(Return to Minutes)

REGULAR MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING

ZONING AND BULDING BOARD ON DECEMBER 9, 2003

AT 7:30 P.M., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS

The roll was called and the following was found to be:

Present: Ron Coleman

                Chris Atkins

                Tim Lane

                Gary Wagner

Absent: Tom Jordan

                Steve Deffner

                Harold Geeting

Also in attendance were City Manager Dave Daily, City Engineer Doug Spitler and Law Director Donnette Fisher.

Ron Coleman made a motion to elect Gary Wagner to serve as temporary Chairman of the Board for this meeting in the absence of Chairman Tom Jordan and Vice Chairman Harold Geeting. Motion was seconded by Tim Lane and passed as follows:

Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Wagner (4)

Nays: None

MINUTES:

The minutes of the November 11, 2003 meeting were read and approved. Ron Coleman made motion to accept the minutes as written and was seconded by Chris Atkins. Motion was passed as follows:

Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Wagner (4)

Nays: None

SWEARING IN:

Z-03-08- Public Hearing - Zoning Amendment - RG Properties, Inc.

Wagner: RG Properties, Inc. have applied for a zoning amendment to rezone lots 1786 and 1787, from 'R-1A' (One-Family Residential District) to 'C-3' (Community Commercial). Lot 1787 sits on the southeast corner of North Barron Street and the Washington Jackson extension. Lot 1786 sits immediately south of lot 1787. Is there anyone here representing this.

We will now open the Public Hearing.

Hubler: My name is Chuck Hubler and I am representing RG Properties, I am also here with Mr. Steve Speranza who is also with RG Properties and after I induce this a little then he can answer any questions in details. As indicated we are asking for a change of zoning from a single family residential to a 'C-3' district. The purpose is for a retail banking facility with drive thru lanes. We have posted a drawing over here, which sets out where the property is situated. This would be the proposed extension of Washington Jackson Road and these would be the two lots in question, which would be directly south of the proposed extension of Washington Jackson Road. This of course is the new Wal Mart project and will be commercial property. It is located on the five-lane road, which is designed to withstand commercial traffic and that is the purpose of the five-lane highway. This property over here is scheduled to be a Bob Evans restaurant. We do have buffer areas here that Steve will be able to address. This is the basic project. The entire area has been committed to commercial development and this is what we would like to see. The banking will be a nice buffer area. This would not be a high traffic area, as far as nighttime traffic to interfere with the residents. Banks are not open in the evenings so that would not be a problem for the residential properties. This is the proposed 'P-1' zoning which is professional uses and would fit nicely with the extension of that tract. Other than that I think it is a pretty straightforward application. I believe we have provided everything that is necessary. At this time I will have Mr. Speranza address any of your specific questions.

Speranza: Chuck summer it up real well. As we looked at the project after, this kind of evolved as most retail developments do, it became apparent to us that the big intersection with the traffic signal, five lane road that Washington Jackson is being constructed to, is left with a couple of homes next to it and as you view this development and the commercial across the street as well as adjacent now that the Wal Mart, Bob Evans and so forth it seemed natural that the two front pieces would also become commercial in nature but have a transition type use. We thought the 'C-3' provided both of those things and where it could be commercial but yet have a transition. The real key in this is that there are two curb cuts on 127 currently for those homes and with the traffic signal that we are going to install, really those two access points would be very difficult to utilizes in the future for whatever use. Our proposal would be that we eliminate, and we would be willing to eliminate both curb cuts to those properties along 127 as they exist and access this piece from Washington Jackson Road which would be the right thing to do from a safety standpoint and accessibility. It would really be a benefit to this property. As Chuck said, in our plan, our approved plan, we had established a 'P-1' as that buffer and this was excluded. What we are saying is lets just make the buffer all the way out. We would agree to extend this landscape burn down to a point that it could still be to the adjacent neighbors. We are somewhat sensitive to about a depth of 75 feet off of 127 because that is a visibility corridor from 127. That would be an issue that we would want to retain that opening there. We could extent this buffer all the way down the side to a point of 75 feet from 127. It is a good use for retail banking facility not being a 24-hour operation, not a lot of noise, more of an office type nature. I think Chuck really described everything we were looking at. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer those.

Atkins: Does the buffer you were talking about, that separates the residential from these two lots, the 75 foot he is talking about, it that okay?

Fisher: That is up to you to decide. The buffering done there along the 'P-1', that was done as part of the court order. It is to be a 3-foot high mound and then 7 foot, to be 10 feet off the ground. That is not necessarily a requirement in our zoning code but that was the court order. Mr. Gunlock has offered to continue that down and it is up to you to decide if 75 feet off the road is okay.

Atkins: There will be somebody's backyard where it sits, right?

Speranza: There is a home that sits in here now as well as the homes on Fudge Avenue, that back up to Fudge. I drove this before I came over. On the one property there are large pines. If we put a facility in here, you are trying to keep as much window of opportunity to see it before you are actually on it, as possible. We would be willing to take that down to a point and just judging from our site plan 75 feet seemed to be the number we needed to keep that.

Wagner: Is it our decision tonight to decide on that or is our decision tonight to recommend approval or denial for this zoning?

Wagner: Buffer down to 75 foot?

Fisher: Yes.

Wagner: Do you know what banking facility we are talking about?

Speranza: We have two banks that we are working with.

Wagner: Are you not at liberty to say?

Speranza: I would rather not. Both are involved in the City.

Wagner: Anyone else have any questions? Is there anyone here that wants to speak on the issue? Doug, what is the staff review?

Spitler: Planning Board reviews proposed zone changes and makes recommendations to city council in accordance with the Comprehensive Development Plan. Also, the amendments chapter 1135 applies to this application. It is stated that the requested zoning is 'C-3', Community Commercial. The intent of 'C-3' is to provide for low-intensity retail uses providing primarily convenience goods and personal services for community residents. This District is intended to be located at the periphery of residential areas with good access to primary and secondary arterial streets. This District should be approximately one acre in size. The Comprehensive Development Plan indicates a future land use designation of "Special Planning Area".

General recommendations for these lots, they are located in the North Gateway Special Planning Area and there are recommendations on pages 10-18 and 19 in our Comp Plan, which I would encourage the Board to review.

Finally, the request must meet any condition (a) through (d) of Chapter 1135.01 for favorable consideration. I looked at the lot sizes and they are both right at ½ acre so they are combined to be 1 acre in size.

Wagner: Any further discussion?

Fisher: As you look at those conditions for that Special Planning Area it does not appear that many of them are applicable here because that section was written before seeing big developments at the time the Comp Plan was done we didn't know for sure that Wal Mart was coming so the recommendations that were there was to look at huge developments which this isn't.

Wagner: When you look at Chapter 1135.01 it says that it has to meet any of the four conditions that are listed there so it means so it doesn't have to meet all of those conditions just any of the four conditions.

Coleman: I think it meets two of them, easy. I think we should be doing this. It is in that area and it just falls in line and I think we should be doing it.

Lane: I think it meets 'B' for sure, existing land use up there. There will be a substantial change in that area.

Wagner: Does anyone else want to speak on this issue? If not I will close the Public Hearing.

Coleman: I move for favorable recommendation because it meets two of the following conditions of 1135.01. The motion is seconded by Chris Atkins and discussion by Tim Lane followed.

Lane: I think we ought to include extra buffering in there. Do we amend this or approve it and then amend it or how can we do that?

Fisher: You are recommending this to Council with what they have already offered, that they do that special buffer which is more than is required.

Lane: So we don't have to add that to our recommendation?

Fisher: No, it is implied and we will make sure that is written in and that Council sees that.

Wagner: Any further discussion: If not, call the roll:

Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Wagner (4)

Nays: None

AB-03-13 - Variance Application - Ronald Davis

Wagner: The applicant is seeking a variance from front yard setback requirements for this property located at 215 E. Mechanic Street, zoned 'R-1B' (One Family Residential). The applicant wishes to vary the front yard setback from the required 25' to 4'8". The current front yard setback on this property is 12'8". Are we sure that we have the correct address here? Is it 215 or 217? It is 215. Who is here to represent this application?

Huddleston: My name is Lee Huddleston and I am here to represent Ron Davis on the variance. He wishes to add a covered front porch to his residence. He has done quite a bit of remodeling and now he wishes to carry that outside. If you have been by it you know that the outside of a couple of houses in that area doesn't look all that well and he would like to improve the looks of his home, and the value of his property.

Wagner: Anyone have questions for this gentleman?

Coleman: Is he planning on enclosing the porch, like a room?

Huddleston: No, it is not going to be like a room it is going to be like an open wooden deck with a covered roof on it.

Wagner: Was there an existing porch there before?

Huddleston: Not that I am aware of. Many of the homes in this area sit in the same limits that this would bring it out to. There is only one that sits back as far as his does and it is right next door to him.

Wagner: I drove up there myself and I agree with you that most of the houses sit on the sidewalk or the same distance back. When you look at Chapter 1133.07 under Variances, under, this has to meet all conditions, I reviewed the conditions and it appeared to me that it did meet all of them. It wasn't self-created, it is minimum necessary relief, it is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to public welfare, and will not require a zoning district change. I feel it meets all the criteria for a variance in this area.

Coleman: I was looking at it and it sure is awfully close to the sidewalk. I realize the house just west of this, they have added a section on, and it is that close within a couple of inches. I am not sure when that was put on, it looks like a long time ago. It may have been put on with no code involved. This is what is bothering me. It is awfully close and is right on the sidewalk.

Huddleston: It will be 4'8". There is a picket fence that sits right on the sidewalk and it wouldn't be anything like that. I know that doesn't sound like a lot but if you look at the area, there is an alley that comes right next to the side of it and the bushes that are in front of the house now are impeding more than the actual porch would. They are a lot taller and you are fifteen feet away from the curb. It is 4'8" away from the sidewalk but you are actually 15' from the street.

Atkins: It says the required 25 feet but it is only 12'8" now?

Fisher: This house was built before the zoning code went into effect. That is why.

Huddleston: There is no house on that road that sits back 25 feet back from the property line.

Wagner: Which if why I think it complies with two (2) of 1133.07. Everybody else enjoys the same.

Lane: I think it meets all six (6) conditions to.

Wagner: Even though it is close, I understand. Are there any other comments? If not staff review.

Spitler: Planning Boards recommendation goes to the Appeals Board, it follows Variances on Chapter 1133.07 and the Comprehensive Development Plan. You have covered most every other thing with the exception, I found when reading, supplementary

Regulations of our Zoning Code states "porches and steps may project into the front yard of a dwelling unit no further than 15 ft., and no other structural projections will be permitted. That is on page 158.

Donnette and I discussed that a little bit also. Essentially they can vary that requirement.

Fisher: Basically they asking for variance from that section 1171.16 (b) and the setback.

Wagner: So, give me a review on that again.

Spitler: The way I understand this is if you have a front yard setback from the right of way line, which is typically the back of the sidewalk, you would have 25 feet. This says you are allowed to have a projection of 15 feet into the front yard. So you would have 10 feet clearance from behind the walk to where the porch is allowed to start. I think these Supplementary regulations were written after the main bulk of the other regulations were written and these were probably after thoughts. They were probably having some variances where porches were projecting and this was added to help clarify that.

Fisher: These were passed in 1988.

Spitler: We have this same problem in older parts of the town where you have the very small lots, fairly deep lots, but were narrow. They were put in real close to the set backs before these regulations went into effect and when homeowners tried to make these changes they always hit snags with the set backs and that was why they asked for variances.

Wagner: So if it is 15 feet that means 10 feet of clearance from the backside of the sidewalk to porch step. Are there porch steps here?

Huddleston: Actually they are concrete.

Wagner: You are not building any new steps?

Huddleston: They are there now. We will probably come off the side porch if it comes in too far to the sidewalk or we can come off, the front, which is preferable. The new steps will go over the top of what is there now.

Wagner: If the motion is such that it approves the variance as presented do we have to address the projection of the steps that already exist?

Fisher: Basically what you would, do is if you grant the variance, if the motion is made, you are granting a variance for him from the 1171.16 which is both porch and steps. That would cover the whole thing.

Wagner: So the motion would have to include both?

.Fisher: The set backs and you could just say 1171.16 (b).

Atkins: I make a motion for a favorable recommendation of AB-03-13, the variance request as well as a variance from 1171.16 (b) of the Planning and Zoning Code.

Fisher: and the setbacks.

Atkins: Yes, and 1133.07.

Motion was seconded by Tim Lane and passed as follows:

Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Wagner (4)

Nays: None

AB-03-12 - Conditional Use - ICS Driving Academy:

Wagner: The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to use the vacant building located at 505 E. Israel St., which is zoned 'R-1B' (One-Family Residential District), for a Driver's Educational School. They will only be instructing high school students, no adults. Is there anyone here representing this application?

Shaffer: My name is Ida Shaffer. We want to use this building for a driver's education classroom. The hours and the traffic is not high volume where it would impede or distract the neighbors. I have went and talked to several of the neighbors to see how they felt about it. If you are in a neighbor and it is not working then it is not going to be a good situation. I don't foresee any problems to be there. It has always been a commercial building.

Wagner: What about the parking situation?

Shaffer: It is Drivers Ed, so they don't have their license. The only time there is going to be traffic is about twenty minutes prior to class starting and about fifteen to twenty minutes in the time frame of class ending. It is a very quick drop off and a quick pick up. It isn't going to be a continuous thing. The only time cars will be parked there is if we inside using the office or if a parent comes down to sign their child up and discuss the program.

Wagner: On the application I saw that you made the comment, the classroom setting is conducted within the building ninety five percent of the time with limited outside activities for auto maintenance. What do you mean by auto maintenance?

Shaffer: You can't a car inside the building but you have to show them how to check the oil and check transmission fluid, tire pressure, how to find the spare tire and jack. Just to locate engine parts, not to do any maintenance but to teach them how to do preventive maintenance.

Wagner: Staff review.

Spitler: Planning Board makes a recommendation to the Appeals Board on conditional uses and follows Chapter 1133.08 and The Comprehensive Development Plan.

This proposed conditional use is not one that is specifically mentioned in the current 'R-1B' zoning district, but the code does allow a determination of similar uses to be made with conditions placed on that use that are necessary to protect the general health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the City.

The Ohio Basic Building Code shows the proposed use is considered "educational" because they are teaching high school students, not adults. This tract is located in the "south side" Planning Area with recommendations that the area continue to be used predominately as Urban Residential with pockets of Institutional, Light Industrial, Suburban Residential and Urban Neighborhood Commercial and office along the south and east borders.

The parking requirements staff discussed and we would like the Board to take a look at a determination on a similar use. Again, this is not a specified use in our Code. Staff did use vocational/technical schools and the requirements for that is 1 space per 100 sq. feet of classroom space. They have shown approximately 1045 sq. feet, which requires ten (10) off street spaces. Additionally, staff was looking at the dropping off students and noted that was a dead end street and it was discussing the possibility of vehicles backing out onto Vine Street and Israel Street.

The applicant indicated they would be placing a sign on the west wall. There were a couple of different categories for use type and structure type. The least restrictive for the applicant would be an occupational sign for the use type and a wall sign for structure type. This would be just one sign. This sign, by our code, is limited to only 2 square feet in area.

Finally, the conditional use must meet the general requirements of Chapter 1163.03, items (1) - (3).

Wagner : Any questions?

Coleman: What did we decide about the signs? Are you going to put a sign up?

Shaffer: We will have to have some kind of sign if you are a business so someone can see it. It will not be something that is out over and elaborate. There is a place on the side of the building where you can mount a sign and it is not going to be unpleasant for the neighbors to see. It will just be something so they can identity the building when they come down the street. The other point I would like to make is that there is a parking lot beside of the building that they can turn around in they would not have to go down the street to turn around. They could pull in and turn around right there and there is adequate parking for at least ten (ten) vehicles.

Wagner: If we look at parking as an issue do they have to meet any criteria like so long or so wide?

Spitler: Depending on the angle of the parking 90-degree parking requires a nine (9) foot wide by nineteen (19) foot length. They have to be three (3) feet off of the building. The surface has to be a dust free hard surface. Gravel is hard but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is dust free so that becomes an issue sometimes. If it is to be used after dark it has to be lighted and the lighting has to be such that it doesn't trespass onto the adjacent properties. If they alter the parking lot we have to look at how water flows off of the property. Those are the major items.

Wagner: Can the off street parking that is on the street be considered?

Spitler: No.

Wagner: On this drawing does it curve around to the back?

Shaffer: Mr. Hake owns the property so he can answer that.

Hake: Tom Hake and I am the property owner. There is sufficient room between the property in the front and the building to slant park 20 vehicles in there.

Wagner: Do you know the size of that?

Hake: I don't know exactly but it is larger than the building.

Hake: Mr. Jordan lives in the house out front. I am sure you have discussed this with him.

Wagner: I believe the only thing he was concerned with was the parking. Is the back park of the building vacant?

Hake: It has always been used for storage. It has always been a business. I do want to remind you that when this committee changed my zoning three years ago it was stated that I would always be able to rent to businesses as long as I own the property.

Coleman: I move for favorable approval of AB-03-12. I think it meets the standards of 1163.03. I am not sure if we should address the signage here?

Fisher: What we tried to put here is that if it is approved this is the type of sign they can have without getting a variance. If they don't want that type of sign then they will have to come back for a sign variance. If you approve the conditional use, you are saying that they can have an occupational wall sign that is allowable and if they want something different they will have to come back for a variance.

The motion was seconded by Chris Atkins.

Wagner: I have a question about the parking. If this is approved do they have to come back for a parking variance?

Fisher: If this is approved, per our zoning code, they will have to have ten (10) spaces. If they can't get ten (10) then they will have to come back to vary that number.

Wagner: Who checks that?

Fisher: Bob

Roll was called and passed as follows:

Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Wagner (4)

Nays: None

PBR-03-05 - Planning Board Review - American Healthcare Corp. of Ohio - Heartland of Eaton -

Wagner: The next item on the agenda is additional off street parking for Heartland of Eaton at 515 South Maple Street.

Kip: My name is George Kip and I am with SWA Design Group of Cincinnati, Ohio. We have shown the existing building in red, which is just west of South Maple Street. This is a one hundred (100) bed facilities. There currently exist forty seven (47) regular parking spaces and two (2) handicap spaces and they are shown in blue. We are proposing to put in twenty six (26) regular parking spaces on the west side of the property. To the northwest corner are the school and the difference in evaluation between the parking lot and the property line is approximately twenty (20) feet. To the west is a car sales facility and to the south is residential area. The south west corner drops about three (3) feet from the proposed parking lot to the property line. We are providing storm water detention within the parking lot. It is depressed in the center and there is a twelve (12) inch pipe. It is then utilized with a four (4) inch restrictor plate to allow only four inches of water to go out. The storm water calculations were submitted and it outlets to the west. The entrance comes off of the existing parking area, back by the garage in the northwest corner and it has been approved by the Fire Department. We are looking to provide lighting. There would be five pole lights down along the west side and there would be six wall mounted lights, two on the south side of the building and four on the east side of the parking lot. If needed we would provide the shields on those to shade the surrounding businesses and residences in the area. We are aware that there is an electrical permit required for that.

Mr. David Steel, administrator of Heartland, is also here for questions.

Wagner: Staff review.

Spitler: For new or expanded parking Planning Board is to review the site plan and ensure compliance with Chapter 1167 to minimize any adverse impact on adjacent properties. As applicant stated, lighting is required. It was not shown on the plan and the Board can take that into consideration and an electrical permit is required for that work. That would need to be submitted trough the Building Department. As the applicant also stated drainage is controlled through parking lot detention. Discharge is shown to have rock to diffuse the outflow to adjoining properties.

Coleman: How many spaces are going to be involved in this?

Kip: There will be 26 spaces.

Coleman: Will they be stripped?

Kip: Yes.

Atkins: Why do you need the new spaces?

Steel: My name is Dave Steel and I am not the administer I am the Maintenance Director. We need to expand parking because we only have forty some spaces and we have one hundred (100) employees. Guest are coming in all the time and we need to enlarge for that to handle the capacity.

Wagner: You indicated that you had approval from the Fire Department. They have reviewed this?

Kip: Yes we have the okay from Mr. Wehrley.

Tim Lane made a motion for favorable recommendation of PBR-03-05 and seconded by Ron Coleman. Roll was called and motion passed as follows:

Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Wagner (4)

Spitler: Just for information the Deeter rezoning will be going to council this Monday, December 15^th for their consideration. The next time this Board meets, there should be direction to go with the tabled conditional use and variance.

The Zoning Code revision has a meeting scheduled tomorrow afternoon (Wednesday) between staff and the consultant, which was ACP to start reviewing the draft. The review committee will probably meet after the first of the year.

New Business:

Ron Coleman moved to adjourn and Tim Lane seconded the motion. All yes.

_________________________________ ______________________________________

Secretary                                                            Chairman