Draft Minutes 10/27/2015

Page 297

City of Olmsted Falls

Minutes of a Special Council Meeting

Tuesday, October 27, 2015, at Olmsted Falls City Hall

26100 Bagley Road – Council Chambers, 6:30 p.m.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mayor Ann Marie Donegan Council called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was conducted. Councilmen Kathleen Fenderbosch, Jay Linn, Linda Garrity, Bob Sculac, Kevin Roberts, Terry Duncan, and Sam Pulice were present.

Also in attendance: Gregory Sponseller, Law Director, Rosann Jones, Manager Business & Community Services, and John Cheatham, Building and Zoning Administrator. Audience: 29.

NEW BUSINESS:

An appeal filed by Olmsted Community Church on October 12, 2015 from the Architectural Board of Review decision of September 10, 2015 in ABR Case Number 13-2015 regarding denial of a replacement sign requested by Applicant, the Olmsted Community Church located in the Olmsted Falls Historic District at 7853 Main Street. (ABR Case No.: 13-2015)

Mayor Donegan asked if the appellant was present. Mr. McDonald replied yes. Mayor Donegan stated that the ABR record is before use on ABR Case No. 13-2015. At the conclusion of the hearing City Council will take the matter under advisement. She asked that all persons planning to testify stand to be sworn in. Mr. Sponseller swore in all individuals.

Mr. McDonald stated that he would like to appeal the ABR ruling to replace the church’s sign. The size of the sign is slightly different and does have internal lighting. The sign at the church has had interior lighting since 1959. He has also done a lot of planning with Wagner Signs and have also found minutes from June 14, 2001 showing that ABR approved the sign. He read the minutes which state “there was a presentation made by Mr. Sayors and they said that the sign would be internally lite as exisintg and Mr. Richetti noted that although there are two bulbs behind the front glass which illuminate the sign this is not considered internally illuminated as defined by city code. Mrs. Sparks suggested the ground spot light be used for illumination. Mr. Sayors didn’t feel this would work well as a flood light would cast shadows and lettering and would be a brick post. Mr. Manuel moved to approve the two designs presented which included several inches in height on the changeable top sign to be limited to a maximum of 5’8” above grade.”

Mr. McDonald stated that there are two brick posts the sign goes in between and the new sign would go between the existing posts but will be a couple more inches wider than the existing sign. The proposed sign will be 6’1” above grade. The design of the sign is almost exactly the same as the existing. In 2001 the sign was approved 3 to nothing by the ABR board. We feel that we deserve to replace the sign and it will not take away from anything that has been done before. It looks very similar to the existing sign which needs to be replaced due to problems with carpenter ants and it is falling apart. The church does not want to put any money into something that will have to be replaced within a few years.

Mayor Donegan asked if there were any questions. Mr. Linn asked if the internal lighting was internal to the sign itself or just internal into the box that the sign sits in. Mr. McDonald replied that it was internal in the box it sits in. Mr. Linn stated that theoretically, the sign is not internally lite, it is externally lite inside of a case. So, theoretically it could be deemed externally lite. For example, it’s not like a sign board for a gas station where the bulbs are actually inside the sign. Mr. McDonald indicated that the new sign would be LED lighting. Mr. Linn asked if it would be inside of the sign or outside and shining on it. Mr. McDonald replied that it would be inside the box.

Ms. Fenderbosch stated that the sign has been lite since 1959. She asked if there was a reason the church was opposed to the external lighting. Mr. McDonald stated that he believes there would be shadows on the message board. He also worries about vandalism with kicking out the lights as individuals cannot get into the internal lite signs. He stated that there are issues of vandalism in the area with everyone using the parks and restaurants. He believes the internal lighting would be safer as people would not trip over the lighting and the vandalism. Ms. Fenderbosch asked if these would be bright lights. Mr. McDonald stated that this will be simple LED lighting and save the church money. The church has recently spent $150,000 to put in new windows to help save energy. There is also a capital campaign to improve the look of the church including exterior painting, carpet and flooring replacements. This is a small part of those improvements. The church is attempting to be a better look for the community. He does not believe that a sign that has existed for 59 years will change the way look of the church.

Mr. Roberts asked what the motivation was for an internal lite sign as opposed to external. Mr. McDonald stated that more than anything it is the way it’s always been. The church members are traditionalist but we are traditionalist at keeping things as simple as we can. The motivation is number one to replace the sign. The interior versus exterior is because LED will help the church save energy and money. The exterior lighting is open to vandalism, people tripping on it and breaking bulbs. Mr. Roberts stated that the church has no experience with exterior because it has never had an exterior illuminated sign. Mr. McDonald replied that the sign has never been an externally lite. There is no exterior lighting of anything at the church, as far as flood bulbs, everything is either in ceilings or on posts. Mr. Roberts asked if there was anyone else in town with an externally lite sign and have they had any problems with vandalism. Mr. McDonald replied that he is unaware of any. He does know a group that has an exterior lite sign but also has the signs internally lite and do not use the exterior lighting.

Ms. Jones stated that she has been involved following Mr. McDonald through his meetings. She would say that ABR did what they needed to do because of their standards. She stated that she understands it is a big deal when Council overturns a board, but, in this case a precedent would not be set. This is not a business requesting an internally lite sign, this is a place of worship and is the only one located in the National Register Historic District. In the minutes from 2001 Mr. Richetti, the architect at the time, spoke to the fact that the sign was slightly larger and taller than would have been allowed by code, but, did state that it was appropriate because of the existing brick posts and a smaller sign would not look proper. He also talked about the internal illumination not being offensive or bright and bold. The ABR did not realize the sign was internally lite when Mr. McDonald first appeared before them as it is not an offensive sign. This sign has existed for a number of years.

Mr. Roberts stated that as far as he is aware there is nothing in the code which discussing how bright a sign can be. Mr. Linn replied that there is a section regarding light spillage. If there is a certain number of “spillage” onto neighboring properties, from any lighting, then the sign should not be approved. For example, the overhead lighting at BP is brighter than the overhead lighting in Speedway because this portion of the code was enacted after BP was built but before Speedway was remodeled, which is why you can tell the difference in the lighting. This is in the zoning section of the code. He stated that in his opinion he feels this area of town is under lite and is not in a heavily residential area. Mr. McDonald stated that it is not his intention to light up the Moosehead parking lot just to make the sign bright enough to be seen by the public.

Mayor Donegan would like to make judicial note that Ms. Tomasch, a member of the ABR, distributed copies of 1272.05.

Ms. Janet Tomasch, Chairman of ABR stated that she would like to address Mr. McDonald to the fact that ABR has not reviewed the size of the sign. The board’s denial was based strictly on the internal lighting. Ms. Tomasch then read the attached statement. She stated that the church is in an area blossoming to be developed. It will be hard to say no to a new business that wants an internally illuminated sign when this has been approved directly across the street from property that is on the market.

Marilyn Sparks, stated that she would like to say a premature goodbye to all of the wonderful people that she has worked with for so many years. She stated that she will be leaving town to join her older daughter in Connecticut. Her daughter and her husband will be looking after her and Andy in their declining years, which is fast upon her. She has enjoyed working with Council and stated that they have been wonderful. This is a hard situation because it reminds her of a terrible experience the city had in the past. She would like to remind Council that this is not the first time we have dealt with this issue. She asked how many individuals belonged to St. Mary’s. In 1995 St. Mary’s came before the board and requested an inner illuminated sign. This church sits opposite of two gas stations, one to the east, and one to the north, along with our softly lite downtown. They felt that since they were a church and in a historic district that it was wrong of the board to deny their request. ABR had the ordinances and denied the request because there are unanticipated consequences. We like the fact that our ordinance reads, which we did not write it but was written by experts, that we would have a softly lighted downtown. The city is old and we have a lot of signs with some major national organizations. We have BP, Drug Mart and PNC. Our ordinance was meant to sustain and protect the character of Olmsted Falls. The board did not want St. Mary’s to suffer additional lighting across the street and in the downtown are as it would affect them in their church and services. All of us who serve in local government and on boards and commissions accept a basic tenant and exceptions to our laws are not confined to single situations, single people or groups. An alteration, aberration or suspension of our codes alerts interested parties that there is a new set of rules which can affect the rights of a much larger sector of the community or the community as a whole. Understanding this in 1995, the Mayor and Council sustained our board. She was unaware that there was another sign because ABR does not act as a police men so if someone slipped through with an interior lighted sign we did not approved it. She would like to remind everyone of something very critical, and she believes everyone feels this way too, Olmsted Falls is unique and our small town does not only have interior lighted signs we also have no neon signs, no fast food drive-ins, and no big box stores. Who else on the far west side can say this? Olmsted Falls is softly lighted, distinctly connected and architecture to our roots; we are popular with visitors and comfortingly a small town. We are not discordant with detached national chain enterprises. She stated that Drug Mart, PNC and BP strive to fit into our context not to wrench our town scape to fit theirs, it’s been a battle but they have come around and have been very good. Most small cities look pretty much like other small cities they try to disguise it with flags and flower baskets but we do not have to do that we have our identity but we have to fight to protect it. What we on ABR are saying is beware of the repercussions of allowing an exception seemingly so innocent yet inoffensive. The permission to allow inner illumination at the Community Church will spur requests from most businesses in our downtown to have new brighter signs than they have now and she is sure those requests will be overnight. The Community Church enjoys a quiet gently lighted leafy corner at the north end of our business district and will be faced, as Mrs. Tomasch pointed out, with two properties that are going to be commercial across the street and they are going to ask for internally illuminated signs which will be bigger than the church because they will be a business. She feels that one other point has to be made and it’s a sad one but the parishioners of St. Mary’s Church will be incent when they see what is correctly unequal treatment if Council overturns ABR and gives the Community Church something that St. Mary’s was denied. She believes this will cause a lot of consternation. Finally, Olmsted Falls is very very lucky to have beautiful St. Mary’s at the south end of our business district and beautiful Community Church at the north end. Our churches deserve all the aesthetic protection this City Council can give them and opening the door to brighter lighting in their immediate neighborhoods will diminish the lovely effect of their lighted spurs which touch our hearts as we view them in the night sky on our journey home, at least it has always touched her. She does not want anything to diminish that, if we have a bright downtown it will not have this affect. She does feel very bad because the Community Church people are wonderful and have been very nice about all of this but she feels strongly about this, we must not make this mistake and we have to hold the line, she understands it is tough thinks they will benefit ultimately by not having a lot of light around them.

Mayor Donegan closed the Community Church portion of the hearing.

She stated that she will dispense with the pledge of allegiance and roll call and move onto the second case which is an appeal filed by Jay Linn, on October 14, 2015; Wolfgang Meyer on October 15, 2015 and Brenda Beeler on October 15, 2015 from the Board of Zoning Appeals decision on September 16, 2015 in BZA Case No. 09-2014 regarding the granting of a request by Joseph Lair, owner of 7305 River Road, PP#281-10-012 for the following riparian setback variance [1470.15(b) and 1470.15(f)]. A Building Code variance for allowance of a 913 sq. ft. impervious concrete patio; and a 18 ft. x 18 ft. 324 sq. ft. cantilevered deck within the riparian zone. (BZA Case No.: 09-2014)