Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Meeting to order. Roll call, please. Jay Castile, here. Jackson, here. Pete McGory here. David Miller, here. Tom Tucker, here. Connor Whan here. Mike Zulof here. Okay. You've received the minutes from the meeting of March 25th, 2026. What's your pleasure? Need a motion to approve. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve. Is there a second? I'll second. Any discussion? I think we can they're approved. Okay. Adjudication hearing conditional use permit.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh this first uh conditional use permit item was an application submitted by Brady Signs on behalf of the Tunduski KOA campground uh for property they own at 2311 Cleveland Road. Uh, and it's strictly um the application is for a animated signer, also known as an electronic message board. One point of order. Do you want to sign uh do the swearing in before we talk about these cases, the adjudication hearing? Sure. Swear you in, sir.

You want to do it? Anybody that wants to speak on this application either of either the conditional use permits, raise your right hand. and say, "Oh, you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you." Yes. Okay. All right. We're good. All right. Good catch. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Um, so this is for an electronic message board. Uh, here's a zoning map showing the parcel. It's technically splitzoned. Um, it's at the lower middle portion, so in the portion zone, general business. Here's a location map so we can see the existing conditions of the property. And then here's um street view elevation recently taken uh with an arrow indicating the proposed location of the sign. Here's a proposed site plan showing uh reduced setback which was uh grant for which a variance was granted uh by the BCA at their last meeting this past Thursday. So that's just for context. Here's uh where we get involved. Uh quick facts about the sign. It's about 24 ft tall above grade. Uh that's has 84 square ft total sign face area on each side. It's a 10-ft vertical clearance from grade to the bottom of the message board. And it's actually part of a larger long-term project to consolidate signage on this and adjacent properties for the KOA business. So, I can go back to this at any moment, but I'm going to move on for now. So, like with all animated signs, including electronic message boards, they do inherently have the potential to create objectionable or even hazardous conditions for pedestrians, auto drivers, and for residents in adjacent districts. Um, like with other similar cases, staff recommends that all applicable ODOT safety standards and city ordinances be followed relative to minimum timing interval between messages, brightness, and the presence of flashing elements. This proposed signage does not exceed the limit of 215 square ft for freestanding signs in business and commercial districts. and the Sunduski BCA granted uh the required setback variance at their last meeting

and the proposed signage meets all other code requirements and no other departments had any objections or comments. Uh therefore we recommend approval with the following conditions which before I list them are standard to this kind of application like we just saw last month. Conditions are 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 hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, nor a nuisance to surrounding property owners. Three, the sign follows ODOT safety standards for a minimum timing of image display or a 10-second minimum display time per image, whichever is longer. And four, lastly, no animations, videos, or illuminations with flashing. Thank you.

Okay. Uh, is anyone here would like to speak to it for discussion or And you've been sworn in, so uh, name and address, right? Nathan Glass, 701 Buckeye Lane. Uh, I don't I don't have much to add. I think it was laid out pretty well uh within the application. I just wanted to make myself available if there was any questions. Okay. Committee, any conversation questions? I have a question for staff. Sure.

Um just so I'm clear, no animations, video or illuminations with flashing. Um so when you say video like a motion picture in other words individual still shots sequentially can be shown but not a moving a motion picture. Correct. Okay. And essentially the same thing, animation could be a still shot, but

really all all of those words um I I would read those as if followed by the words with flashing. So any type of way that flashing could present itself through a still image, animated moving graphic, that would not be permitted. And would would the city retain jurisdiction to determine this in the future? Always. Yes. Okay. Okay, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir.

Yeah. For what it's worth, we've been pretty much consistent for the last 15 years. The intent of the rule is to zero change for 10 seconds, then an instantaneous change, even a dissolve would be uh would would violate the exact wording. And most of our uh applicants that have received permission to put these signs up have pretty much complied with it. So, I think there were one or two cases where someone had to call them, but other than that, um it's it works. It keeps uh it it makes it makes the road safer, keeps people from being distracted. So, and and uh I've never heard of a an applicant object.

Any other discussion, questions? Mr. Chairman? Yes. I'd like to make the motion that we uh second Oh, sorry. Approve the application subject to the uh conditions recommended by the on the staff report. Okay, we have a motion and a second. We need roll call. Correct. Okay, roll call. Jim Jackson, yes. Zulof, yes. Conor Whan, yes. Tom Tucker, yes. David Miller, yes. Pete McGory, yes. Jade Castile, yes. Thank you.

Okay. Next.

All right. Next one is uh second and last conditional use permit on the agenda which this one is for 812 Columbus A. This application was submitted by Mark Ruby architect on behalf of the owners Lmanarian 5 LLC for property they own at uh at the above address. And the conditional use permit is specifically for the driveth through land use of the property. It's just part of a convenience store, but that's under a different item. So, this is strictly just the drive-thru. So, here's the property in question. We're at the city's uh fivepoint intersection. Got another split zone parcel. This one is almost entirely local business. This map shows us the existing conditions of the site. Most recently this was home to the business Rotorooer or Mr. Router after that. Um before for about 20 or so years it was home to DNA auto uh service center. So uh before then educate me after the meeting. I'm curious but um this is the existing site. Here's a few elevations from the street recently taken. Here's from Columbus A. This one is from East Park Street. And then lastly, this one is from Division Street. Um the where you see the bumpers of those cars and the parking blocks in front of them. My understanding is that's more or less the property line. Just purely for reference. So site plan for reference. I highlighted in there that where the drive-thru location is. Um the new convenience store proposes this window on the so north is left here. Um so I'll I'll just say the top left part of this diagram. Um the owner anticipates the hours of operation of the store and I'm presuming the drive-thru to be 6:00 a.m.

to 10 p.m. 7 days per week. Here's that uh eastern elevation in the window in question. you can see um what staff believes is plenty of uh vehicle storage space but before the actual service window itself. And then here's another look at that um from the proposed floor plan with outlined in red the actual window. Okay, moving on. So staff analysis um after taking into account the conditional use standards for business, commercial and manufacturing districts in our code, uh we just have three main points. Uh one is that staff has no reason to expect the proposed drive-thru to create conditions that would be injurious or otherwise harmful to neighboring properties. uh rather staff expects the this accessory use and the convenience store use itself to form a harmonious part of the district because it is appropriate in size, intensity, and sight plan and city staff expect the proposed circulation plan to handle all vehicular traffic. Additionally, this land use encourages more pedestrian traffic than either of the two previous uses, which will likely help keep volumes of traffic lower. two is that um we wanted to call out for the owners that they should address the proposed door opening into the drive-through lane. Very minor point. Uh you see all the time ballards next to drive-thrus and buildings. This probably would have been caught anyway, but um just wanted to highlight that for them to protect both uh you know their investment and people's cars. Okay. Um, no other comments or objections uh from apartment or other departments. Again, this is just the drive-thru. Um, therefore, staff recommends 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. It's probably prudent to add that it would be subject to site plan approval also, which is your next agenda item. Okay. See, um, anyone here like to speak to that? They have to be sworn in. Okay. Committee questions. Yeah. I just have for curiosity sake, are they going to be entering from the back or the front when they go through the drive-thru? They're going to be entering through the back. Through the back. There is a entrance in the back. If you see the building. Yeah. I'm I'm looking at it. I'm looking at the side view. Yeah. Okay.

All right. That was that was that was the only question. My engineer is not here. He was supposed to be, but he's going to be here in time. I can ask it. Mr. Chairman, yes. Question for staff, Mr. Panis. Um, is the the need for the um I want to say varant conditional use permit. Is that just because of the drive-thru aspect? Correct. Right. Correct. Okay. And what's being done here is is this is is this an enclosed drive-thru or an open drive-thru just with a window? Open with a window. Okay. Okay. Is and is I presume it's going to be a one-way. That's how it's designed. Yep. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Any other discussion, questions? Mr. Chairman, just to be clear, one way coming off Division Street, correct? Correct. Correct. Yep, he's got it highlighted up on the screen there. You can see the arrow pointing in and the width of that curb cut is for oneway traffic in any other discussion, questions. Okay, entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I mean it's it appears to me or seems to me I should say not appears seems to me that if you don't require this the code does not require any special changes to do the um convenience store itself. I don't see that being able to buy something through an open window is going to make that much difference. So So that's my perception. I'll let anybody else speak if they want to, but I'm prepared to make a motion uh to approve on the the conditions suggested by uh staff. Is there a second?

I'll second. Moved and seconded. Roll call. Pete McGory. Yes. David Miller, yes. Tom Tucker, yes. Connor Whan, yes. Mike Zulof, yes. Jade Castile, yes. Jim Jackson, yes. Okay, it's approved. Okay. New business item.

Yes, sir. Okay. Uh it's good uh segue into site plan review for the same property um for a it's technically a building addition. Uh this is again the zoning map. Same property. Yep. Same conditions, same uh elevation. So site plan can talk a little bit more in detail um in broader in the same sense. So some quick facts, it meets all code requirements. Um it more than doubles the current footprint. So the applicant expressed to me that the owners would really like to preserve and and utilize as much of the existing walls and building foundation as possible. So you'll see the existing building is in blue, a dashed line on the slide right now, and then the red is the proposed building. So they're going to utilize what of a footprint walls they can um which not only is economical, good for the environment. Um so it more than doubles the footprint from uh 1260 ft to 2,680 ft increasing from 10 to about 21% lock coverage. Uh the building as proposed meets minimum setback requirements. Moving on, here are the elevations. Uh here's the west faces Columbus A. East faces uh north, so internal to a different property. I've highlighted the different lighting fixtures as proposed throughout the elevations and I even colorcoded them for you all um to the bottom right. So, these are all whether they they're proposed to be recessed or um you know protruding fixtures, they're all down lit and are um 3,000° Kelvin or warmer. Um so, they're compliant. Uh this building will have a similar height as the existing one at around 20 ft tall.

And then there's two more elevations. This is the north elevation facing East Park Street and south faces um division street. Okay. Uh again, these fixtures meet uh regulations. Here's a proposed for plan. We just saw this uh in the last item. Um the main thing to add for site plan here is that the basically the entire footprint will be dedicated to the retail store land use. there's some area for storage. Um but in terms of calculating parking, um it it proposes 12 parking spaces which is actually meets the code requirement of 11. So there's no issue there. Um they're committed to repaving the parking lot. And as part of this, um, they're planning to shift the existing East Park Street curb cut, uh, to the east or on this diagram, the left. I know it's a little easy to get topsyturvy. Um, and I'll mention that. So that's this part curb cut here on the right hand side of this image. That will be shifted all the way to the left, really as far to the left as it can be to the behind or to the left of the crosswalk. Um. Oops. Okay. And then we see the the one the oneway in through the drive-thru lane and then we have two dual access. One through the East Park, but then another off of Division Street. Um, so we believe this will handle all of the uh on-site traffic. All right. Uh, landscaping and storm water. Green is landscaping. There's a mixture of uh new landscaping with landscaping trees and grass cover proposed. Um we really appreciate the

applicant's attention to detail um because they actually included a um some sculpture panels which you can see that green arrow to pointing u which uh maybe have green climbing

vegetation as well. And let's see, let's see. We've got proposed storm sewer elements as well with direct tie-ins which the storm sewer aspect is automatically you know that needs to be approved by engineering department uh if it's approved today. Staff analysis really easy for us. Um the proposed building footprint complies with the planning and zoning code. Uh two there's ample room on site for all circulation and parking needs. Three, the proposed landscaping will help beautify the site and of course you know help handle storm water. Five. Four, the proposed lighting will be compliant, and five, all other code requirements have been shown to be met. Engineering staff commented that traffic patterns at the five points intersection will continue to be evaluated to prioritize the safety of all users. And with that, staff recommends 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. Okay. Questions, comments,

Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Um, it's not explicit in the report, but if I approve this, I would expect that any derelict aprons be cleaned up and and any existing broken up sidewalk or aprons be rebuilt. Is is is that we understand that matches our understanding? Make that a condition. No, that that matches our understanding and what I've discussed with the applicant so far. Okay. There is a call out on the site plan that says new 5- foot sidewalk that's restoring over where that

Okay. So, it is explicit. Uh it's kind of hard to read. Uh it is explicit in the plan. So, we don't need need to make it a condition because it's we're approving uh what's explicit in the plan. Thank you. Any other entertain a motion for approval? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Motion to approve the site plan uh subject to the recommended condition one condition I guess uh on the staff report. Second.

I'll second that. We move the second in. Roll call. Mike Zulof, yes. Jay Castile, yes. Connor Whan, yes. Jim Jackson, yes. Sorry, lost my spot. Tom Tucker, yes. Pete McGory, yes. David Miller, yes. Mr. Chairman, I I wonder if our applicant might have had a comment. Yes. Uh, I have one more question like I just had an idea. Is there any way I can put a gas station there? I don't know. I did not consult with the architect yet, but uh anywhere to do what? Parking was the issue. I think for my opinion,

like build a small, you know, two pump gas station. I'm not sure I heard your question, but my this this system speak to me. Don't speak into the mic. Okay. Okay. So right now my first plan was a convenience store but my understanding is adding a gas station will bring in more business. So based on my understanding there is other issue is a parking space. So if we build a two pump gas station is going to take away almost three four parking spaces. So is there and pay you guys one gas station. That would kind of start you at the beginning of

that would start you all over you. But uh if you guys want gas station I would be skeptical of groom enough on that site the size of the building if it's up to you guys question. Yeah. I don't know if any of staff knows but at one time that was a gas. Yeah it was suko. Yeah. So are there tanks in the ground still? No they take it out. They don't they don't have Okay. All right. That's my question. But it's a lot of expensive nowaday to put a tank and everything. But uh I think it's worth it. So I might send a new proposal if there is a way for Yeah, new proposal. You know where to go.

Mr. Chairman, before he goes, Mr. Chairman, uh, you know, fashions come and go, but in recent years it's slowed down, but we've seen a big shift to electric vehicles. It probably it's still a parking spot if you have a charging station there. Just saying. And that didn't take a tank. That one that would be welcome there. We hear about it all the time. There's very few charging between Cleveland and Toledo.

Yeah, that one I don't think it will. It just need a good power supply cuz electric charger there is a requirement certain amps. So that part is doable. It doesn't require any more space. It's just you know installing a charger station. Still it's a gas station is always all right. Well, congratulations chairman. Maybe I mean my my gut reaction is on a gas station you got the issue of the the underground tanks and then the space and everything. And I think that's something that the staff would have to consider as she said from square one

going back to the beginning. Right. Only issue I see is a parking space. I know for sure because I have But it's more than just parking. It's circulation. Yeah. It's it's a whole different already dangerous intersection. We don't have the ability as a body to to say yes or no. Until it's worked up by staff. Okay. Let's go with the convenience store first. All right. Thank you guys. Thank you. Okay. Congested area. It's tricky. Next item, a new business. Yes, sir. Okay. Staff, reach out to you.

Next item is another application for site plan approval. Uh, this application was made by Janata and Hearner on behalf of JBT Morell for their property at 1622 First Street. This is the zoning of the property. There's a few properties within it, but for all intents and purposes, it's it's really just all one uh split zone between General Manufacturing on the west and CS commercial services district on the east and the eastern portion is where we are concerning ourselves today. Here's the existing conditions of the site. All right. Couple elevations. Uh this building addition is proposed on uh the left side of uh attached to the existing building that you see there and then uh that was taken from first street and then here's a photo taken from East Farwell Street of the same existing side of the building. So uh site plan in blue I've outlined the proposed 3,880 ft addition. It's for to the existing technology center where JBT uh builds and test industrial ovens. The additional square footage increases total lot coverage from 36 to 37% and the building footprint meets minimum setbacks. Here's the parking plan as to accommodate the building addition. The addition itself is going on right now is a bay of parking. So to accommodate it, the applicants actually reconfigured this and they didn't lose any spaces, which I thought was a talent in and of itself. Um they kept the same number of spaces at 28. Uh and fact they will be shifting over the existing first street approach to line up with the remaining

reconfigured parking area. And you know, staff still believes that the total 278 existing parking spaces throughout the entire site is adequate landscaping plan. We've got some in between the building and the parking lot as well as they're maintaining all of the existing landscaping and screening. Uh to the east there, the existing trees that are notated um for to buffer the parking lot and the public right ofway. Um, in the terms of species and general look and feel, it'll match what's in the bottom left, which are pictures of their existing landscaping. Moving on, here's our elevations. We have three of them. Just a few light fixtures. They're down lit and appropriate degrees Kelvin, so they're dark sky compliant. And, uh, this addition will have a similar building height as the current one. Uh here's the proposed floor plan. All of it is will be dedicated to it. It's technically considered a laboratory or research land use. I thought that was fun. And storm water uh roof gutters with direct tie-ins to existing catch basins are proposed to carry storm water to the city system and final engineering approval is required for storm water if approved by planning commission. Staff analysis very similar to the last case. The footprint complies with the planning zoning code setback requirements. The height is under the maximum height limit. Uh there's ample room on site even with the reconfigured parking area for all circulation and parking needs. Landscaping will beautify uh the site and help with storm water. The proposed lighting will be compliant and all their code requirements have been shown to be met. our fire department uh because of what they're testing inside of the building uh just wanted to give a heads up, which I'm sure would have been addressed anyway,

but stating that the building plans must reflect proper fire suppression for the materials being stored and tested within the building, including but not limited to extending the fire alarm and sprinkler coverage to the addition. Therefore, staff recommends 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. Okay. Anyone in the audience wish to speak comments? You have any questions? Okay. Okay. Discussion, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, sir. Um, just a comment that I'm I'm sure we I don't have to admonish the engineering department take a hard look at the storm water because it's a kind of a problem area in that neighborhood. Uh, but uh I have a question for staff regarding the parking. It's been our tradition, and I think it might be time to question that, but it's always been our tradition to not require all the parking that the code would necessarily call for for as as our as our discretion allows us. But my question is, is there does space remain on this site uh for the requisite parking uh you know, should we ever need it,

I believe. So, there's also, this is really just concerning one corner of it. If you look at the larger property, there's a lot of space. Yeah. Yeah. Which is taken up by uh parking. I counted just on the auditor's site about 278. Um, depending how the footprint is laid out, I was taking some making some assumptions and guesses. I calculated that technically they likely need 300 something spaces. Yeah.

Which 200 something is a ton and I think it serves that site well. And so that really um while they're expanding the footprint, the amount of spaces has not changed with this proposal. Okay. Well, I'm satisfied with your judgment there. I just wanted to Yeah. Yeah. It seems you've looked at that. So, thank you. Any other discussion, questions? Okay. Now, I'll tend to entertain a motion, Mr. Chairman. I'll make a motion to Mr. Chair. No, I didn't question. I just can you point me where we were discussing storm water because I know that area floods a lot because I live there. Oh, Mr. Zulof brought that one up.

Okay. What What was is there anything new happening with the addition to the building as far as the storm water or is it the same setup? The applicant could feel free to correct me, but my understanding of the plans was to have roof tie-ins to the existing catch basins that are on the private property already. Okay. Which we'll continue to run to. Yeah. Okay. Just for clarification, could you explain what a roof tie-in is?

Yes. Sorry. Um to the best of my knowledge, uh roof tie-in is just like a an at home gutter system. It carries the water to away from the foundation. This would do the same conceptually. It would take water away from the building, but instead of having it dribble along a parking lot, it would just go right into uh like a storm sewer line that would gravity fed, I would imagine. And it would Is that accurate? Okay, let's go. And that um drainage basin would be able to support the uh influx and the amount of water that would go in there with the building addition, right?

To my is that correct? Yeah, the property itself what we're building on is already parking lot. So, you know, rain's going to hit the road, run to a certain point, the low side, go into a gutter down through piping into the catch. I just, like I said, my concern I see that area flooding every time we have huge heavy rains because I live in the area. So, I didn't want to exacerbate that uh problem that we're already dealing with. That's all. Mr. Chairman, it's it's always fun to have a look at the flood plane map and the flood risk and uh in that area. It's uh yeah, no no surprise. Uh I think I think uh very true.

Uh there were moments when it was the area was uh at least a couple of the street segments were below the the lake level. So that's one of the bigger issues rather than Right. Yeah. Um but fortunately uh we generally have good luck with our engineering staff doing the best they can with the conditions that uh we have. Mr. Chairman, I I would make a motion to approve the uh application for site plan approval subject to the conditions set forth in the staff's recommendation. I have a second.

I'll second. Okay, that motion second. Roll call. David Miller. Yes. Pete McGory. Yes. Tom Tucker. Yes. Jim Jackson. Yes. Connor Whan. Yes. Jade Castile. Yes. Mike Sulof. Yes. Okay. Is there any other business to come before the commission? Not. I'll entertain a motion for a German. So move. Second. Second. No changes to our schedule or anything.