Beavercreek zoning board denies Patterson Park Church request to enlarge digital sign

The Beavercreek Board of Zoning Appeals on a 3-0 vote denied a request by Patterson Park Church to increase the size of its electronic sign and raise the overall height of a ground sign at 3655 East Patterson Road.

City planning staff presented the case (Variance V25-1) and recommended disapproval. "Based upon our review of the criteria, staff makes recommendation to disapprove the variance request," planner Matt Funk told the board. The church's applicant, Steve Robinson, said the change was needed so motorists traveling at the posted 50 mph limit on Research Boulevard could read the sign from a greater distance: "We want our sign to be readable at those higher speeds and that greater distance," Robinson said.

The nut graf: The variance sought three exceptions to the sign code for a church on property zoned R-1A: (1) to allow more than 50% per side of the ground sign area to be electronic changeable copy, (2) to allow the electronic copy to exceed the code maximum height of 24 inches, and (3) to allow the overall ground sign to exceed the 5-foot height limit. Staff found the application failed key variance criteria and recommended denial; the board adopted a resolution denying the application.

City staff outlined the requests and the code limits. Funk said the zoning code allows a maximum of 50% of a ground sign per side to be electronic changeable copy and limits the electronic portion to 24 inches in height, and that the code otherwise sets a 5-foot maximum ground-sign height in the R-1A district. The applicant said the existing electronic portion is 2 feet high and 5 feet wide and that the church asks to increase the electronic copy to 3 feet high while raising the overall sign from the 5-foot standard to roughly 7 feet; Robinson also asserted the existing sign sits in a swale and is set back about 70 feet from Research Boulevard, making readability difficult.

Robinson and three supporters who spoke during the public hearing emphasized community programming the church posts on the sign and the cost to relocate or rebuild the sign. "The cost for the sign, where it is on the same foundation, is about $40,000," Denise Simons, the church's operations administrator, told the board. Noel Burke, a church attendee, said the current sign is hard to read: "When this sign was first installed ... my wife's first comment was, 'Oh, you can't even read that.'" Other commenters described community events the sign advertises, including blood drives and youth outreach.

Staff reviewed the statutory variance factors (as codified locally and informed by case law the applicant referenced, including Duncan v. Middlefield) and concluded several factors were not met. Funk said staff considered whether the applicant could obtain a reasonable return or beneficial use of the property without the variance and found it was not demonstrated: the property can continue to be used as a church without the requested changes, and alternatives exist (for example, moving a sign closer to the roadway, applying to the Planning Commission for conditional-use adjustments to overall sign height, or building a wider electronic area that remains 24 inches tall). Funk also told the board the city is undertaking a zoning-code rewrite that would be the appropriate venue to seek changes to sign standards beyond individual variances.

Board members asked the applicant whether pursuing a Planning Commission conditional-use approval for overall sign height would solve the issue; staff and board members noted that Planning Commission can raise an overall sign height through conditional-use review but cannot change the 24-inch limit on electronic copy without a variance or a code amendment. Robinson said his primary goal was to update to newer LED technology and improve readability; he said the digital portion and the age of the current sign made replacement desirable and that moving the sign would be costly and could require new electrical work.

After discussion, a board member moved to deny the variance application and the board voted to adopt the resolution denying the request. The roll call recorded affirmative votes to deny by the members present.

The denial leaves the church with the options discussed at the hearing: pursue a Planning Commission conditional-use application to request a larger overall sign height (which would not change the 24-inch electronic-copy cap), pursue a code amendment through the city's zoning rewrite process, or rebuild a sign that complies with current electronic-copy size limits. Staff noted public input opportunities are planned as part of the city's zoning rewrite process and provided a web reference for that public outreach.