[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6162719,"mediaKeyId","5437652-0012474cfae1317e61d55a72220adf58","parentId",5437652,"title","Planning commission reviews ExpressWash signage plan; many proposed signs require further review or variances","audioSeconds",243,"startMs",2890000,"endMs",3133000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5437652-0012474cfae1317e61d55a72220adf58&start=2890&end=3133","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5437652-0012474cfae1317e61d55a72220adf58/thumbnail_2890000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6162719/Macedonia/Summit-County/Ohio/Planning-commission-reviews-ExpressWash-signage-plan-many-proposed-signs-require-further-review-or-variances","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6162719-cca98ab18226a0d32420cb4c4b252599/orig.mp4?Expires=1773786954&Signature=cMnIWFFM5Q52YJwFJ9yrIR58qPxO9ZZc8no9ta9uG1V7c4xzrlyvqtjYQs985PMh0aQksM~bojvPTFiTmql35NxUSTZhIfSYOf-ZQxoQvW-m1MxezkXKs9hPye8m1jQ8hbwA~loRbqwAiYa~kLa7J~LYVDP~gx2gtWZoYdDh0fnXCSGGr9VVErnQ1Rcr8p-azCtxogCTGeISGA3sZeoLd4I2966FwlUbs6JS0IvfIRrDUV-l-0NbZ-sUci00wHE1iYFZG7SsxuISCkev6MY0KA0vtXNV8P8~xeIEfjx2tJyTR4bn35xkF1l4nx3Dc3cn7pw5wNyJYPRFuA0NeC1V2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Macedonia, OH ","date","2025-07-16T14:53:21Z","article","Representatives for Clean Express Auto Wash (ExpressWash Concepts) presented a proposed signage package that planning staff said included about 13 additional signs of varying sizes and functions. Planning staff flagged multiple elements as noncompliant with the city’s sign code and said many of the proposed wall signs would require variances or resubmission as window or instructional signs.

Joe Bertucci, identified in the record as vice president of development for ExpressWash Concepts, said an installed kiosk that had been intended as a replacement was removed after staff noted permitting issues. Bertucci told the commission the kiosk “is not there now” and that the company removed a previously installed sign element while they work through the application process. He also explained the applicant’s intent to use interchangeable sign faces on what the applicant called the “Wingmaster” frames to highlight sponsors and nonprofit partners.

Planning staff reviewed the application and itemized the proposed signs. Staff said four “number 1” signs are 28-by-44 inches each and that multiple elevations show additional wall signage; staff noted the code generally limits one wall sign per eligible building elevation. “So that, obviously, you recognize will require a variance from the board of zoning appeals,” Frantz, planning staff, said, explaining that the number of wall signs proposed on individual elevations exceeds the code limit. Staff also pointed to window-signage rules and instructed the applicant that some elements could be repositioned as window signage if they met the window-percentage rules in Section 11-79-03.

Staff and commissioners discussed which signs qualify as instructional signage (parking directions, “do not enter,” operations instructions) versus identification or advertising (logos and brand names). Staff said instructional signs are approvable by the planning commission if they do not contain logos or corporate identification and if they meet area limits; signs with logos or corporate identification are treated as wall/identification signs and are subject to limits and review. Staff told the applicant that the planning commission “generally can’t approve a lot of this tonight” because the submission includes too many wall signs on each elevation and several items that appear to contain corporate identification.

The applicant was directed to resubmit a revised sign package showing: which signs will be instructional (no logos), which will be window signage (with window-area calculations), and which elevations will have the single wall sign permitted without a variance. The commission did not grant approvals for the full package at the meeting; next steps include a resubmission with clearer designations and, where necessary, a variance application to the Board of Zoning Appeals for additional wall signs.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Macedonia July 21st, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","ExpressWash representatives presented a large signage package including a mix of instructional signs, wall signs and a proposed kiosk; staff flagged multiple items as requiring variances or rework, and the commission directed the applicant to resubmit conforming documentation rather than approving the full package at the meeting.","taxTitle","Macedonia, Summit County, Ohio","taxId",72114,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6162723,"Commission asks applicant to upgrade ground sign design, continues decision to August",728,1558000,2286000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5437652-0012474cfae1317e61d55a72220adf58&start=1558&end=2286","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5437652-0012474cfae1317e61d55a72220adf58/thumbnail_1558000.jpg","/articles/6162723/Macedonia/Summit-County/Ohio/Commission-asks-applicant-to-upgrade-ground-sign-design-continues-decision-to-August","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6162723-e097c0c274a4ee047e325be8bd3950b1/orig.mp4?Expires=1773786954&Signature=Qw9DeWUew9EaZ6xKBvEjIIl4kFKd5obwOPLeMeictB1fc62DuIXhs~2XtzVwMjFZG6iDE71cKyb~hlyJSInb5NzqIWWGdlXVohP6pnig34lKpWqtO-tj8WEaMlgDG3oFa7e7NEQ880S5chnRV6r6kp-buJWJVmKBx5AyxJ8DpQgIkntG~OihNreCERkWzu0FVUxGXPIPYon0SjkCExQSzXKWKmTOjxaLNcAX8NzVU-3wIqnTyjvxWZNKlUjd7naZ3IpT6Zf7gweqOdhPsghBLbWqu2NnTjrJqNKG-DSEqhGfFONeoucqRJiK0aYrsXBysYzFHj89OTYbNMhGrFSD3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission reviewed a proposal to replace an existing ground identification sign with a new non-illuminated aluminum cabinet sign just under 24 square feet at a location about 20 feet from the street. Planning staff’s July 12 report said the proposed sign falls under the code’s maximum of 40 square feet but noted the commission’s recent preference for upgraded materials and landscaping.

Planning staff advised commissioners that the sign “is a non illuminated aluminum cabinet attached to an aluminum base” and pointed out the planning commission has recently required decorative brick surrounds and dimensional lettering for similar ground signs. Staff also reminded the commission of code provisions that require landscaping at the base of new ground signs. Commissioners asked the applicant to consider a brick or thin-brick surround and modest landscaping to “green up the base,” rather than using plain aluminum.

Given the commission’s preference that new ground signs follow the upgraded treatments used elsewhere in the area, a commissioner moved to continue the application to the August meeting so the applicant could revise plans and provide additional documentation, including a landscape sketch and options for a masonry base. The motion was seconded and the continuation was set for the August meeting.

No final sign permit was issued at the meeting; the applicant was instructed to return with revised materials showing materials and landscaping consistent with recent approvals for monument-style ground signs.","The commission reviewed an application to replace an existing ground sign with a 24-square-foot non-illuminated sign and asked the applicant to consider a masonry/brick base and upgraded lettering and landscaping; the item was continued to the August meeting for revisions.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6162726,"Commission approves generator additions at 8211 Barrera Road",188,1292000,1480000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5437652-0012474cfae1317e61d55a72220adf58&start=1292&end=1480","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5437652-0012474cfae1317e61d55a72220adf58/thumbnail_1292000.jpg","/articles/6162726/Macedonia/Summit-County/Ohio/Commission-approves-generator-additions-at-8211-Barrera-Road","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6162726-dcd785d5313936651a0a1e302d0cbb16/orig.mp4?Expires=1773786954&Signature=QSz-MG50BRxDgdBqCfcBf9goSmQHvZPO6Ngrs6YaLuVVQ1zxMV0Z3db2NWuaQo5G96Is~0WPFZagegpezibXlRiWmga~CMmy88FzTGJ7zG3shVvpfFf4wEb8xFA5cuomerTTTxrw71qg11KjQdlRZqP5JGSk4QiZ-Y8w6unU92Xjn8JmBDgzCQWyu7GmkY7Sc25KNvg5YwM1yaYH-5N97w6RWQOJRHD1nxa1mTbk0HuTz~pq-1ITxZNe9lvRNhLGM269s0ytGvEC~7AThIM2ucNKHTgBx1ls8TW6nA2C1uDlJcn6xQha2lB8bjiIvRDlofK4qPEtUikMqmubB2xfSw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission approved plans to add two standby generators at 8211 Barrera Road after staff advised the additions meet setback and parking standards and would not affect the property’s existing dedicated fire-pump generator.

The applicant, represented by Tanya Wood, described the request as “in addition to the dedicated fire pump generator. We're not touching that generator,” and said the new units are intended for portions of the site that are not actively used for parking. Planning staff’s July 11 report recommended approval, saying the western and eastern sides of the building can accommodate the generators without adverse effects to parking or setbacks.

A commissioner asked whether prior parking variances applied; Tanya Wood responded there is “plenty of parking in the front of the building.” Staff reviewed aerial imagery and long-term parking use and told the commission the proposed locations do not reduce active parking. The commission moved to approve the generator additions “as submitted.” The motion was seconded and carried by voice vote.

The approval is an administrative land-use approval; the commission’s approval did not change the site’s fire-pump system. The applicant must coordinate with the city engineer and fire department as part of the permit and inspection process.","The commission approved installation of two standby generators—one on the western truck-parking side and one on the eastern off-street parking area—at 8211 Barrera Road; staff found setbacks and parking impacts acceptable.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6162731,"Planning commission approves conditional permit for large detached garage at 9142 Valley View Road",601,664000,1265000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5437652-0012474cfae1317e61d55a72220adf58&start=664&end=1265","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5437652-0012474cfae1317e61d55a72220adf58/thumbnail_664000.jpg","/articles/6162731/Macedonia/Summit-County/Ohio/Planning-commission-approves-conditional-permit-for-large-detached-garage-at-9142-Valley-View-Road","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6162731-4f70f67bc6e2fb3dcfaa28cbd97d8fe3/orig.mp4?Expires=1773786954&Signature=idqGkEWOm6e6jovXSyrmPxOqxKX5ExWWBoxjiYsD2jM7YIP15gPy~niUQ6BESeZZ-cN0p9dvYsc-FOTbcS6bFc2obG4s6Fiu8WwPSNwdtlx0ZV9Uwofg16qJlaZ4iu87bgxDuZjV5BzubAvLJfEZ3debomqMuxcbQp7t4fYNS2L-WlBYNGQnsKjViqeehWII-rULEZNI~l9xslPq6mPR2T3HHsszon6h6VjHQHSSKJdL7S~1DBLLcOV0tBFIIWi5SuVILVo6Cmx1I6aIreEIbQoOVOm0a2vZ2a7M2NuF4jD4-8bRIN69QahQAND6ztUZwKzRA1OuK9vlcuQhGPxvNQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning Commission approved a conditional permit for a proposed detached garage at 9142 Valley View Road, allowing a 40-by-80 structure (about 3,200 square feet) subject to conditions that include removal of two existing outbuildings, documentation showing accessory building ground coverage below 10% of the parcel, and confirmation from the fire department on any fire-suppression requirements.

The permit matters because the R-1 Residence District limits detached private garages on typical lots to much smaller sizes, and the commission relied on provisions that permit larger accessory structures on larger lots. Planning staff told the commission the property is nearly five-and-a-half acres and that the proposed building exceeds the usual 600-square-foot private-garage limit but can be approved under the section that provides for larger lots.

Planning staff summarized technical findings and conditions. “There’s 1 barn there... You have an existing building. You have a second building that exceeds the limitations of the code,” Frantz, planning staff, said, noting a variance or administrative review would be required for existing additional structures. He told the commission that “the commission can grant... from the 600 square feet to the request of 3,200 square feet.” Frantz also advised the applicant to obtain a demolition permit for the two smaller structures so tax records and building-department records match the site once the structures are removed.

The applicant, identified in the record as Joe, told the commission he had already begun cleaning the property and would remove remaining structures before the new building is completed. “I started a little bit ahead of time, but it's gotten it's been progressively clean... by the time that this is approved, there will be nothing there,” the applicant said.

Commission discussion covered dimensional compliance: staff reported the proposed 12-foot wall height is under the 15-foot code maximum, the proposed 3:12 roof pitch meets minimum slope requirements, and setbacks and lot coverage would be acceptable if the applicant documents total accessory building area. Staff also noted that one existing accessory building might require a variance or removal to meet the code’s counting of allowed accessory buildings and maximum sizes. The fire department and building department were asked to confirm whether a demolition permit and whether sprinklers would be required; staff noted a sprinkler trigger appears to be 5,000 square feet and that the applicant’s proposal is below that threshold.

The commission made a motion to approve the conditional permit with several conditions: that the planning commission find the proposal meets the larger-lot provision (section 11-63.02 I) allowing an accessory structure larger than 600 square feet; that the applicant obtain demolition permits and remove the two outbuildings (or obtain variances if appropriate); that the applicant provide a calculated lot-coverage document showing accessory buildings are below the 10% maximum; and that the applicant obtain confirmation from the fire department regarding fire-suppression requirements. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.

The commission emphasized the approval was contingent on administrative confirmation from building and fire officials before final permits are issued. Staff reminded the applicant to submit a scaled site plan showing setbacks and building placement and to coordinate with code enforcement and the building department on any remaining maintenance or enforcement issues.

The approval resolves a request that exceeded normal accessory-building limits but, per staff, fits the larger-lot exception once conditions are satisfied. The commission did not adopt structural plans or building permits at the meeting; those remain subject to administrative review and building-department inspections.","The planning commission approved a conditional zoning permit for a proposed 40-by-80 (about 3,200 sq. ft.) detached garage at 9142 Valley View Road, subject to removal of existing outbuildings, documentation of lot coverage below 10%, and fire-department confirmation on suppression requirements.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission reviews ExpressWash signage plan; many proposed signs require further review or variances

Commission asks applicant to upgrade ground sign design, continues decision to August

Commission approves generator additions at 8211 Barrera Road

Planning commission approves conditional permit for large detached garage at 9142 Valley View Road