REGULAR MEETING OT THE EATON PLANNING
ZONING AND BUILDING BOARD ON August 12, 2003
AT 7:30 P.M., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Eaton Planning, Zoning and Building Board met in regular session in Council Chambers on Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 7:30 p.m.
The roll was called and the following was found to be:
Present: Ron Coleman
Tim Lane
Harold Geeting - Vice Chairman
Gary Wagner
Joe Renner
Tom Jordan - Chairman
MINUTES:
The minutes of the July 8, 2003 meeting were read and approved as written. Harold Geeting made a motion to approve the minutes and Ron Coleman seconded. Motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Wagner, Renner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
SWEARING IN:
All members of the audience anticipating to testify before the Board were asked to stand and be sworn in. The Secretary administered the oath or affirmation to the audience.
MR-03-01 - Kramer & Assoc. - Northedge Car Wash - Minor Subdivision:
Jordan: At this time we will listen to MR-03-01 - Kramer and Associates, Northedge Car Wash. They wish to divide the car wash from the shopping center property. Who is representing this request tonight?
Kramer B.: I am Brad Kramer from Kramer and Assoc. here in Eaton and I am representing the Millers for the minor subdivision. As you see upon the board we have a copy showing the aerial photograph of the site and the other one is showing a boundary survey performed by Kramer & Assoc. a couple of months ago. Their wish is to divide this car wash from the shopping center tract. Steve Chrismer is the interested party at this time. I trust that everyone has a copy and knows what the property looks like and what we are proposing. If you have questions I will be glad to explain in more detail.
Wagner: The egress to the property, is that more than 25 ft?
Kramer B.: There are all kinds of egress there, there is a mountable curb on all sides. What we have provided, if you look at that site plan, we looked at some turning radius for trucks, delivery etc. to the back of the shopping center and provided for a ingress, egress easement for the shopping center across the western portion of this .444 acre tract to make it easier for trucks to get in and out. I don't think there were any issues otherwise with what is out there for the use of the car wash. If you recall that mountable curb is not a pleasant curb to drive over, but it is designed to be driven over.
Jordan: In your aerial photograph you have the red lines drawn and I take it that is going to be part of the easement or property line, what is that?
Kramer B.: These lines are showing some traffic flow, traffic movement, ODOT minimum turning radius for various vehicles. That was just a preliminary plan to help us come up with a new division line and an easement.
Jordan: Our diagram doesn't show a footprint of the building and I guess my question is all of your setbacks from the footprint of the building to the new property line.
Kramer B.: I don't know if I actually have a measurement for you. I was thinking that that was not an issue with the zoning code. In 'C-3' district where the setbacks are not an issue in this case. Am I correct in stating that they are not an issue in this case, in the rear, with a new division line?
Spitler: The rear is fine. The rear is only applicable if it is adjacent to a residential district. Side yard is the same if it is adjacent to a residential district therefore the only ones that would apply are the front yard setbacks of 35 feet. When you have two frontages there is typically the two front yards.
Jordan: I guess my main concern was that I hate to see. We don't have a thing, the lot division and the building division, are they going to be able to pull a car out of the car wash and make a turn?
Kramer B.: Yes, where the red line is shown. There are actually railroad spikes on the corners in the pavement that you can see as you drive out. You can get a pretty good feel for it if you saw them painted up there on the ground. That is what we did.
Jordan: My main concern was if somebody else came in here and put up a fence or something and then we would have an issue with the neighbors.
Kramer B.: I think we are in pretty good shape there. Car washes are good examples of things getting put in tight areas. I think our other car wash in town has some pretty tight turns to it.
Spitler: We talked about the easements as well and the possibility of a fence going up to separate those two properties. With the easement that is granted to the car wash from the shopping center, vise versa, there would be a provision for that. If someone would go out there and change the business of the car wash and decide to put up a fence they, the shopping center, would have the right to have the fence removed or to exercise the right in that easement across the car wash property.
Kramer B.: I agree. It is unlikely with an easement for the shopping center property that unless someone changed the use of the car wash they would allow that type of situation. I don't see that as being a problem.
Jordan: So the property line will be from the access off of Eaton Avenue and angle down like the line is showing. So basically the car wash is going to be ok.
Kramer B.: The tight spot would be delivery trucks so we left an easement for that purpose and the blue dashed lines just show the standard turning radius. This preliminary plan was not prepared just for this commission. It was prepared before the survey.
Jordan: Any other Board members have any questions? If not I will ask for staff review on this.
Spitler: This application for a minor subdivision follows the regulations in Chapter 1103.03, Platting for Minor Subdivisions. For the lot split to be recorded, the deed must have a statement of approval signed by the Planning Board Chairman as it is approved by the Eaton Planning Board.
The minor subdivision must be in conformance with the subdivision regulations, zoning code and the master plan of the City. The Comprehensive Development Plan shows this subdivision in the "Suburban Regional Commercial and Office" designation of the Future Land Use Map. I want the applicant to know that the sign easements that are shown on the map and on the deed do not imply granting of a sign permit. That will still have to go through the Building Department for approval.
Jordan: Donnette if you could inform the Board how this procedure works. This preliminary subdivision?.
Fisher: This is a minor subdivision. Minor subdivisions do not require a plat. With a minor subdivision we simply stamp the deed. One thing that Doug brought up and to make sure that Mr. Miller is aware, there are two sign easements, which copies of the deeds were included in the packets. Those sign easements do not have anything to do with this minor subdivision. Easements are private agreements between the parties. I can sell you an easement to stand on my land and wave to traffic going by, it doesn't have anything to do with a minor subdivision. If these easements are granted and with this minor subdivision we are not giving any approval to put signs there. Just so everybody is aware of that. Those sign easements does not mean that you can automatically put signs there and you are not approving those. All you are approving is breaking that car wash off the other plot. This is it, you decide, it doesn't go to another board.
Jordan: I will go back to the board not for its thoughts and discussion.
Wagner: I move for approval of application MR-03-01 due to the fact that it complies with Chapter 1103.03 Plat for Minor Subdivisions.
Motion was seconded by Joe Renner and passed as follows:
Ayes: Lane, Geeting, Wagner, Renner, Jordan (5)
Nays: Coleman (1)
AB-03-08 - Variance - Glawe Awning & Tent Company - First Realty Group -GMAC
200 South Barron Street
Jordan: The next item tonight will be AB-03-08, Variance, First Realty Group GMAC, 200 S. Barron Street. They are applying for actually three (3) Variances tonight for its office located there. Who is representing this request tonight? Please come to the podium and state your name.
Roth: My name is Todd Roth, one of the owners of First Realty Group GMAC. The one gentleman that I had working on this, Tom Fridley, who I hired with Glawe Awning & Tent Company, could not be here this evening. This is his first chance to get out of town and so he and I talked last week and I said, "I didn't know as far as protocol here, but I will do the best that I can." I guess, Bob Wehrley is not present, correct? He has sent some request to Tom Fridley and one of them was that if we were granted the variance, that we would need, maybe I am jumping the gun here, it says as the awning projects over the public right of way a copy of liability policy holding the City harmless, for the amount of $1,000,000 dollars. I have a $2,000,000 dollar policy if it were granted. I will just leave it in here. I went, four or five months ago, into the City and bought the zoning book, read through the book quite detailed and it stated in the zoning in which we are located, the 'R-2', Central Residential, it indicated the signs that were permitted and no where in it did it mention awnings. This is all under Chapter 1169. I am not an expert when it comes to interpreting these things, but under 1169.03 (f), Awnings & Canopies, signs on awnings and canopies shall be exempt from the limitations imposed by this chapter and from there I took it that that would be Chapter 1169, which is Signs. It said on the projection of signs from the face of the wall of any building or structure, provided that any sign located on the awning or canopy shall be affixed flat to the surface, shall be non illuminated and shall indicate only the name and/or address of the establishment. No such sign shall extend vertically or horizontally beyond the limits of such awning, and all awnings shall maintain the following clearances:
(1) Height - All awnings shall maintain a vertical clearance of not less than seven feet, six inches above grade.
(2) Projection - No awning shall project closer to the curb line than twenty-four inches.
I guess that is where Mr. Wehrley came up with this because we almost have a '0' lot line on the right of way. That is what he indicated that he needed there. I guess it is my
interpretation of exempt from the limitations. I contacted Glawe Awning and said what we would like to do is make this a better-looking building. We had some peeling paint, we tore off the minor signs we had there that were not the GMAC logo, that when we bought into the company we changed it to First Realty Group GMAC and there was just minor changes in the logo and I thought this would be a good time to dress up the building and dress up the area. I had Tom Fridley draw up some items and show them to me and when he went for the permit came up. What was stated was that we needed a variance to do what we need to do. Without hesitation I said to get going on it. We submitted to you the items that were needed. I don't know if everyone has a colored picture of what the awning would look like? I can't speak for Mr. Wehrley, I can speak through Tom Fridley who spoke to Mr. Wehrley and he stated that he liked the looks of the sign but he can't speak for Council. I completely understand that. He stated in one of his request for the information, "As this is a residential district, sign regulations are rather restrictive. The graphics shown would be considered business signage. Business signs are not permitted use type and awning signage is not a permitted structure type in residential Section 1169.05 (a). They are not a permitted structure type in any zoning district for some reason. With business signs not being permitted in residential there is no formula for calculating the allowable area." I couldn't go into it that far, but all I did was to find the words exempt from this chapter and I took it from there, "Hey, I found a way to put up a nice looking awning and get some signage to dress up the area and get a little better signage which I think is a plus as opposed to something stuck to the wall." That is about all I have.
Jordan: We will proceed here and see what we get. Donnette do you want to address this?
Fisher: Just to clarify, no offense but you got the cart before the horse. If these awnings are allowed then yes, they have to meet the design standards that he has referred to, but the question before you is are we going to allow these signs? The problem being that awnings and canopies as signs are not allowed in the 'R-2' district, which is what this business, is located in. This was granted as a conditional use in 1998. This type of business is not specifically listed as a permitted conditional use, but as part of your powers you do have the ability to allow uses that are similar in type. I pulled the old application and I believe that is how this went in. The question, and Bob has said that the way they have designed this there aren't any problems with the design standards, the question is are you going to allow this type of sign in the 'R-2' district where they aren't allowed? So that's actually the question. He is right that if you do allow them they are okay by design standards, the question is are you going to allow them?
Roth: There goes that word exempt.
Spitler: Let me clarify that, it is the exempt projection. You have to read that whole sentence.
Renner: The wooden signs you have up now, are they going to come down?
Roth: We took them down, they are not the right name. When we had it painted I just had them taken off.
Wagner: The only sign I noted was the sign on the door.
Roth: There was one on the side about 4 feet long. There is one next to the door and then there was one on the side street.
Wagner: On the door? On the door glass.
Roth: That is there now, maybe that is the only one there now.
Wagner: Yes.
Roth: They took them off. This picture shows what was like before when there were signs on there.
Wagner: Does the sign on the door count as a sign?
Roth: There was this sign and this sign before we had it painted. I had those taken off.
Wagner: On the application packet, the properties that surround it, the property that they listed as east is actually on W. Wadsworth and they have it listed E. Wadsworth.
Horine: Yes, they gave us the wrong one.
Roth: The awning is fire retardant and that is about all I know.
Jordan: Doug, do you want to give staff review.
Spitler: I have just a few more points, I think we have already hit on most of them. Like the Law Director said, there are three main issues. The first issue is that our code states that no sign shall be erected unless it is in compliance with regulations for the district in which it is located. We have already said that that is the 'R-2' Central Residential district. The next big issue is that business signs are not permitted use type in the 'R-2' district. If we get past that issue, if the sign is allowed, we need to look at the square footage of the lettering. What we did for comparison purposes, we looked at the 'C-1', 'C-3' district which does allow business signs based upon the 1 ½ square feet of area per width of building or up to a maximum of 150 square feet. We used that as a comparison and it did comply with that. The other thing that we want to clarify is that this is different from the regulations of the Building Department as far as loading from snow and wind so if this is granted tonight there still is an application that is needed through the Building Department to meet their standards as well as far as design.
Roth: Is that something we can work with Glawe in doing?
Spitler: Right, and that would be submitted to the Building Department.
Jordan: Also so you will know, our decision tonight will go on to the Appeals Board and they have the final decision. So you will know where we are. We will leave it up to the Board as far as they feel what the best situation is here.
Fisher: Just to clarify, you are looking at three things. To allow signs as a structure type in this district, to allow business sign in the use type in the 'R-2' district and normally you are only allowed to put signs on the front of the building and this would be front and side. It is those three things.
Wagner: So it is three variances. If we opt to approve can we lump the three variances into one motion.
Fisher: Yes.
Wagner: I guess my question would be for actual standards that we have to look at to allow a variance to take place, what special conditions or circumstances exist that are peculiar to your property that makes you think that this sign is acceptable? I don't see special circumstances.
Roth: I went with the idea of dressing up the building, dressing up the area and at the same time getting some signage but not obscene signage which would stand out. Not illuminated signage. I know across the street there is a business that has quite a few placards here and there but it has a nice covered porch. I was kind of trying to imitate that covered porch look to blend in and I think that is in the same district as this, I believe, in my research. It was just so close to commercial area, when you coming down the hill it gets kind of bland and since we have an office there I was just trying to dress it up a little. When you come into the City and when you leave the City I think the awning did that as opposed to a sign. We do have double frontage there as far as two streets. I didn't know, quiet honestly, that we were going for three variances. I just thought we were going for one variance. There goes my cart and my horse.
Fisher: In 1998 they allowed business use in a residential district but there is nothing in our code that allows signs. We allowed a business in, but did nothing in our code to allow signs to advertise it.
Wagner: So if we were to allow this sign then any business in the 'R-2" district could do this?
Fisher: No, they would still have to come in and apply. It is a case-by-case basis.
Renner: I would assume that we must have approved the signs that were there before.
Jordan: Yes we did and it was a long, drawn out battle. We did approve the signs before.
Roth: On this building?
Jordan: Yes, they did apply for a variance on the signs and their parking requirements.
Roth: I am just trying to dress it up a little bit, to our standards.
Wagner: My problem is when you look at what was given to us and you check 1133.07, Variances, it gives you six conditions they have to meet and it says all conditions. When I look at what we have here I see where it meets two of those six, I don't see where it meets the first four.
Renner: You are right, but I not aware of any that we have approved that have met all six, to be quite honest about it.
Wagner: I personally think the signs are very attractive and I think they would enhance the area down there.
Renner: That is one of those things with this code rewrite that needs something done about it.
Jordan: Gary you have a good point there, it says we shall meet all of the conditions and I think, in all reality we can, you look at the gray areas we have had in the past. He sits on the corner lot so there, we just count the frontage or we count the side. He is adjacent to a commercial district. Now two houses down the block may be a different story. I have to agree with you that it is more attractive than a sign plastered on the side of a building with peeling paint. The only thing I would want to make sure that the Board recognizes the fact that they stay within the signage square footage. I don't want something down there that is huge across the awning.
Roth: I don't think that you can. I am the one that says get all you can for the buck. Because of the radius, if you make something too big you can't see it. You would just see the bottom of it and it would just look like lines down there. It can only be so big to fit on that radius. That is what was explained to me by Tom Fridley.
Geeting: I guess I have a question in interpretation of dressing up the house. That being a historical house, been there a long time. I have some reservation about sticking an awning on it or anything of that sort. I, personally, am satisfied with the sign on the side of it and that is it. It is a historical, old area of the town.
Roth: I understand. That was another thing that I addressed when I came into town.
Geeting: I don't think you are improving the neighborhood when you are sticking a bigger type sign out.
Roth: I respect your opinion. That one thing when I came into town I found out that if you had a Historical Preservation District committee and the answer I got was no you did not.
Recess:
Jordan: We will continue with this matter now.
Roth: Can I make one other comment? I forgot but the way the building faces the awning was a plus for keeping the sun out of those west windows where there are some desks.
Renner: If you were putting on an awning that had nothing on it, we wouldn't even be discussing this, right?
Jordan: Right.
Fisher: The question is can they put their signs on the awnings? Awnings are not a permitted structure type and business signs are not permitted in 'R-2'. They can put the awnings up, no problem, but can they put their advertising on it?
Renner: Harold and Gary both make good points, but the fact of the matter is that the business is there. I agree with what Harold said but I like the looks of it, it will look nice, you can put the awning up without any lettering so we are only down to how you have the lettering. That is the only debate. It is a matter of opinion I guess.
Jordan: Doug do you have anything else? It's the Board's wishes if they want to make a recommendation to the Appeals Board.
Renner: I will move for favorable recommendation on AB-03-08. It does not change the zoning district; it will not be detrimental to the neighborhood or public welfare. I guess we look at special conditions, I suppose the applicant did create that situation to some degree, but the Board assisted by approving it so I am not so sure how much we can look at that. Even though the zoning district may not be allowed to have signs I would have to assume that anyone granted a business in the residential district would be allowed a sign because we have allowed it there anyway. I think it is peculiar because it is a business in a residential district; those are my reasons for thinking that you should allow this.
Jordan: Do I have a second?
Coleman: Second.
The roll was called and answered as followed:
Ayes: Coleman, Renner, Jordan (3)
Nays: Lane, Geeting, Wagner (3)
Jordan: We will send a three to three to the Appeals Board.
OLD BUSINESS:
Jordan: Next on the agenda is old business. Does anyone have any old business?
Spitler: Just an update on the re write. Last week Dave, Donnette and I met with Kim Littleton and Allen Weinstein. Allen was the attorney hired by ACP. We discussed some issues that Allen had identified as being not addressed or not actively addressed with our codes. They were the telecommunication towers and their locations, sexually oriented businesses and their locations and development impact fees. We discussed them and we took a drive around the City and looked at the different options. Allen and Kim were going to proceed with some drafts and work on our code and come up with a draft. They have scheduled to give that to us by the end of August or the middle of September. Staff will look at that and then the committee will get back together and look at it and start pouring through it.
Jordan: Any other old business? If not we will move on to New Business.
NEW BUSINESS:
Jordan: I have been officially informed that Pat Kieffer has resigned from this Board and we will be moving forward to find another member.
Daily: We discussed that at a Council meeting and Tom, you took some action with a letter and we received a letter back that she had resigned.
Joe Renner made a motion to resign and it was seconded by Ron Coleman. Meeting adjourned.
__________________________________ _____________________________________
Secretary Chairman