Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

5:00. Call the meeting to order. I can turn my hand. They advised us not to leave this year. Roll call, please. Jay Castile. Jim Jackson here. Pete Mcgory here. David Miller here. Tom Tucker here. Connor Whan. Mike Zulof here. Okay. And uh you there was uh one person absent you said called in. Is that correct? Or said she couldn't make I heard from Jay Castile. Okay. I did not hear from Mr. Whan. I did not hear from Connor Whan. I did not neither. Motion to approve the absence. Uh I'm sorry. I didn't hear uh you heard from whom? Jade Castile. Jade Castile.

Oh, thank you. Uh I'll move to excuse. Okay. Second. Okay. All in favor? I. Okay. Approved. Okay. First thing on the agenda is uh from the January 28th, 2026. There's a um an an area there on number two of the minutes that uh we took off of that night but didn't get didn't make the minutes and we approved them last month and if you watch the video or whatever you can see that we did that. So I'll need a motion to approve the amended minutes. Motion so moved. I'll second. Moved and seconded. All in favor? I.

Okay. Now the approval of the minutes from the February 25th, 2026 meeting. I need a motion for approval. So moved. Second. Been moved and seconded. All in favor? I. Okay. Number four, conditional use permit.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, um, advanced line signs and lighting. uh submitted a conditional use permit application on behalf of the property owner SNS Realy for property at 1931 Cleveland Road uh to construct a new pylon sign with an electronic message board component. So here is where we're at. Here's where we're situated. Uh the zoning of this property is general business and then this slide shows us a a better aerial of the existing conditions. Um we can see that we are at the Thirsty Pony Cedar Lane site, also known as Cedar Corners. Um this is from u maybe 6 months ago. This photo, this shows us the sign being replaced is was a pylon sign with electronic message board. So effectively it's a replacement, but the sign itself is being moved. So we need some new approvals. Um here are some more recent photos from a couple weeks ago. And here's from Cedar Point Drive. Okay. So, for context only, uh the sign the Sanduski Board of Zoning Appeals approved the sign to have a reduced setback. So, instead of 15 ft from the right of way, uh reduced setback for only 1 foot was approved or excuse me, 4T from the right of way was approved. Um and that was approved at the March 19th uh meeting minute. Uh that was it's 17 feet from the back of the curb. So the BCA thought that was appropriate. Um and so what we're concerned about though um or talking about today rather is the electronic message board component. You can see a better um picture of this toward the right hand side of the slide. The rightmost two images. You can see what's all in black is the electronic message board component and then on the right hand side is a rendering. Uh the

sign is below the height maximum below the sign area maximum and uh they also received a variance for 5.75 ft clearance uh whereas normally 8 and 1/2 is required. Want to move forward for now. Um no other comments uh or objections were received from other departments. Um, in general, so our staff analysis, these signs in general have the potential to create objectionable or even hazardous conditions for pedestrians, auto drivers or residents in adjacent districts. Um, so staff recommends for this sign, like we have all other similar applications, that the applicable ODOT safety standards and city ordinances be followed relative to minimum minimum timing interval between messages, brightness, and the presence of flashing elements. The and then there's some more details that we just went over. It meets all other code requirements. So therefore, staff recommends approval of this conditional use permit application with the following conditions which again are standard uh when you look at our other previous approvals of this nature. So uh one all applicable permits are obtained through the building department, engineering department and any other applicable agency prior to construction. Two, the brightness shall not impose a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic nor a nuisance to surrounding property owners. Three, the sign follows ODOT safety standards for minimum timing of image display or a 10-second minimum display time per image, whichever is longer. And four, no animations, videos, or illuminations with flashing in particular. Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Chairman, question for staff. Question. Um, Adam, could you when it says the brightness shall not impose a hazard, how will that be determined or how who who's going to determine that? Right. Uh, the city. So, that that would effectively that would be on a complaint driven basis. Um, as far as I'm aware, we do not have an outright uh like lumens, a maximum lumens, but if it's causing, you know, within reason a glare or undue disturbance, be the the the owner's usage to begin with. And if if there's not a problem, it stays that way. If there's a problem, then it's addressed. Right. Exactly. Okay.

I can give one example. There was an electronic message board in front of a church and it's specifically a nationally registered historic and our historic design guidelines don't allow like white backgrounds and they had a really bright white background all night long and I received a um a question if we could ask them to change that and we asked them they dimmed it during evening hours. I mean obviously they're not trying to attract people to the site overnight and um nobody and they changed it to a darker background instead of like the white background with lettering. changed it to a dark background with white letter. And so that's an example of how we've managed something like that in the past. But to my you answer my question to begin with there's not going to be there's not a standard uh to begin with just Yeah. Mr. Chairman.

Yes.

Yeah. Reasonable uh question. I think it's but it's this is consistent with how we've treated other applicants. Um, and uh, you know, uh, we don't need to be draconian about it and but you know if it's a problem kind sometimes you just know it when you see it, right? Um, anyway, I I I did have one suggestion that I wonder if was considered. Uh, I do have a little bit of a concern because the base is some almost just under seven feet wide and angled and and you're you've got more and more electric bicycles coming around corners and stuff and it could create kind of a a little bit of a hazard in a blind corner and I don't I don't know if it's possible uh you know to to do it you know like on two pylons or two legs and a little bit more see-through. If it's not I don't care. I don't think it's I'm not going to quibble over it, but I just thought I'd throw out uh a suggestion to the applicant uh to uh to to explore whether it's possible to have two pylons instead of a 7 foot wide. It's high enough, you know, that the support structure is high enough that someone on a bicycle or something, I think it's just under six feet, will probably see under it and maybe see if another bike is coming or something. Uh, I don't think it's that big of a hazard, but it's uh, you know, it might be a free safety feature or it might be too expensive. I don't know. Just thought I'd throw that out. I'm not going to vote against it over that matter, but it was just a thought. This isn't the first time that we had an applicant, you know, an application where nobody thought about people coming around the corner in visibility, right? So, just a thought.

Any other questions? Okay, we need a motion for approval or I make a motion to approve applicant. Have a second. Second. It's been moved and seconded for approval. Um, Mr. Chairman, just for discussion. I'm just following up on Mr. Zulof's uh point. Uh, I don't know if it's necessary, but is that something we could ask the applicant to see if they care one way or the other? Well, we're we're not requiring it anyway. I just wanted to introduce the uh you know, the option. It's not it's it's not a condition. Uh I just you know, it's sometimes there's things you don't think of and that's kind of why we're here, right?

Here's a curve. The sidewalk has a curve. Oh, right. No, no, I understand that. I'm saying if if you're coming around a corner on a bicycle, it's a bit of a monolith that will and and there's another bike coming the other way, you're not going to see it, right? It'll keep you on the path. I I I I think the design of the intersection will we'll see how that works out, right? Um but but no my my my uh interest was in you know how can we make sure that as people come around the corner they're not surprised right that that was all

thank you any other discussion questions Mr. chair. Um were those um motion and second implied to uh include the conditions uh as presented? Usually you guys say it. I didn't I didn't hear it. Okay. They were Who who made the motion? Jim Jackson. David Miller. I I didn't have any requirements on it. Just the approval of the way it was written up. Okay. As presented. So with commission. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. Any other discussion, questions? Yeah, Mr. Chairman. I did understand it to include the conditions recommended by the staff. Okay, we need a roll call. Tom Tucker, yes. Mike Zulof, yes.

Jim Jackson, yes. Pete McGory, yes. David Miller, yes. Okay. Under new business, site plan review. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, we've got an application submitted for site plan approval. Thank you very much. Happy Easter. For site plan approval by PO Architects on behalf of Great Lakes Petroleum uh for property at 1724 Campbell Street. They want to construct a new commercial building. I'll wait. It's fine.

Yeah. Yeah. Did anybody catch that or was that kind of swallowed? Right. Okay. So, this is site. Yeah, no problem. Site plan application um for Great Lakes Petroleum property they already own at 1724 Campbell Street. They want to tear down the existing uh buildings and construct a new commercial um mixeduse building. So, here's the zoning map for this property. uh were zoned CS commercial services. The existing and proposed lane uses are the same and they're appropriate to the district. This gives us location map gives us an a better idea of the existing conditions. We can see uh this site is almost entirely gravel with some vegetation toward the rear and on an adjacent property. Um, in terms of what is applicable to what we're talking about today, we're looking at we'll be looking at just the western half. The the eastern half or the rear portion will remain unchanged. Um, you can see in this picture, if you look back those white silos, that's an existing uh fillup station for uh GLP's fuel tankers. And you see a fence system for some security. that'll be redone as well um with plenty of storage space as for a tanker between the sidewalk and the new building. But yeah, the the brick building and the metal building indicated there will be coming down to facilitate this project. So into the weeds. Um here's our proposed site plan. It meets all code requirements. The building is about 24 ft tall and in yellow is the new building. If you squint, you can see the red is all all the existing stuff. The new mixeduse

building will be 6,250 ft in area, which is approximately 10% lot coverage, and it meets minimum setbacks. So, we're going from that to purple. So, within the purple, and if you you can see in the legend as well is the proposed pavement. Again, this is all gravel right now. So, this will support the greater utilization of the site. Like I mentioned, there's enough space after the sidewalk when you pull in with how they have it designed uh but before the fence that they're planning to put up again uh to keep tankers out of the sidewalk or out of the road. They're proposing 15 new parking spaces and we believe this parking plan meets all code requirements and we have our asterisk. So technically depending on your interpretation of the code, I can get into this as much as your questions may want, but I'll keep it brief for now. Um, depending if if you have a loose or strict interpretation of the code, um, either five or 25 spaces are required. Um, the applicant stated that only two employees will be permanently on site with the rest coming and going intermittently. Um, ultimately staff believes the proposed 15 spaces is more than enough and appropriate. I'm going to move on for now though. Here's landscaping which is in green. Here's some plant specs. Okay, moving on. Here's our proposed floor plan. So on the side closest to the street is the left side, the west side of the building. That is about 1,250 ft of business offices. You see some restrooms in there, storage closets. And then the remaining the vast remaining eastern portion of the site is about 5,000 square ft. And through my communication with the applicant, they inform me that it's primarily going to be a storage garage, but it I understand

that it will have some uh equipment present within to you know serve as tankers as needed. And that's you know that's why I said depending on your interpretation of what's the main use, what's accessory to the main use, you could calculate parking different, but ultimately based on the information I asked for and they gave me, I think that a number of spaces is fine. uh elevations and lighting plan. West is facing Campbell Street. East is opposite. We see the proposed fixtures fully compliant with our dark sky regulations. And here's north facing the railroad track and south with the big bays for the fuel tankers. Okay. Proposed storm water plan uh preliminarily was um okayed by our engineering department. is as always final engineering approval will be required if approved tonight. Uh it's in green storm sewer line catch basins uh since we're introducing concrete. Other department's comments, uh two main ones. First is the engineering staff says that they do not object to uh a partial paving of the site uh leaving gravel at the rear of the lot where the fuel tanks are stored. uh they noted that this option helps prevent accelerated degradation of the city's wastewater system. Two is from the fire department. They said that the building plans uh which will come after this for the new building must reflect proper fire suppression for the flammable materials being stored within the building. Uh we've gone through all the main points of staff analysis already. Um I really appreciate the extra landscaping that'll help beautify the site even with storm water. Um, again, we we think there's the parking plan is is a non-issue. Therefore, we recommend approval with the following condition that all applicable permits are obtained through the building department, engineering department, and any other applicable agency prior to construction. Thank you. Can take any questions

for you, Mr. Chairman. Question. Uh, the garage portion of that building right there. Yes. Are they going to be used just to work on the trucks or will they be storing some of the vehicles in there also? Both. as I understand, Mr. Chairman. Yes.

Uh, regarding the parking, it's as as we most of us know here that it's been this board's practice to wave minimum parking requirements when the applicant uh believes that it's excessive. Um, I don't like, you know, arguing with what what they need, provided that the site has room for uh the minimum parking requirements if if a later use or a later uh occupant uh needs uh the full amount of parking. So, uh is it the case that we have? I believe so. There's plenty of space.

Pretty pretty obvious, right? I think so. So I just thought that aside so it's pretty norm normal for us to uh the other thing and and I I can see Mr. Miller is ready to go on the permeability. We we we appreciate when uh any anything we can do to absorb any runoff on the site. Uh permeable surfaces even permeable parking is uh uh pavement is nice. I just noticed the other day that, you know, it must have been 10 years ago that we put in an experimental permeable surface uh on the Jackson Street parking lot and that stuff is holding up better than the rest of the parking lot. It's proving to be quite durable and the most slip resistant concrete surface I've ever seen in my life. So anyway, uh just just putting in a plug for permeable surfaces. Anything else? The applicant would like to speak or good evening. Jeff Foster, Po Architects, 1220 West 6th Street. U just if you want to answer any questions, I'm happy to. Um, yes, there will be vehicles stored in there. They do fleet service and fleet maintenance. So, think of the tanker that comes and fills up the fleet attractors or those types of things is what they do. was formerly Consumer Petroleum, I think is what used to be there. Um, but right now they only have two drivers that work out of the operation. They do plan to grow the operation in the future, but that 15 spaces that we allocated is more than enough to to fit who would be working on that location.

Any other questions? U Mr. Chairman, there's a reference in here about adequate fire suppression. Can I presume that the the fire department is on top of that even currently and then you'll follow up? Yes, exactly. Okay. Okay.

Uh I just had one quick question. How confident are we on the railroad right away that that the rightway doesn't encroach on the fee simple property? Right. Some sometimes you you can have a right away and you can have a property line and you know are we pretty confident that the I mean we've had the site's been surveyed and nothing showed up on the alta and nothing showed up in any of the survey docks. So we're pretty comfortable and there's a building sitting where we're putting the new building. So that gives us sort of double confidence that sure the railroad allowed that in the first place. Sure.

Which they don't allow anything. So yeah and we're not touching the fuel farm. the fuel farm stays as it is. But we're pretty excited because this is it gives them a new home base for this area of the state and they're they're a growing company. So I think they'd be a good good neighbor for you all and a good business in the future. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. Entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion for the application to be approved subject to the conditions uh mentioned by the planning department in their report. Second. It's been moved and seconded. I have a roll call, please. David Miller, yes. Pete McGory, yes. Mike Zulof, yes. Jim Jackson,

yes. Tom Tucker, yes. Hey, is there any other business going? Not for me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I just had a couple updates I thought that be interesting to the planning commissioners. Um, so you're familiar with our housing development accelerator project. A few of you were at the meetings. We had our second round of public workshops for that project early March. Um the the slideshows for those are available on the project page. So if you go to our website and you go to city projects, it's um there at the housing development accelerator. We had really good turnout u with the community coming out to look at potential for housing development and our focus areas. So we're really excited to see the next step start to come to fruition. Um the consultant team is working on a uh community engagement summary right now that we'll also post online when that's ready. And then uh something that's up and coming is um the public arts and culture commission has released a request for proposals through the planning division where we are looking for a public arts planner for um a community engagement process and to define a um a process for us to commission some public art for Columbus Avenue to install on the new streetscape. So that is due April 20th. And then once we select a team, we'll have a couple public meetings and a hopefully a good conversation about what that public art look like and then uh conduct a search for an artist and um to to commission some public art for Columbus Avenue. So that'll be exciting. So you I'll I'll keep you updated on that as it goes along this year.

Those housing things were well attended. Yeah. Okay. I have a quick question. Um, anybody have any any update on the stage theater? How where things are standing? It's uh Yeah, actually it's coming. Okay. Within a couple commissioners are going to meet with with them and it it we should know two or three weeks I believe. They're going to come provide an update or have some updates. Yep. Yep. It's it's in process. Good. I haven't heard anything for a while. So that's exciting. So they'll be meeting with city commission or initially just a few of us and then public for the public with what they've done. So it's coming. It's coming. I've been told it's coming. Go ahead.

Is this about releasing the additional Yes. pledged? Y. Thank you. The money. It's always about follow the money. Okay. Any other business? Okay. Entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved and second. Okay. It's moved and seconded. All in favor? I