DEERFIELD TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

6:30 p.m. – April 14, 2005

Trustee Meeting Room

3292 Montgomery Road

MINUTES

ROLL CALL: James Rinehart, Cherry Linder, William Heckman, and James Klatte were present. Alternate Mike Kean and Brian Leary were absent. Alsp present was township legal advisor, Andrew Gleason.

Cherry Linder congratulated Jim Klatte on the fact that he now is a regular board member instead of the alternate. She announced that Mike Kean was appointed by the trustees to be the new alternate. Andrew Gleason is the new township legal counsel with the departure of Doug Miller. She said we have a new director of Community Development, Lois McKnight, with the departure of Tim Hershner.

Minutes Motion by James Rinehart to approve the minutes of 01/13/2005. 2^nd by James Klatte._

Roll Call: James Klatte-Yes, James Rinehart-Yes Cherry Linder-Yes, William Heckman-Yes The motion was approved.

Minutes Motion by James Klatte to approve the minutes of Special Meeting of 01/27/2005. 2^nd by William Heckman_

Roll Call: James Klatte,-Yes James Rinehart-Yes, Cherry Linder-Yes, William Heckman-Yes The motion was approved. Cherry Linder “swore in” those persons who would be giving testimony tonight.

CASE 2005-145 3159 Columbia Road, 20 Mile House Restaurant, Sign Variance

Staff Presentation Mayank Kumar said this is a request for a variance to our sign code. The sign code allows one ground mounted sign and one wall sign. The applicant requested two wall signs with a “reader board” included which would be a total of 70.41 square feet. The old ground mounted sign there now would be removed with the widening of Montgomery Road. At this time there are 2 banners on display on which the permit expired on 4/11/05 and a temporary reader board sign sitting along Montgomery Road, which no permit was ever applied for. This type of temporary reader board is not allowed under Deerfield Township Zoning. Mr. Kumar described the commercial zoning of the surrounding properties. He projected ed on the wall photos of the requested signage. He said the 2 signs meeting on the corner of the building looks like one sign and it would really be 2 signs. He said there has been a trend to allow wall signs, not ground mounted signs in the township such as the 1^st National Bank, Hollywood Video, and the proposed CVS Pharmacy. He said the proposed development in the Miller PUD will have wall signs, also. Mr. Kumar said there were concerns from the staff that the light building color compared to the black sign would be a drastic contrast and should be modified. That is why they included Condition #3.

The Township Board of Zoning Appeals shall approve, approve with modification, or deny the submitted variance request based on Section 6.06 (D) of Deerfield Township Zoning Resolutions, unless additional information is deemed necessary to make an informed decision. In the event of approval the staff recommends the following:

1. Removal of all extraneous signs prior to issuance of zoning permit including changeable metal

board, banners and existing Ground Mounted sign.

2. This approval constitutes approval of size and general location of the proposed wall mounted signs.

The remaining sections of Chapter 22, Signs, of Deerfield Township Zoning Resolution shall still beapplicable to the proposed signage. ~~The color of the proposed sign shall be modified to a less contrasting color as opposed building~~ ~~elevation per the satisfaction of Community Development Director. Also, the design of the~~ ~~proposed sign shall be enhanced to include elements and features of existing Ground~~ ~~Mounted Sign. Colored drawings shall be submitted for review and for the issuance of~~ ~~zoning certificate.~~

3. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Deerfield Township Fire Department, and Warren County Engineer’s Office review the placement of the signage and the impact of the signage upon traffic safety and such governmental agencies not object within ten (10) business days to the proposed signage.

James Rinehart asked Mr. Kumar for details on the amount of road frontage after ODOT widens Montgomery Road. Mr. Kumar explained that the road will be very close to the front of the building. Mr. Rinehart wanted an explanation on details of approval of half of the sign but coming for a variance on the same sign which is the same sign only doubled. Mr. Rinehart said if half of the sign would be allowed, why does the conditions mention the color when the same color was approved if they only use half of the sign. Cherry Linder asked if there have been any comments or complaints about this being a “reader board” sign. Ms. Linder said there is a reader board already at Carstar. Andrew Gleason said the township zoning code does not address reader boards but the process to change that in the code has started. Mr. Gleason said the Deerfield Township Zoning Code is making text changes. Ms. Linder commented that the current ground mounted sign will be removed. Mr. Kumar said they can leave the ground mounted sign until they put up the reader board sign. Cherry Linder asked for the applicant to come forward.

Proponent Mike Cassedy, Preferred Resources, 5769 Vice Lane, Burlington, Ky 41005, said he had photos. He said one ground mounted sign and one wall sign are permitted per the Deerfield Township Zoning Code. He said they plan to remove the ground sign. He said they have burgundy awnings and the colors on the logo on the sign match the burgundy. Lois asked about the cabinetry of the reader board. Mr. Cassedy said that is black and they could extend the burgundy along the cabinetry if they had to. James Rinehart asked if the reader board would be for the community. Mr. Cassedy said they could put community announcements there. He said they could put “Amber Alerts” there or traffic concerns. Mr. Cassedy said they can put community service items there and that would make them a good community neighbor. James Rinehart asked what are they planning to put on the message board? Mr. Cassedy said Karaoke, dinner specials, a sports issue, trivia, etc. could be put there. Jim Klatte asked him what color the LED’s (lettering) would be. Mr. Cassedy said they would be red. Mr. Cassedy said the brightness could be adjusted. James Rinehart asked of ODOT has any concerns about this type of sign with the traffic light there. Mr. Kumar said ODOT doesn’t know about this. Mr. Cassedy said there are no records about accidents caused by signs and the viewing angle, he believed, would not cause a problem. Cherry Linder said she would like to talk to the property owner. Mr. Cassedy said Jeff Black is the property owner. Ms. Linder asked how this type of sign was selected. Mr. Cassedy said Jeff Black, the property owner, wanted a message board. Mr. Cassedy gave history of ownership of the restaurant and said the business has not been doing well over the years and Jeff Black believed this type of sign would help the business. Cherry Linder said this type of sign doesn’t go with a historic building. Mr. Cassedy said Jeff Black believes this reader board would help the public be notified of these “changes” that he has made to this business and promote entertainment and activities of this business.

Joe Durr, 35 Winnebago Drive, Milford, OH, gave the history of his management of this restaurant and other restaurants over the years. He explained the previous success of the 20 Mile Restaurant while he was there. Cherry Linder asked him what he thought of the sign. Mr. Durr said the sign would allow the public to know what is going on there. James Klatte said his only concern was the intensity of the lights and that they may interfere with the traffic lights at the intersection of Columbia Road and Montgomery Road. Cherry Linder said it is unusual to have a reader board so close to an intersection. She said this appeals board needs a confirmation from ODOT that this light won’t cause any problems. William Heckman said if we would approve a standard sign then we must approve a message board sign because of our code which does not have a distinction between the two types of signs. Andrew Gleason quoted the Zoning Code, Section 22.02 C, as follows:

“No sign shall obstruct or interfere with traffic or traffic visibility, or resemble or imitate signs or signals erected by the township or other governmental agency for the regulation of traffic or parking.”

Mr. Gleason said if the sign goes up and causes any traffic problems, it must come down. Mr. Rinehart asked how long it would take to have ODOT come in and look at this. Mr. Kumar asked Mr. Rinehart if he wanted to table the case and have ODOT look at it. Mr. Rinehart said DTFR could also look at it. Mr. Gleason said we could make it a condition that ODOT look at it. Mr. Kumar said it would take about one week for ODOT to look at this proposal. Mr. Rinehart said if that was one of the conditions he didn’t have a problem with it. William Heckman said he couldn’t see the point of keeping Condition #3 in there. There was discussion on putting in a set time period to get the response referred to on Condition #4. Motion Motion by James Klatte to accept variance in Case 2005-145 subject to the Conditions 1 & 2 from the staff, deleting staff’s Condition #4 and adding a condition that ODOT, DTFR, and the Warren County Engineer review the placement of the signage and the impact of the signage upon public safety and that these governmental agencies do not object within ten (10) business days to the proposed signage. 2^nd by William Heckman

Roll Call William Heckman-Yes, James Klatte-Yes, Cherry Linder-No, JamesRinehart-Yes The motion was approved.

Adjourned @ 8:45 PM Motion by James Klatte to adjourn. 2^nd from James Rinehart.Roll Call William Heckman-yes, James Rinehart-Yes, Cherry Linder-Yes, James Klatte-Yes The motion was approved.

H BZA04_14_05.MIN