consolidation from the 2021 approval. Um, it looks like she 3 previously had shown in the site plan a detention basin on the northern parcel. It looks like that pond was installed, but I'm not sure if it was installed per plans. That's more for the the city engineer. He'll he'll talk to that issue. Um, I did note I have access to um the regional sewer districts aerials. There's been a lot of work on the property compared to um what it was back in 2020. So, it looks like you've done some or the majority of what you were approved for. Um and then uh a revised landscape plan was required off of that previous approval and that was changing the species type of the um the Norway spruce to a Colorado blue spruce and I I don't know that a landscape plan has come in a revised landscape plan. So we'd still need that. And then it looks like now the current plan indicates the use of gravel driveways, permeable pavers, and gravel around the southeastern building.

Back when this was all discussed in 2021, the city's code states that you have to um install hard surface concrete or um or more asphalt, and it was concluded that time asphalt would be installed to align with the the code provisions. Um, looks like now you're requesting some permutable pavers, but also gravel to be installed. The planning commission doesn't have the authority to deviate from the code. So to do that, you would have to seek a variance from the board of zoning appeals which is separate from this planning permission. So, I had recommended that this item be continued to future meeting till we deal with um getting the lot combination, the um revised landscape plan and then however you want to deal with the use of gravel versus hard surface. Whether you want to go back and talk to your folks and install hard surface or seek a variance, that's your choice to do that. But the planning commission can't act on this until you do something to cure that deficiency.

Okay. There's there's no problem with our operations group will always prefer asphalt to doing anything. I believe that the reason we were pursuing the gravel was to maintain a certain threshold with the permeable um permeability of the site. Yeah. For your for your for your storm water. Yes, sir. And the city in Jericho, could correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe gravel has a run same runoff coefficient as asphalt or concrete. So you're I don't think it's going to matter either way. But yeah, it's usually treated that way because over time the gravel basically becomes impervious. Yeah.

So So we have there's no issue to pursue the asphalt and make make that change. Um for us, it's not an issue at all. um regarding some of the other the remaining items. Um I wasn't aware of those. However, the the previous engineer project manager is with a different organization now. So we kind of go through this sometimes on projects where the people involved with permitting and things of that nature change. And so I will I do know that there was um there on our end there was work a lot combination. So,

I will make sure that that either goes through or has been informally submitted. Um, and then for the Did you repeat the the different spruce? Oh, yeah. It's a um a blue Colorado blue spruce versus a Norway spruce. I think that was on your frontage along the main road. You had the whole series of um of spruce trees. And we had noted that the Norway spruce has some um some issues with some disease now. And so we wanted to break that up and Yeah. Okay.

And you may have put it in. I I don't know. Maybe you've already done some of it, but it's it's not a significant issue, but an issue that just needs to be cleared out. I'm thinking

is a good one or eastern white pine native would be great. Um maybe a mix. Yeah, this sounds like might have some some issues now too. They're susceptible to some some disease. So Miss Meek is a landscape architect, so I I'd listen to her. I will We'll put it whatever. Could you I was handing that memo and I've talked over yourself. So,

I've been switching uh anywhere I'm inclined to do a Colorado blue spruce. I've been using Vanderwolf pine. Um it's got the same bluish color. Um but it's a lot hardier to conditions. Um if you want to do a mix it was like eastern white pine or um you know white spruce. Those are not in trouble. White vine or white, right? Yeah. Vander, thank you. It might be good to, you know, have a variety just because if one gets ill, they all Yeah.

get diseased. Mhm. Just do a nice mix. Is this the landscape that's up in the road? I think so. Yeah. They put in a number of stuff already there. notice when I drove by. Yeah, that was my recollection was it was mainly that buffer. So, I don't know what's been installed, but you could have your folks look at it and indicate what's been installed and and see if there's any deficiencies from what was approved. I mean, if we have already put in the color, we go back and just submit that as part of our follow. I wouldn't take anything out. I'd like to see more.

Yeah. It's a large site, so I understand. Thank you, Mr. Jul.

Yeah, thank you. Um, this conversation is good. I I'll admit I was confused by the original submitt from a few weeks ago. Uh, and I'll tell you why. the existing conditions drawing sheet C1, I think he has it on his screen right there doesn't reflect what actually exists today. And then uh sheet page three in that document shows some proposed conditions, but they already exist. It sounds like you guys got partway through your project and then put it on pause. Is that correct?

Yes, sir. Discussed was um we gotten into construction with the mechanical components of the project and then that work was completed and realizing that there was work to be done with this with the uh with the city and say drop back right now and revisit this make sure that everything in alignment and also to looking at this time of year you know we want to suspend construction and make sure we know what for next year to get it get it right.

Okay. All right. So, that that helps clear up some of the confusion, which is why I didn't prepare a memo because I wasn't really sure what the request was. So, it's hard for me to provide some feedback. So, that leads me to a few things. Um, it sounds like this needs to be continued anyways. So for the re submitt or the continuation uh can you or your design engineer Woolwind uh revise the drawings in a manner so we can see you know where did this begin back in 2021 where does it stand today and what is it that you're asking to do from here to the finish line. This way we can all have a clear understanding because I'll just speak for myself. My understanding was not clear at all and maybe others had some confusion too.

Sure. Because it wasn't described anywhere in the application or anything. Then uh you said previously and it's a good thing that you were reducing the overall imperous uh area or surface of the site and if so that's great. uh can whirlwind uh show that calculation on the drawings? What was the imperous surface uh when we started and what is the impervious surface going to be when the project is complete?

Yeah, because technically you have a you what you're requesting and how I wrote it and my subject line it's a revised final site plan. You you're coming back and doing some revisions of something that was approved. So I I agree with Mr. Gelotti. We need to know what was what was it, what was approved, and what are the deviations proposed. And then it's just easier to understand for the pine commission to be able to act upon. It doesn't sound like it's going to be significant. I think probably the hard surface is going to be the biggest thing to make sure you're accounting for drainage, but

yeah, the better our understanding, the easier it is for this body to approve and then the easier it is for us to review administratively. that appreciate the the comments and information. Mr. Uh, no. I I think I'm good. Brian covered everything else. I just have a question. This detention basin, was it existing or is it new? because I was going through the files today and I couldn't find any permits being issued, but I did find some permission that was given to you by the EPA.

To my knowledge, I'm sorry. I believe that there was a basin was for the construction of the building where we have the garage that was installed and set and it was temporary relative to that construction effort. Okay. And then it wasn't part of the final plan. That's my understanding. I can confirm that kind. Yeah. I I think a lot of narrative of that the where we are currently was to not have any retention ponds or basins as part of ongoing um site site plan.

Yeah, my recollection and maybe this goes back to Brian's request for the lot split and consolidation plan. The area or the parcel to the north was developed into the garage in the parking lot 3 or four years ago and it has a detention pond that goes with it and that detention pond is complete and that project is complete but the parcel lines are still all wrong. So I think maybe that's where some of the confusion comes in. Yes sir. So, and and I guess to be clear, your request uh at this time is only for let's call it the southern parcel. Yeah. Yes, sir. If there was a line here, you're only requesting

Yes. for the south from this line everywhere north, that project was completed a few years ago. You're not touching anything up there. Okay. And then if you do if you do the lot split and consolidation then that becomes cleaner. Yeah. And I would agree except it it's not completely it was part of their final plan approval. So even though they're only doing to the south Yeah. the north's still a play because it was all part and parcel when you got your approval. It was all one.

Yeah. So I think doing it like the way we're saying is what what was existing? What was there? What did you get approved for? What are you asking for now will help us all understand? I I agree. We really need that. Yeah. You're talking that was approved. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Anything else? Any comments from the commission? Questions?

So, do you have any questions? No, just on my end when I reach out to Mr. I will start the process of I think we just might be prudent for myself from Engineering who is our consultant on on the site to sit down with the city and maybe just have a conversation and walk through walk some things through and make sure that what we submits and checks all the boxes. Um that that's my takeway though and then And again the lock consolidation and I will uh and I will verify on the front been put in today.

That's good. All right. I can be your point of contact. Yeah, that's I was going to say, could you run it through Susan and Nino all the communications? She's our clerk. Um I'll go ahead and make a motion that we uh continue this to a further meeting. I don't know if you're going to make January's deadline deadline is December 20th. Uh I think it would be more February. All right. We'll just I'll make a motion that we just continue this to a future meeting in 2026.

I'll second that. All those in favor? I thank you very much. Thank you very much.

All right. Uh go back to which is now item number two. Miss Clark with Ace Lighting Services proposing new signage for Outback Steakhouse located at 8250 Macedonia Common Boulevard. One of these days, go ahead and state your name for the record and then just give us a brief over What? Uh, what are you going to do?

Uh, Kathy Clark. Um, basically we are updating the east side, sorry, the west side location for the Outback State House. Currently, it's an old neon sign um with backer boards and a little cabinet on the bottom. So, we will update it with the new logo, channel letters, and a small cabinet that says steakhouse that matches the east elevation. Um, so it gives it better look overall.

Thank you, Mr. Uh, just for the record too, uh, she did provide updated signage with some of the additional things that Brian, Mr. France had requested, so I did provide those to Susan, Mr. France, and I have a copy myself as well. So, Mr. Friends, I'll let you go ahead.

Sure. My report dated December 6th. Um yeah, basically the applicant did a good job of explaining the project. It's not super complex. Uh the west building elevation is the only sign being modified. It's about 42.66 square ft. Um it's similar in size to the existing signage. Um the only thing I noted on on my report was we didn't have the square footages for the existing signs just to make sure I don't think it's a problem at all, but just to make sure the overall site um adheres to the total amount of square footage you're allowed which is about 210 square ft. So I I think it's okay uh in terms of how much you have um you're allowed a total of 28. You're really close. So that's we just need that um the square footage of those existing signs.

Okay. I misunderstood. I thought you needed the the building frontage on each side for the overall square footage. And that's helpful, too, because I I did it based on measuring off of an aerial, right? So, mine's pretty close to being as exact as it can be, measuring off an aerial. Um, so that's helpful. Uh, and I and I'm incorrect. the total site square footage it's allowed is 283 because you do have a bonus side of 40% um because you have a customer entrance on on the side of the building facing the parking lot. So I do think you're you're most likely are fine. I just really need the existing total of those okay those signs. I can get those to you. We do have Yeah. I misunderstood.

Yeah. and and I and if the commission's okay with it, I I think it's fine to approve it subject to and it can go to the building department. They can confirm it's below 283.

Thank you, Mr. Nothing, sir. I just want to say that I'm so happy to see you. I've been working on this project for over a year. At one point the sign, the monument sign in the front would say our house. The rest of us completely out. So, and the one in the back is still out. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for doing this. Okay. Any questions from the commission? Make the motion.

Yep. Go ahead and make the motion that we approve the signage subject to Mr. Fran and administration uh reviewing that they are below the 283 square feet allowed signage amount subject administrative approval. Yeah, since I said that. Oh, did you? Yes. I didn't. I'll second. Second. All those in favor? I All right. Thank you.

She does. You can stay here. Uh, next item on the agenda is Miss Clark with Ace uh, Lighting Services is proposing site improvements for Culver located 8143 Golden Link Boulevard. Um, Kathy Clark. Uh so anyways, Culver's is uh proposing another drive-thru canopy or station and another menu board. So this will be a second canopy. The existing one would stay.

Existing is staying. So they're adding another one. Looks like we got the measurements over to you guys earlier. Um they're about 18 18 foot apart from each other. So, they really didn't show any, you know, renderings. Um, I see Brian at it that one in the front, but I think it's going to be farther, not really in the front of the store there. Farther back. 18 foot.

Can you say further back? Further back from the front of the building or Oh, maybe I meant from this existing one. this picture. So the distance from here to here, I'll let you

Sure. Yeah, that report did December 6th and that's really the the the two issues. I mean that that didn't scale to 30 scale the site plan but that's that can be submitted as a revised plan to scale but um the the two issues that I I felt were issues to discuss was one the distance between the two menu boards and it sounds like that they're 18 feet apart which you know most parking spaces are generally now 20t Um, so the concern is will there be enough room from the point of the ordering at the new menu board to the back of the vehicle ordering at the existing menu board. That sounds like it's going to be pretty close,

right? It does.

Yeah. Um, that was one issue. And the other one was just the aesthetics because it looks like it's going to be kind of planted right in front of the the double windows on the front of the building. May not be an issue, but I just raised it for discussion purposes. The the distance between the vehicles was more of that's a bigger concern if there's going to be enough room there to do it. probably have them mock something better up than just, you know, the site plan, you know, um that way to put the cars in there and everything and how it's going to look with the building there. Um to make it easier to understand for for them, too.

Yeah. Because this this drawing. Did you you submit this tonight? This revised one. Yes. Because it doesn't look like what you're saying the 18 ft doesn't look representative on this. Okay. And maybe because this is not this isn't to a 30 scale. So maybe that's what or at least it maybe was 30 scale. It's printed on 8 and 1 half by 11 paper and duplicated. So it's not it's not printed to scale. Yeah. I apologize. This is what Yeah. So that could be the issue is just optics because the scales a little wonky. But

yeah, it feels like there's it's very tight right there to fit it in. I mean, if it were me, I'd make them 20 ft apart to coincide with the parking space just to make sure it operates correctly because if one car doesn't get into just the right position, then only one menu board can be used and the whole thing is useless. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I I'd probably make it 22 if I was me, but you know.

Okay. which may result in some of the shrubbery. If if you depending on how which further back you have to go, you may have to remove from that shrubbery which which is a shame which wouldn't be desirable but my my recommendation was almost going to be to almost mirror what you've done on this side. But again, I think just bringing that fact up, you would lose some of that shrubbery where you would be right taking and putting that order board so it almost lines up with like that right there and there because I think that would then

ease the concern of of the distance and then also not blocking those windows with a an order border with that canopy cover there anybody have any thoughts on that landscaping minus the fact of losing their landscaping could ask for more somewhere else always yeah replace it somewhere else or because I understand also trying to protect that patio area too provide some water there but so yeah if you're outside you want to hear that directly

yeah I get that I was just wondering if you could put like some type of planters on the edge of the patio that are rectang I have a question is there you think there's any problem moving the the board back I mean why did they put it there in the first place honestly I don't know but I don't I think there's a problem. Yeah. Pushing it back, but I think yeah, we need a better rendering and measurements that are accurate. Um, so yeah, because this was kind of lame, honestly. When you're doing so, maybe the record. Yeah.

Right. I agree. So, yeah, I think we should do a better package and probably just resubmit with your suggestions. Could they do that administratively, too? I mean, it's a it doesn't sound like a big change we're asking for instead of coming back for a whole new hearing. Maybe maybe if you just do that, uh, it would would not require another fee in another hearing. I I don't know. It's up to our chairperson here. I don't know if I feel that. I think we need to visually see this, especially because there's some distance issues and Mr. Friends brought up some good points.

Actually, and the mayor has shared something with me. I didn't realize there was a law that went into place. There's a new law about um you have to have enough room in a double stack drive-thru to be able to get a car out involving unfortunately somebody was shot at a drive so just want to check and make sure you can conform with that two weeks ago

really I just uh I just agree I think that the traffic study uh needs to be done and revised. I honestly don't think there's enough room there the way it's designed. So

yeah, I think they were a little premature in submitting where of course P versus here do this and then you need to do a little more homework on that. Okay. All right. Um, so do they have enough parking there? Like more than enough? Like I'm just wondering if they needed to get creative and lose a couple spots here to to do something there. Does that reduce the do they get non-compliant parking? Yeah. To us,

that could be too. And and if that is a potential solution, we just want to know what the approved parking was so we can know if it's enough for the building square footage, right?

All right. Um so based on what I think we're all agreeing to and the applicant is as well, we'll go ahead and uh continue this to a future meeting. Um I'm going to guess probably January too soon. probably closer to February. Okay. All right. I'll go ahead and make a motion that we continue this to a future date in 2026. I'll second. All those in favor? I thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate your

Thank you. We have on our agenda it's going to be Mr. Jans with Optiva Solutions proposing a bank ATM island located at 8210 Macedonia Common Boulevard.

Sorry your name for sure. just go ahead and give us over what you're proposing and then proposing the ATM or was it a sign situation with me? Just I know Brian had sent me a memorandum that you had put together for the signage. I didn't know how far along the whole process was. It was the ATM as well as the signage as a full package for a separate um

Mr. Chair, did you want me to? Yes, if you could please. Yeah. So, there's two issues. You have an ATM that's proposed. Previously, it was too tall because it had like a power element. Looks like you guys have revised it down. So, it it's compliant with height. Okay. The and I raised in my last time I looked at it. You know, a separate sign application would be required so we understand the full request of what the signage is.

Okay. Um and so I just noted in this report that it's the ATM is not a building the way in our definitions um building signs buildings can have signs on various elevations. Um this isn't a building it's considered a structure and a structure can have one free sign. So every time I build a building permit I I get into the same situation. It's a structure. It's not a building but it is a building. It's not a structure. Yeah. That's just how the definitions are. And so you're technically only allowed one sign. So I had just said in my report um basically that you need to the ATM I think is fine. Okay.

Um and this you know the commission needs to concur with that but the the uh signage will need to just have a full understanding of what you're requesting and hear the limitations is basically what my report says. Okay. So when I go back to report to Opivvilla, the ATM as itself is good. The structure of building is good as it is with the topper eliminated. I believe so and the commission probably would want to talk about that. But from my perspective, it's

so the takeup is the fact that it's a structure that is only allowed to have a single sign on it. And based on the type of structure that it is, one have the visibility for the bank, they need a varants for additional signage. Yep. Basically, that's which is not addressed here. That would be a separate correct and that's my report. Thanks for having me. Take it to September 5th. Okay. Um, nothing sir. Okay.

Let me ask one question. Uh the the machine itself, can that say First National Bank? And then and then and then this thing could also say for I forgot what Chase had on there, although I used it all the time machine. I don't Chase had it just on the machine, I believe. And okay, I was just curious on whether they could have one up there somewhere and and on the machine. Would that be two signs? Yeah, this is all interval. It's all like one. I I haven't copied it. This would be This is the current That's it. proposition less the variance. Yeah, they've kind of gone to a um Where did they want the sign?

Where do they want another sign? Well, so so this would be it's currently drawn on all four sides. side because there's a freestanding structure.

Um, from a structure standpoint, I don't see any issues and feel like you guys have addressed what uh what our concerns were the last time that you were here. So, um, I see no issues with the structure uh, from a signage standpoint. um you know you guys need to make a separate application whether you if you want to go for variance recommend doing that first and then coming back to us um with your final sign package but I don't know if the commission has any other additional comments but

all right uh I will go ahead then and make a motion that we approve the structure updated structure that has been submitted for first national and that the applicant will be seeking either variance or a separate signage package for future. All those in

favor special guest tonight. Okay. Does anybody else have anything? Well, I guess the the first thing before we do, I'd just like to thank uh Mr. Cox for his time here on the board. Understand that will be his last meeting. So, is that okay? I don't know when my successor is is coming. I can define one of the things I'll talk okay

we will just go ahead. All right. So um I'll go ahead and uh adjourn the meeting at this time. I'll second that motion. 610. Okay. All those in favor? I Okay. Thank you.