Apr 02, 2024 Planning Commission

[00:00:06]

LADIES,

[1. Call to Order of the Edmond Planning Commission.]

UH, THE FIRST

[2. Consideration of Approval of Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes: March 5, 2024]

UH, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CHANGES, ADDITIONS, OR DELETIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THE MINUTES? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MOVE TO APPROVE? SECOND.

AND THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED BY VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO.

THAT BRINGS US TO

[3. General Consent Items: Items listed under General Consent are usually approved as a group with the proper motion from a member of the Planning Commission. Members of the Planning Commission may pull any item under General Consent for separate discussion and/or action.]

UH, DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE A NEED FOR ANY OF THOSE ITEMS TO BE HEARD SEPARATELY? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS THREE A THROUGH D AND THE CONTINUANCE ON ITEM THREE E TO APRIL 16TH, 2024? MOVE TO APPROVE.

SECOND.

SECOND.

THANK YOU.

AND THE CONSENT ITEMS ARE APPROVED BY VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO ITEMS. UH, THREE A THROUGH D WILL BE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON 4 22.

THAT

[A. Case #ES24-00001 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Drainage Easement Closing located at 6056 Canopy Lane. (Nicholas Heinen) (Ward 4) ]

AND IF ANYONE IS HERE SPECIFICALLY FOR ITEM FOUR C, WHICH IS THE PROJECT ON THE CORNER OF COLTRANE ROAD AND VALE ROAD, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THAT ITEM BE CONTINUED.

AND SO UNLESS YOU REALLY ARE INTERESTED ANYTHING ELSE, UH, FEEL FREE TO GO AHEAD AND EXCUSE YOURSELVES AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

UM, THE FIRST ITEM ON THE PUBLIC HEARING IS FOUR.

A CASE NUMBER ES 24 DASH 0 0 0 0 1 PUBLIC HEARING IN CONSIDERATION OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT CLOSING LOCATED AT 60 56 CANOPY LANE.

AND IF YOU WILL PRESENT, ABSOLUTELY.

THANK YOU.

UM, YES, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CLOSE A 10 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN HERE.

THE EASEMENT WAS PLOTTED A FEW YEARS AGO, BUT THE DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE WAS BUILT JUST TO THE EAST AND THIS SPECIFIC EASEMENT IS NO LONGER REQUIRED.

NO OBJECTIONS ARE RECEIVED FROM EITHER FRANCHISE UTILITIES OR EDMUND ELECTRIC.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

THANK YOU, MR. BRIAN, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTION OF CITY STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME? UH, WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO ADD ANYTHING FURTHER? NOT AT THIS TIME.

DAVID JONES FOR THE APPLICANT.

UH, THE ORION GROUP 2201 WOODHILL, UH, WE'D BE HERE READY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS MIGHT HAVE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

AND DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT WISH TO EITHER SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? SEEING NONE.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THIS POINT IN TIME BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND.

NOW THAT ITEM IS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO.

THAT WILL BE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON 4 22.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. JONES.

UH, THE NEXT ITEM

[B. Case #VA24-00004 Public Hearing and Consideration of Request for a Sign Variance for Viridian Coffee Company, located at 1433 East Danforth Road. (Haven Markin) (Ward 1) ]

MR. BRIAN, THANK YOU.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO THE CITY'S SIGN REGULATIONS TO ALLOW SIGNAGE ON TOP OF A SMALL KIOSK STYLE BUILDING.

MANY OF YOU'LL REMEMBER THIS AS BEING THE, UH, SHIMMERS, UH, SNOW CONE LOCATION IN KICKING BIRD SQUARE.

THIS VARIANCE IS TO THE EDMONDS IS A VARIANCE TO EDMONDS PROHIBITION ON WHAT WE WERE DEFINE AS ROOF SIGNS, WHICH IS A SIGN PAINTED ON THE ROOF OF A BUILDING SUPPORTED BY POLES OR UPRIGHTS EXTENDING FROM THE ROOF OF THE, OF, OF A BUILDING, OR, AND I THINK THIS IS THE PROVISION THAT IS, IS SPECIFICALLY APPLICABLE HERE, PROJECTING ABOVE THE ROOF LINE OF A BUILDING.

THE APPLICANT IS INVITED AT THIS POINT TO DESCRIBE THEIR BUILDING, SHOW THEIR CONCEPT, AND DESCRIBE WHY THE PROPOSED PLACEMENT IS THEIR ONLY WORKABLE SOLUTION.

OKAY.

UH, DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF CITY STAFF AT THIS POINT IN TIME? IF NOT, WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND EXPLAIN WHY THIS VARIANCE WOULD BE NECESSARY

[00:05:01]

MY NAME'S HAVEN MANKIN.

I LIVE AT 1 0 9 0 9 NORTH LYNN AVENUE IN OKLAHOMA CITY, AND I AM AN ARCHITECT AND DO WORK WITH, UH, VERIDIAN COFFEE.

AND IF IT'D BE OKAY, I'D LIKE TO, UH, PASS THIS, UH, UH, IMAGE, WHICH KIND OF SHOWS THE, UH, THE, UH, ISSUE.

UH, OUR AREA OF SIGN IS WAY UNDER ABOUT HALF OF WHAT THE AREA IS ALLOWED IN THE EDMUND SIGN ORDINANCE.

SO OUR SIGNAGE AREA IS, UH, NOT AN ISSUE, BUT IT'S THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT WHERE THE SIGN ORDINANCES, UH, STATES THAT THE SIGN MUST BE ON A BUILDING WALL.

IN THIS CASE, UH, THE WALL ABOVE THE TILE, CLAY TILE ROOF'S ONLY ABOUT 20 INCHES HIGH.

AND THE TILE ROOF, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE IMAGE THERE, CLAY TILE ROOF IS ONLY ROUGHLY 2022 INCHES OR SO ABOVE THE WINDOW.

SO THERE REALLY ISN'T ANY FLAT WALL SURFACE FOR THE SIGN.

NOW, UH, YOU MAY SAY, WELL, SHIERS HAD A SIGN ON THERE.

YES, SIR.

UH, YES THEY DID.

BUT, UH, IN THIS CASE, THE BUILDING IS SOME 70 TO 80 FEET AWAY FROM, UH, BRYANT AND DANFORTH.

AND, UH, READING COFFEE IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, HAVING ANY VISIBILITY THAT FAR AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION.

SO, UH, THAT IS, UH, REALLY THE, UH, CRUX OF OUR REQUEST FOR VARIANCES SIMPLY TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE AREA TO, UH, HAVE A SIGN, UH, ROUGHLY, UH, WELL NOT ROUGHLY EXACTLY 42.9 SQUARE FEET.

UH, DO ANY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT IN TIME? YES, ACTUALLY I DO.

IS IT GONNA BE LIT? IS THE SIGN GONNA BE LIT AT NIGHT? UH, YES, SIR.

UH, THE SIGN IS, UH, UH, THE BACKGROUND IS, UH, BLACK.

OKAY.

UH, HAS SOME DETAIL TO IT.

UH, THE LETTERS ARE RAISED UP OFF THE FACE OF THE SIGN AND THEY'RE WHITE AND BACK LIT.

OKAY.

UM, THE, I MAY SAY IN THAT IMAGE THAT'S BEING PASSED AROUND, UH, THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE BLACK.

THIS IS THE ONE THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN OKLAHOMA CITY AT THE CORNER OF, UH, PENNSYLVANIA AND BRITAIN ROAD.

AND THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF THE SIGN, UH, THE SIGN THAT WE'RE ASKING TO, UH, FOR THE LOCATION ON THIS LITTLE KIOSK IS MUCH SMALLER THAN THAT.

UH, BUT IT'S THE SAME DESIGN, UH, WHICH IS PART OF THE CORPORATE LOGO FOR THE COMPANY.

UH, THE BUILDING, UH, IS BLACK WITH SOME GOLD TRIM SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE IN THE, UH, PHOTOGRAPH.

SO IT'S OUR FEELING, UH, AND ARGUMENT, I SUPPOSE, THAT THE SIGN REALLY KIND OF BLENDS IN WITH THE WALL OF THE BUILDING.

IT, IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE, UH, SOMETHING THAT IS, UH, COUNTERPOINT TO THE BUILDING JUST STUCK ON TOP OF THE BUILDING.

UH, QUICK QUESTION.

THE, UH, JUST THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN WILL BE, UH, NO GREATER THAN THE HEIGHT OF THE PEAK OF THE, OF THE, UH, OF THE METAL PORTION, THE MIDDLE, THE METAL PORTION.

IS THAT CORRECT? UH, YES SIR.

AND THE DRAWING, IT SHOWS THAT, AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S NOT GOING TO, UH, YES, UH, THAT'S EXACTLY THE CASE.

UM, 17 FEET, THREE AND A QUARTER INCHES NO HIGHER THAN THE PEAK OF THE METAL PYRAMID ROOF.

AND ON THE SOUTH EXPOSURE, I DON'T SEE, UH, WHERE THE, THE OTHER SIGN IS.

I, I WOULD ASSUME IT GOES IN BETWEEN THE, UH, THE ROOF.

IF WE, I SHOULD HAVE DRIVEN BY, COULD WE GO BACK TO THE, UH, FLOOR PLAN OR ACTUALLY ROOF PLAN PLEASE? UH, IT'D BE UP, UH, YEAH, THE NEXT SHEET UP, CHRIS.

YEAH, THE EXISTING, YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT OTHER SIDE IS THE WEST FACE.

I THINK THE EXISTING BUILDING, THE WAY IT'S SET UP ON THE ONE WHERE THE SIGN APPEARS ON THE FRONT, THERE'S A 10 FOOT, FOUR INCH SPACE IN THE FRONT OF IT WHERE IT FITS AND THEN GOES UP TO WHAT, FOR A BETTER TERM, WOULD BE CALLED THE ROOF LINE, WHERE THE ROOF LINE STARTS.

'CAUSE IT GOES UP TO THE PEAK EDGE OF THE BUILDING.

UH, YES, SIR.

THAT'S EX, UH, THAT'S CORRECT.

THERE'S A BREAK IN THE CLAY TILE ROOF AND THE SIGN FITS RIGHT IN THERE ON THE WALL, UH, ON THE WEST SIDE THERE.

THE OTHER TWO SIGNS FORM A V, UH, RATHER THAN

[00:10:01]

OKAY.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT IN TIME BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AT THIS POINT IN TIME AND ADDRESS THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT? UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? OKAY.

WELL, UM, I HAD THE SAME QUESTION IN REGARD TO THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN EARLIER, BECAUSE WHEN I LOOKED AT IT, I THOUGHT, WELL, THE SIGN DOESN'T ACTUALLY GO BEYOND THE ROOF.

BUT, UM, THAT WAS WHEN MR. BRYAN EXPLAINED TO ME THAT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CITY IS THAT NO SIGNS SHALL, UH, BASICALLY GO BEYOND OR START, UH, ABOVE WHERE THE ROOF LINE STARTS.

AND SO, UM, THE TOP OF THE BUILDING IS, IS WHERE WE LOOK AT, WE DON'T ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE PEAK.

SO IF WE DO GRANT THIS VARIANCE, WE ARE DOING SOMETHING THAT GENERALLY IS NOT DONE BECAUSE THE, THE SIGN ORDINANCE IS DRAFTED IS TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM PUTTING A SIGN AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN RUNNING IT BACK AND ATTACHING IT BACK TO THE PEAK ON THE ROOF.

UH, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MAY I MAKE ONE REMARK? UH, BECAUSE, UH, YOU BRING UP A VERY GOOD POINT.

UH, WE FELT LIKE IT WAS A HARDSHIP, UH, TWO BECAUSE THE BUILDING'S SO FAR BACK THAT THE BASE OF THIS SIGN IS REALLY THE TOP OF THE ROOF, WHICH, UH, WOULD BE WHERE THE EDMOND SIGN ORDINANCE SAYS SHE CAN'T BE HIGHER THAN THAT.

AND SO, UM, OUR, OUR, WE DON'T WANNA HAVE SOME JUST, UH, SIGN STUCK ON TOP OF THE ROOF.

UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT, UH, ASKING FOR THAT.

WE REALLY WANTING THE SIGN TO BE MORE A PART OF THE BUILDING.

AND MR. BRIAN, I KNOW THAT, UH, HE HAD, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS MENTIONED THAT THE COLOR OF THE SIGN WILL BASICALLY BE SIMILAR TO THE BUILDING.

SO IN A WAY IT WILL BE SORT OF A CON, UH, CONTINUOUS TYPE SITUATION.

UH, IF THIS SIGN IS PLACED IN PLACE LIKE THIS AND THEN ANOTHER PARTY COMES IN AND WANTS TO USE IT IN THE FUTURE, WOULD THE SIGN REMAIN AS IT IS OR WOULD THAT BE A, A NEW ISSUE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT? OR ONCE THE VARIANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED, IS IT PRETTY MUCH PERMANENT IN NATURE? I THINK THE VARIANCE WOULD BE, UH, SPECIFIC TO THIS SIGN.

THIS SIGN.

SO IF A DIFFERENT, SO SAY LIKE, YOU KNOW, SHIMMERS VERSION TWO COMES BACK OR SOMETHING, THEY JUST, BECAUSE THE SIGN IS AS PROPOSED HERE, THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY, I MEAN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR THE SAME VARIANCE TO PUT THIS, TO CHANGE OUT THE SIGN BASICALLY TO THEIR SIGN.

OKAY.

I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT.

I'M NOT GETTING A HEAD SHAKE FROM ANYONE ELSE ON STAFF.

SO THE SIGNED PERMIT IS SPECIFIC, LIMITED TO THIS SPECIFIC APPLICANT.

OKAY.

THANK YOU MS. SAWYER.

OKAY.

DO ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND, UH, THAT ITEM IS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF THREE TO TWO AND IT WILL GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 22ND.

OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

AND,

[C. Case #Z23-00013 Public Hearing and Consideration for a Rezoning from “A” Single Family Dwelling District to “PUD Z23-00013” Planned Unit Development for the property located on the southeast corner of Coltrane Road and Covell Road. (David Huffman) (Ward 2) ]

AND THAT ITEM IS CONTINUED BY A VOTE OF FIVE TO ZERO.

AND DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT? SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

ALL OPPOSED.

SINCE THERE ARE NONE, WE ARE FINISHED.

THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING.