REGULAR MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING
ZONING AND BUILDING BOARD ON FEBRUARY 11, 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, February 11, 2003, at 7:30 p.m.
The roll was called and the following was found to be:
Present: Ron Coleman
Pat Kieffer
Tim Lane
Harold Geeting – Vice Chairman
Lydia Broderick
Joe Renner
Tom Jordan – Chairman
Also in attendance were City Manager Dave Daily, City Engineer Doug Spitler and City Law Director Donnette Fisher.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the January 14, 2003 meeting were read and approved as written. Tim Lane made a motion to approve the minutes and Ron Coleman seconded it. Motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Kieffer, Lane, Geeting Broderick, Renner, Jordan (7)
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.
Z-03-01
– Conley/DePalma – Zoning Amendment:
Jordan: Before I open this case on this matter for Public Hearing, for those of you who are here tonight and would like to speak on this case, that up front that we cannot consider any comments or evidence regarding Mr. DePalma’s 1997 rezoning application before this board. Each application is being weighted on its own merit and therefore, we ask that you limit your comments to this zoning application only. If you wish to testify on this case, I hope you have sworn in, and when you do please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. You cannot testify if you have not been sworn in. Also remember that this board can only consider evidence, not speculative opinion, in weighing this decision.
So at this time Z-03-01 the applicant has applied a zoning amendment to rezone part of out lot #91, located on the southwest side of Park Avenue between 1301 Park Avenue and 1221 Park Avenue from Agricultural to ‘R-1A’, One-Family Residential District.
At this time I will open the Public Hearing and if you would like to speak to this matter please step to the podium and state name and address.
Ott:
I am John Ott from 1001 Park Avenue.
I have been to all of my neighbors houses, I have lived there for 16
years and just about everyone that moved there, was told when we bought the
places, that there would never be developed because of the flood plain.
Everyone that I have talked to has been opposed to this.
I have a hand out, which I didn’t know you couldn’t refer to the 1997
thing so you will have to cancel some of that out. I have a map here I have
drawn here for you to see about traffic patterns.
That is a major concern as I am sure all of you are aware of, Park Avenue
is pretty much the by-pass of Eaton. With
all the new development going in, Washington Landing, YMCA, K-Mart, new track
with soccer and ball fields, Vancrest has expanded, Greenbrier expanded, Human
Services has expanded, outlet from Parker Hannifin on our street, and when you
get the new school to the south of us, it is pretty obvious how the traffic from
the north of town is going to get to the High School.
We have discussed about Lakengren, when they come to town they don’t go
through the middle of town and through all the stop lights, they go up Park
Avenue. We have noticed lately the
increase in semi traffic, so that is a big concern.
Another big concern is the drainage problem. I am sure everyone has driven by and seen the Young property, the one to the west, is always under water and there is also a good amount of the property in question here under water. They talk about using as much underused storm sewer. It looks to me like when you get all of this developed, if you would, and you funnel all of that down into one big pipe, isn’t that going to fill up Seven Mile Creek even faster and back us even more. There is talk about going into the Waterworks Park. Waterworks Park is not the most desirable place now, we all know that. I can look out my window any time in the night and there is always traffic down there. I am not going to say it is Police cars or other cars. If it is the Police cars then they are sure down there an awfully lot.
I have talked to a lot of people. I have a sign up sheet here, it’s not a petition we know that. On the top of it I have, the following residents of Park Avenue, we even have some people that aren’t residents that are from Deem Street and the side streets there.
They talk about sidewalks. Well, I guess they would be okay down there but where are they going to go? They are going to go up to Park Avenue that doesn’t have any sidewalks. Are we going to have to pay for those as residence’s because of the development behind us? Doesn’t seem fair to me. I don’t see how, I am not an engineer but I don’t see how Park Avenue could ever be widen to accommodate much more traffic or pedestrian traffic. Like I say, I am not an engineer on that but, I don’t know.
The sewage question, I don’t know about this either, is there a lift station there at the park now. I know they did some work on the sewer line but, I don’t know what they did. But that is a question we have also and the water supply, I was told that the 4 inch water line going through that field might not be enough to supply that kind of a residential development.
I guess what one of our biggest gripes is, that this is going to disrupt 26 homes along Park Avenue. We enjoy that view so well and the wild life. It’s like the back of your house is in the country and the front is in town. That is why everyone bought these places. It just doesn’t seem like it should be spoiled for a few houses that you can never expand the residential area there anyway. What is wrong with having agricultural here in town. That is what Eaton and Preble County is known for, their rural heritage. It serves as a nice buffer zone between the town and the factories out on 35. It still is as loud as can be in the summer with all the fans and ventilation going on but we are just strongly opposed to this development.
That is what I pretty much have. Thank You.
Jordan: Would anyone else like to address the board? Mr. Hicks.
Hicks: Bill Hicks 1101 Park Avenue. I just want to extend a little bit on what John was saying. The field back there is a big plus for all the houses and I think that if they develop that field it is going to lower the property values of our homes and I think all of our neighbors will agree with this. It doesn’t seem fair to me for us to lose money so one man can make money. That’s by opinion.
Rivero: My name is Joann Rivero, I am a resident at 1309 Park Avenue plus a realtor at Wentzell Realty. I know a lot of impact homes within the City of Eaton and Preble County. Currently we got alot of developments going on in Preble County. Right here in Eaton, Sterling Homes is building on East Avenue. We got Frizzell doing Meadowbrook and Jamesway. Sterling Homes and Meadowbrook, they are not done, so we do have homes being built here. That’s another project still waiting here to be finished. Last year in Preble County through our Dayton Board, 340 homes were sold. Of those for Eaton zip code only 155 and inside the city 71. It’s quite a few homes. Currently, I don’t know if any of you know, my specialty in real estate is foreclosures.
As far as summons for people losing their homes in all of Preble County last year there were 267 summons. We got a problem. So are we building homes for more foreclosures, possibly. I didn’t get with the sheriff’s department to see how many actually went through sheriff’s sale, but the prior year 162, that’s quite a bit. You know we got people who -------on their homes. I dealt with a lady just last month from Baxter closing, lost her home almost immediately. She probably isn’t the only one. Currently for sale we have 123 homes here in Eaton, 53 in Lakengren, 56 inside the City limits. Again, the impact of building another subdivision, we are going to have a lot of homes sitting empty. Are they going to build spec homes? How many are going to be built in this subdivision? I know you can’t refer to the previous. Even then that’s quite a bit of homes. In buying my home a big impact was placed on that field not being developed. Previous owner of my home was Albert Michael, I believe a lot of you may or may not know him, he took very good care of it. Due to all of the traffic that all of a sudden became excessive after we bought our home in 96, we fenced in our back yard, we have two children. We do not let them play in the front yard because people fly down that road and if we put a subdivision there with two outlets, not only are people are jeopardy of having wrecks on that road our properties are looking at having some damage to. Right now if you talk to the United States Government, the single most needed housing in the United States period, is for the elderly. With the Baby Boomers coming back that’s seems to be a large focal point. Currently on the market for all of Preble County right now we got 256 homes for sale through realtors and that does not count anything for sale by owner. So as far as the shortage for needing to build new homes I don’t see it. That’s all I have.
Campbell: I am Arthur Lee Campbell Jr. and own the property, the last one down on Park Avenue. One thing I would like to ask, and I suppose somebody knows whether when they sent these things out, was there any verification made of the allegations that were put in these. Or can they put anything in there and get it started to get it rezoned. Does anybody know if it is true, these things that are alleged in here?
Jordan: Alleged in what sir.
Campbell: You have a map in here, you have a talk of curbs and gutters that they want to propose, water, when Mr. Hawley bought this land the Council would only let him fill in the top, they wouldn’t let him go into the bottom. After he filled in the top he went out to Lutheran Drive, there was another builder back then, Bob Chamberlain, he build there on 35 at the top that joins up to Bob Hawley”s. You have two streets coming up on one end of my property, you have a through highway coming up on West Lexington Road on the other side, so if you add more traffic and run them up through there you got another five points, You got one a mile up the road. You got nothing but problems. The reason I questioned some of these things, when they talked about lack of housing, when you walk around your town you have housing there back of Krogers, you have housing there that they haven’t been able to build up. You are going to have more water when those pieces go under roof and they pave the ground its going to go right over, they put a new big probably 48 inch tile from the YMCA right down to the Seven Mile Creek. That water is going to raise your flood thing back there and when Bob wanted to build there the Council then wouldn’t let him because they knew they lived through it, the flooding. So, that’s another thing. I don’t know what else I can tell you but I do know those things happen. I am sure as ground develops up above that the other side of Seven Mile Creek they will dump more water in there. If you are going to build houses in places like that and sell them to your neighbors, I don’t think it would be a good thing.
One thing I would like to share with you are some pictures of the flooding. That’s the area they are talking about.
Jordan: Are we allowed to keep these and take a look at them?
Campbell: You can look at them but I want them back.
Fisher: If you want them to part of the official record, then we have to keep them.
Campbell: They can look at them.
Fisher: Then they won’t be part of the official record.
Campbell: Whatever you want to do with them. I could have copies made.
Fisher: Okay, we will do that.
Stevens: I am Tony Stevens and I live at 1208 Park Avenue. I have been in the neighborhood for 20 years. I lived on the other side of the street for 10 years and I got to witness a lot of water problems back in through there, myself. I think with everything we have talked about I will just put my faith in you people and use common sense here and vote no on this.
Gallimore: I am Terry Gallimore 1213 Park Avenue. Not trying to refer back to 97 but in that time, that’s when we had a 100 year flood and it was in Cincinnati. It inundated the Cincinnati area including the Ball Park and the downtown area. Had that storm been 60 miles north this same scenario could have played out in Eaton.
Being a resident there for 12 years, I have seen my share of ?????.
On this application for zoning, it briefly goes through how Lakengren is nearing capacity. After making a few calls to the best of my knowledge and the people I talked to, there is roughly 1200 lots out there and in the 32 years that that has been established there are only 700 that have been developed or bought.
After going through the phone book and just calling four realtors at random, I was able to find out that between those four, and there are roughly 12 listed in the book that would handle the Eaton area, there are 164 houses available in the City of Eaton. So the need for new houses, I don’t believe, is the question here. I am really not sure what the question is as far as wanting to do this but, it would sure do an injustice to the view that we all enjoy daily. I would hate to see any dissension brought into the neighborhood from future development because of the view or lack of it.
Ott: Can I speak again? On the paper that they sent to us in the mail here, under the attachments #8, at the bottom of that paragraph it states that the development of this land will create a very pleasing addition to the neighborhood while preserving the natural features this area has to offer. Now I am sure you are all familiar with Park Avenue and all of our houses sit on top of a hill. So, they go out and build houses behind us, what are we going to see. It’s not going to be even the houses. We are going to see rooftops, the steam and smoke of the fireplaces and furnaces and at night we are going to see this giant orange glow from the amber night lights. That’s not why we purchased these properties. I also have some pictures that I would like to put on the record.
Miller: My name is Gale Miller and I live at 1328 Park Avenue. The main thing I am interested in is that north outlet you got there. Your map is not right. That outlet is in the curve of the road. If you put a street outlet there it isn’t going to be nothing but a dangerous place for all kinds of wrecks. Another thing on that outlet we go back, my house was built in 1950 and Vera Walters house was built in 1950 and they took the sewer line and it goes down through that outlet. Now if they continue to make an outlet in there what is going to happen to the sewer line. As far as that goes, Jackie Daniels across the street there, her gas line goes across there. That is something you don’t have in the map and I wanted to let you know there is something there. If you have to move the sewer line, who is going to move it. Is the City going to move it, is the builder going to move it, or what.
Fisher: I just want to make a point of clarification. We are not dealing with a major subdivision this evening. This is a rezoning application. The applicant is asking that 38 acres be rezoned ‘R-1A’. That means if it is rezoned they can build one house on that whole 39 acres. The issue of it being broken down into smaller lots, sidewalks, streets, sewer, that all comes IF a major subdivision is applied for. So the Board is clear and everyone here is clear, we are not talking about approval of a subdivision tonight. Just so everyone is clear.
Ditmer: My name is Tonna Ditmer and I live at 1221 Park Avenue. My house sits right where IF they plan to build more than one home or more, right beside my house, between me and my neighbors so that will be the main street. So not only if they decide to put sidewalks will I be, my front yard taken, my side yard taken which means they take my trees. They take my neighbor that’s right on the other side of that, its not a drive yet, its just a way to get to, the right of way, to get to that land. If they do it and then Park Avenue has more traffic, we have a hard enough problem now just because of everything growing, getting out of our driveways. So you got someone sitting at a T road, lined up traffic going down Park Avenue both ways just so someone can turn in and out. I really don’t want it to happen. We have a child, we have only lived there going on three years, kind of planned for it to be my house forever like these people who have been here 20 and 30 years.
Pope: Mr. Chairman, my name is Steven Pope 7903 St. Rt. 127, Lewisburg. I am here tonight on behalf of my client who has entered into a purchase agreement to purchase this property from Mr. Paul DePalma who lives at 1080 West Alex-Bell Road, Dayton, Ohio.
My client has asked me to prepare a multi lot single family residential subdivision on this site to see if it would be conducive to that type of thing and to supply evidence to this Board that that property is suitable to that type of use.
I have some evidence I would like to submit to the Board. Beginning in 1959, when Park View Homes addition, Section One was created and if I might Mr. Chairman submit this for the records. It shows an area reserved for a street to service that back area back there, that is one bit of evidence that I could find that someone, at one time, had in mind to leave access for future development. In addition to that in 1962 there was a Park View Homes addition Section Two which also leaves a right of way, for a future road which would service that same property. In out lay out we do show utilizing those two access points to service this piece of ground as the private owner now has access to that. I think it has been considered for many years for possible development. In addition I want to submit a map that was prepared in 1994, I am sure all of you have seen this just recently. This was the proposed land use, comprehensive plan, for the City of Eaton. It shows this piece of property shaded in orange, which it says one to two family residential type of development. I just want to submit that so you can look back in time, I am bringing us forward. At that time when that map was made and that consultant was paid to prepare
that map, that it was considered among the Planning Commission at that time, that that land would be utilized for some type of residential development. As we had discussed earlier, before a lot of these citizens had an opportunity to show up, it was under consideration by this particular Board and the City. Where their new Comprehensive Development Plan, and I also want to submit this, it shows this property in yellow for residential type of development. I think what I have show you is over 40 or 50 years of consideration that that property could be developed upon if anyone chose to take it through zoning and try to develop it.
What was discussed tonight on several issues by some of the citizens, and I think this had came up several years ago when this property was wanting to be developed, about the flood issue. What I would like to show and also submit it to the Board as evidence, this is the official flood insurance rate map prepared by FEMA. This is the best public evidence that I have available to me or anyone else short of a professional engineering study done on the flood in that area and that shows that property, I have highlighted in yellow, the bulk of that property is elevated above or outside of the 100 year storm. I will tell the Board that if this property is rezoned and if my client would pursue this type of development, I have advised my client that he absolutely, first thing we would do, is this formalized professional study to see exactly what the elevation of the 100 year storm would be. I will say that when that map was prepared, the bridge over Lexington Road was not in place at that time. There are three major factors that would govern the elevation of that flood water as it would cross this property. One would be the bridge on Lexington Road and the other would be the railroad bridge and the cross section opening of those two bridges would govern the flow of water through those two structures and then the cross structure that that stream or Seven Mile Creek would have and how it would handle the water, if that stream were subjected to a 100 year flooding event. So I had advised my client that if he were pursue this and before we were able to lay out any type of a formalized preliminary that we would need to know what our perimeters are and once we have nailed down what the elevation and what the extent of that flood water would be and then we would go one step further and we would start to lay out lots.
The comments that were made tonight are very good comments from the citizens that live along Park Avenue and ones that we would consider very carefully. The utilities that are in place now would be left in place unless the City would otherwise want those to be removed or relocated, but I think most of them are well within existing easements and those would not be touched.
The other concerns that I had with my client is the sanitation or the sanitary line that runs through there. Back in 1997 my firm was hired to upgrade the sanitary line up through Water Works Park south across the railroad and tie back into the existing sanitary line. There was an existing bottleneck in that sanitary pipe, it actually had an elbow that went down and went underneath a large storm sewer then back up and created a siphon effect and that greatly reduced the flow of the sanitary water through that pipe and at that time they thought if we could eliminate that siphon effect that it would improve the flow through there since all of this development was occurring north of this area. Which we did and it was constructed and I believe it has improved that flow. Our subdivision, if this were to go, would all have its own sanitary lines run within it and it would all be put into this new line right at the north property line at the Water Works Park. That is what we are proposing if it were to go this far. The layout that I have got, again is a preliminary layout. The traffic that would be generated by the two access points, from a planning standpoint, is a good idea to have, two access points to a subdivision. If the City felt like that would create some undue hardship, particularly up at the north access point, to close to the other intersection, a redesign of the preliminary would be proposed and we would quite possibly maybe eliminate that and only have one access point, although I am not really big in favor of that.
The pictures that you have shown, I haven’t seen those pictures, but I have worked in this county for over 30 years and I have many years of experience with the County Engineers office and flooding and hydraulics have been one of my big interest in this county. I am very concerned about those pictures showing you, are you actually seeing the flood waters of Seven Mile Creek or were those pictures taken during a rain event where the surface water is flowing across this property and it gives the appearance that that creek is flooding all the way up to here. I would caution to make that judgment without the proper facts.
Finally my client has agreed to preserve as much of the wooded area as possible. We don’t want to get into that with our lots. Most of that area is within the flood plain anyhow so we are not going to touch the flood plain area. We are proposing to dedicate that land to the City of Eaton as an extension of the Water Works Park and also along the Seven Mile Creek corridor for public use and enjoyment. So we would establish an access to that area and walking trails and any other type of recreational use could be achieved by having that land set aside and added to Water Works Park.
I can’t think of any other details right off hand that we would have. I think it would be wise to mention that we had just roughly laid out 66 lots. That could change based upon several factors such as the flood plain area and whether or not we would propose to use the access up by Lexington Road. Again those are issues that would have to be worked out with the engineering department.
Fisher: Your client knows, just as a matter of fact, that if they approve the rezoning that doesn’t necessarily mean he is going to get to develop it.
Pope: Correct. I have nothing else unless you have any questions and I would be happy to try and answer those in behalf of ????
Smith: My name is Margaret Smith and I live at 1302 Park Avenue and this gets really scarier all the time. He is just talking about having the one access route into there which would be directly in front of my driveway, where I have trouble getting in and out of there now. I would have to be trying to back out in front of all of these people trying to get in and out of there. That is one big concern of mine. Some others are, aside from the aesthetic reasons, which I would be very against just on those reasons, but that has always been a flood plain as long as I have known. When Bob Hawley wanted to develop it yes, these older plans were submitted but they were never approved either. He was told he could not build there. He had that opening put down there. That road was access for people going down in that field. Then he learned that he could not develop there. My other problems with that are drainage, cause I am the low person on Park and I would be the first person affected as would Mike Bolinger next to me and a couple of other people who have basements. That is really scary. You would not get better drainage. You would be more likely with a development like that to have more problems. I mean bad problems. I don’t understand a lot of these things under attachments where they claim these things are going to be made better, that is not true. The storm sewer is not going to be made better, that would be a minus to most of us and that would be a scary item. I just have many objections to this. I would not be in favor of sidewalks going along there because it would take my whole front yard, my trees. The congestion on Park is now bad, you have heard this before. I don’t understand when this has become so safe from flood plain, when it has always been otherwise. When did this change? It looks exactly the same to me NOW, as it always has. It is not a place to build homes as Bob Hawley was told and he had to change his plans. It would also effect the value of all of our property. I just heard 66 homes, how large of lots are they talking to put 66 homes in there? I thought they were considering around 40 maybe and that would have been bad. These are my objections, thank you.
Campbell: When they were talking about this dedicated street, down there by my house. When they were putting that in Bob Hawley didn’t want that street there but the Council made him put it in. It wasn’t put in so they could work on, get traffic in and out there. They made him but it in, Bob and them didn’t get along too good. That’s back in my time and I know about that. Another thing, if they are going to dedicate this ground to the City, why didn’t they dedicate it before they come in here instead of coming in here and promising it to you.
Worley: My name is Scott Worley and I hold down the south end of Park Avenue. I have been there 36 years. I bought this house for aesthetic value. One time I saw seven deer in my back yard and I am certain if this transpires here we will be lucky to have a half of deer back there. My wife and I, in the summer we sit in the hot evening and watch the vehicles hit the railroad going north and by the time they reach my home they are going fifty. All these kids that go in this park, I am dreading the evening when one of them get eliminated. I like peace and harmony and we bought this property for its aesthetic value. I married a farm girl and we can sit on the front porch and watch the people go fifty mile per hour past our home and we can go to the back porch and see all sorts of things. We can see lovers walking down to the park, two legged, four legged.
Mann: I am Carol Mann, 1201 Park Avenue. The only thing, I have two things to say is when Ketrons was built, the houses across from us, the apartment. We approved a picture that they gave to us as to how it was going to be built and once it was approved it was completely different than what we approved at that time, once they passed it. If you go by our house today they are running the curve, where they loose it. They have already knocked a tree down last week and they end up in Hick’s yard, our yard, and Drakes next door. They fly around that curve, they take mailboxes out, Ketrons have a tree down now. The traffic we have now is horrible and with adding more houses and stuff and more people back there. Everybody uses our street now compared to what they use to.
Stevens: I guess you can speak twice. Everything looks good on paper, it always does but I want to refer back to when Mrs. Ketron built right beside me. It was her property and I didn’t really care what she built there as long as the plumbing was taken care of.
I was told by the City Council that she would have to put in a10 inch drain or go to Debbie Drive. Well three years went by and I got home from work one day and there was orange spray paint going in my yard. I had four inch clay tile pipe. Marty Gabbard approved them to bury into that pipe after the Council said no. I had to get an attorney, take time off and stop it, and I did. That is where I said that things look good on paper but sometimes it don’t turn out that way.
Richter:
I am Adele Richter and live at 1313 Park Avenue.
I guess I am one of the new
kids in the neighborhood. I lived
42 years in the country and I looked at many houses in town.
I bought in Park Avenue because I thought I was still in the country
there but not out in the country. If
we add another access road and traffic coming out who is going stop those kids
from getting hit coming out of that driveway.
They come so fast coming around that curve I am afraid to pull out of my
driveway sometimes and I can’t see the corner around the curve where that road
is now let alone another road being put in there for traffic to come out of.
So that would be my big concern and the access on the other side of me,
that would be the other drive, the farmer uses it more than anybody else right
now. That is his access to get in
and out of there to be able to farm that ground.
Being from the country it’s a pleasure to see him back there working.
I went out and helped pull some weeds along the fence row just to help
him to keep it looking like farm ground. Thank
you.
Jordan: Anyone else like to address this Board about this matter?
Ott: Yes I would. I need a little clarification on what she said about this one house deal. Can you say that again?
Fisher: He is applying for that land to go from agriculture to ‘R-1A’ one family residential, that’s one lot right now, 38 acres, one lot. ‘R-1A’ one family residential, you can build one house. To go through and do any kind of subdivision like that he is going to have to come through the City, through the Planning Board and Council and apply for a major subdivision. Having the zoning approved ‘R-1A” does not guarantee he is going to get to build more than one house on that lot.
Ott: It doesn’t guarantee it, but quite obviously that is what he is planning on doing.
Jordan: Would anyone else like to address the Board on this matter before I close the Public Hearing? If not then at this time I will close the Public Hearing on Z-03-01 and the Board will discuss their findings. Doug you want to go over the staff review.
Spitler: In accordance with Chapter 1133.03 (b) (2), the Planning Board shall review and make a recommendation on proposed zone changes to City Council compatible with the Comprehensive Development Plan. Additionally, the regulations of Chapter 1135, Amendments, apply to this application. As we stated this 38.5222 acre tract is currently zoned ‘A’, agricultural and this requested zoning is ‘R-1A’, one family residential. The intent of the ‘R-1A’ district is to provide space in the City for low-density, single family residential uses and to provide for additional uses that serve the residential neighborhood as conditional uses. The 1994 Comprehensive Development Plan indicates a proposed land use of this tract as one to two family residential. The new draft Comprehensive Development Plan indicates a proposed land use designation of “Suburban Residential”.
One point of clarification in the application from the applicant, item 12 on the application stated that “The future land use map…does show this land available for future suburban residential development.” The comp plan should not be taken to mean that the land is necessarily available, rather designated as suburban residential for the planning of the City.
The zoning change request must meet any condition (a) through (d) of Chapter 1135.01 for favorable consideration.
Jordan: Is that all the City has then Doug?
Spitler: Yes.
Jordan: I would like to remind the Board members to look at 1135.01 and the four conditions that qualify this case and that is what we have to go by. As the Law Director has stated, this is a zoning change only, at this time. Anything further beyond that will come back before this Board also, as far as a subdivision, major subdivision so let us have Board discussion.
Broderick: Did I understand that this land is presently being farmed by Mr. Conley, who owns it now?
Pope: You had a question?
Broderick: Who is farming it now, is it in production?
Pope: It is currently in production, the area beyond the tree line they are and who the actual farmer is I really don’t know. Someone said Mr. Crosier perhaps, I don’t know for sure but someone is farming it.
Broderick: I want a clarification, in looking at either the old comp plan or the one we are looking at right now, would there have been any particular reason that that almost 40 acres of farm land, that is still being used for farm land, is being designated as residential?
Fisher: Apparently the planners then and the planners now expect that that will be developed as residential at some point in the future. If there is residential development going to occur that the most logical place for it to happen. That is what the 94 plan said and that is what this plan says.
Broderick: To get back to this point, if we are looking at 1135.01 (b) the changes in accordance with, or in more appropriate conformity to, any existing land use plans for the area under consideration. So we have to look at the comp plan as saying at some point that this might be developed for residential-are you saying that it could comply with that section?
Fisher: That is your decision to make. I can’t tell you-that’s me making the decision. If someone came in and applied for industrial on that property, would that be in accordance with the conformity with the land use plan? No. Whether this is “appropriate conformity” is your decision to make.
Jordan: I guess the clarification that I see on this matter, the 1994 comp plan when we look at the 2003 that we are contemplating looking at, are guidelines and guidelines only. We have to take each case, one step at a time based on its own merit. You look at the area conditions, is what I do. What is around the surrounding area. Do we need more ‘R-1A” housing in the City? Has there been a substantial change in the area conditions that would require more housing in that area of the City?
Broderick: I can’t see that it is really applying to any of these standards, other than maybe (b), that was my question. No I don’t think there has been anything that has been shown that it is something that is needed in that area.
Renner: I have a question. Whoever typed this I see you put on there that requests for change of zoning meets any the following conditions. Since when do we go from all to any?
Fisher: The way our zoning code is currently written is incorrect, if it was taken to court we would lose on that big time, it should say “any” and for whatever reason that word was not included. In our zoning code it just says meet the following conditions. Standard zoning, anywhere you look is, “any.” You are never going to have a manifest error and change in conditions and you are never going to have all of those at one time, never. It doesn’t say all in our zoning code, it doesn’t say anything. What it means is “any.”
Renner: That’s not what it says, it says meets the following conditions. That’s what it says, I don’t see how we can dismiss that without changing the code.
Geeting: The way I look at this the only one that would be a possibility, approval, would be (b), but I also look at it from the standpoint that it is agriculture, it has been agriculture and I haven’t heard anything tonight that says its better housing than it would be agriculture. Why should we change it, it should prove to us that it is better suited for houses than it is for agriculture.
Broderick: If we are following “if it meets any of the following conditions”, there really is not a legitimate reason to change that zoning, to my way of thinking. It is still being farmed, its been agricultural, there hasn’t been a substantial change in the area, it has pretty much stayed the same for a lot of years. That was my question about the comp plan. It could be used for residential
Geeting: But again, point number two, deals with the flood zoning. I am pretty sure I know how this flood insurance maps were made. I wouldn’t take too much stock as to where those lines are on that map as far as flood zone. Like Steve mentioned they will have to do all the engineering work to prove what the elevation is for the flood zone, the 100 year flood, and that takes a lot of engineering work to do it. I have a feeling that if they would do that they would find that they will only get half of that acreage, if that much, that would be suitable to build houses on, without putting them on levy’s or stilts or whatever you want to call them to get them above that flood zone. I get that information from studying soils, books and so forth.
Coleman: The new comp plan, chapter 9 page 7, its got soil suitability for development City of Eaton & environs. If you look at that land probably all of it is not recommended, and this is the book we have to go by the way I understand.
Geeting: I will throw another one in. If you look at the soil books, half of it is flood ground soils another one fourth of that area is soils underlying with gravels and if you will look in the area for lawns and landscaping in that area it is very ????? Then you are going to create a problem for ??????
Campbell: May I ask a question. Is this land in the City oil fields?
Jordan: Not to my knowledge its not.
Campbell: I was just bringing it up because that is our Water Works Park down there.
Jordan: Joe do you have anything else. You were studying awful hard there, I was just wondering.
Going back to what Joe is saying about the any and meets the following conditions, you know either way you look at it I feel that it doesn’t meet any.
Fisher:
Just to point out that I have been doing the sheets since May and all the
cases you have heard has said any.
Renner: I just haven’t been aware of that.
Jordan:
In looking at the four requirements to make it a recommendation favorable
or unfavorable to the City Council my opinion is and justification is that it
doesn’t meet any of these four qualifications.
I don’t see where there is a manifest error in the zoning code; the
existing land use for that area is fine in my opinion; and its agricultural; and
I don’t see a need for additional housing in the City, in that area of the
City. I just don’t see where we
have a need for ‘R-1A’ in that area. That’s
my thoughts on this issue. The rest
of the Board members have their own.
Broderick: I totally agree. I don’t think it meets any of these conditions.
Renner: You ready for a motion?
Jordan: I would ask that you state the finding of facts in the motion.
Renner: I move for a negative recommendation on Z-03-01, Eaton City Council, I don’t believe there is a manifest error in the zoning code; I don’t believe the change is more in accordance with land use plans, recognizing that it spells out that may be suitable for housing at one point in time; I don’t think that is appropriate now; there is no change in the area conditions for that immediate area; and I don’t believe there is legitimate requirement for additional zoning of that magnitude would have certainly many areas currently zoned for housing for many years to come. We have been told we have allotted too much for housing already so I don’t believe we need any more at this point.
Jordan: I have a motion and do I have a second. The motion is for a negative recommendation to the Eaton City Council.
Seconded by Broderick and motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Kieffer, Lane, Geeting, Broderick, Renner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
At this time the Chairman called for a 10 minute break.
Jordan: I will reconvene this meeting tonight.
The next item on the agenda I understand that staff has some questions about this before I open this. Doug would you like to fill the Board in just a little bit here.
Spitler: According to Chapter 1133.03 (b) (4), Planning Board shall review the conditional use request and make a recommendation to the Appeals Board according to the procedure outlined in Chapter 1144.08. Additionally Chapter 1163, Conditional Uses, is followed for this application in reviewing this application, staff did not have adequate information to review it. Some of the items, for example, plans submitted for the location were from the original construction of the facility and we did not know if they showed the exact current features correctly. For example, there was a patio shown on one of the pieces that was submitted on notebook paper and architectural drawings that were also submitted didn’t show that. Not that that was a great concern, we were just wondering if the plans from the original submittal accurately showed the same floor plans and the exterior. The small interior floor plans which are in your packet and also these two back here on the board, they showed conflicting uses internally. A couple of them was listed as dorm room on one and living room on another, so there was conflict with those. There was no floor plan showing the upstairs or basement use, there was just dimensions shown. The parking dimensions were not shown. We don’t know if the spaces are to our standard or not, as well as the location and placement of those. Traffic access and circulation was not shown. Additionally, staff talked about a lot of questions that were summarized on the attached 3 pages from the Law Director about issues, more major issues other than I just listed to be considered.
Fisher: The reason we are bringing this to their attention is that they need to decide if they want to go ahead with this or wait and ???????
Spitler: Correct
Jordan: The Board, after hearing Doug go over some of the things that they felt were inadequate, I will leave it up to the Board if they want to hear this case tonight or we can go ahead and table it and give them another 30 days to get the proper documentation so we can look at this totally at one time other than peacemeal it.
Hubler: My name is Chuck Hubler and I do represent the owners Vancrest and the potential buyer of the property is Harvest Missions International, which is not a profit organization. One of the reasons that things were submitted in this nature is that they are a non profit church organization. They are Christian Ministry and have very limited funds so they don’t have the funds to go out and hire Steve Pope or people like that to make nice fancy drawings for everybody that cost $1,000.00 or whatever it is going to cost. He had to go in there on his own and try to do the best he could to provide the information that you required. They just don’t have a lot of money to hire a lot of these preliminary things, not knowing whether it is going to be approved or not. We would hope, we would be willing, if you want additional information he would do the best he can to provide this himself but he does not have the funds to spend $1,000 or $2,000 to provide architects and drawings and traffic patterns and to draw up fancy maps and everything for everybody to look at. That is why it was presented in this matter. We would appreciate you taking that into consideration, if you want to give us time to provide more information or not.
Fisher: I thought Vancrest was the applicant?
Hubler: They are. Harvest is the purchaser of the property and they are going to have the use of the property.
Fisher: But Vancrest won’t pay to get the things that they need?
Hubler: No. They are not going to pay, put up several thousands of dollars to get things not knowing whether its not going to be for sale or not because Harvest Missions is not going to buy it if it’s not able to be used in this manner. Vancrest does not want to put up another $1,000 or $2,000 to see that it may or may not meet your approval for the zoning. The buyer does not have the money to go out and hire architects and surveyors to do that, so they did the best they could, provided what they could with their limited funds and that’s why the items are presented in that manner.
Jordan: I appreciate your comments, but we have to treat each the same whether it is a 100 acre development or a quarter acre development. I don’t think the City has ever said it had to be a, per say, a professional survey. I think Doug brought up some things that weren’t even addressed. I am going to leave it to this Board to whether they want me to open this case or go ahead and table it at this time and maybe work with staff and get something that will work before we more forward.
Hubler: He has said that if you want him to work with staff he will try to do a better job and try to get some more information for you.
Broderick: Mr. Chairman I move that case AB-03-01 be tabled until we can get further information. The motion was seconded by Harold Geeting and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Kieffer, Lane, Geeting, Broderick, Renner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Jordan: The applicants are seeking a variance from the parking requirements for their business, Main Street Motors, located at 1201 E. Main St. The City’s parking requirements, as applied, would require the applicants to provide a total of 47 customer and employee parking spaces. The applicants are asking to only be required to provide a total of 10 parking spaces – 3 employee spaces and 5 customer spaces. Who is representing this request?
Buckley: I am John Buckley and Don and Karen Morrow couldn’t be here tonight so I got thrown in here at the last minute to represent them the best I can. We had a building, they contracted me to complete design and build a structure out here for a five year lease he signed with Tom Raper Camper Sales. In designing the 40x60 building with 20x20 office, the zoning requirement requires one space for every 200 sq. ft. of area, it calls for 12 spaces and one space for every 500 sq. ft. of display area, called for another 35 which totaled up to 47 spots. That don’t leave much room for camper display. They have issued a building permit and the building is up and 95% complete. They expect to have only 3 to 5 customers a day rather than 47 at one time. Appreciate your consideration of giving them the go ahead to, so we can finalize our drawing. On the final drawings we haven’t even drawn parking spaces until we get your requirements finalized and what we need to draw on the plans.
.Jordan: Doug would you give staff review
Spitler: In accordance with Chapter 1133.03 (b) (4) , Planning Board shall review variances and make a recommendation to the Appeals Board following the requirements in Chapter 1133.07, Variances. Additionally, this parcel is located in the ‘C-1’ General Commercial district, and Chapter 1147 regulations apply. The applicant is requesting a variance from Chapter 1167.09 (e) (6) which requires automotive vehicle and equipment sales to have 1 parking space per 200 sq. ft. of floor area plus 1 space per 500 sq. ft. of open outdoor display space. The variance must meet conditions (1) through (6) of Chapter 1133.07 for approval.
Jordan: I was a little confused when I did a drive by of this. I had to get some clarification. Correct me if I am wrong, we are actually looking at the area where the RV’s are sitting now, correct.
Buckley: There are actually two properties. The RV’s are in the display area in the front and the little shack, that they have got by all these years as an office, will be removed. They have a nice $100,000 building that they put up there with, going to be in the back.
Jordan: That faces Industrial Drive?
Buckley: Yes. The display area for the campers is in the front. The way we read that thing they are wanting to use a lot of display area and really make this business profitable for customer parking, designate spots. To actually designate those spots off when you bring good size motor homes and campers in and out of there it’s just pretty much impossible to change the size of the spaces to accommodate the different size of units that he would be able to display. I think this satellite dealership that they are trying to put in over here, they need an address here, the RV business has got some regulations that I wasn’t aware of, they like to attend Quarter Horse Congress and State Fairs and shows in Ohio so they need an Ohio address. They did approve our building and all and we just need the parking.
Geeting: What you are saying is that where those camper units are sitting now is going to be the display area.
Buckley: They would like to keep those the campers there.
Geeting: What is the square footage of that specific area?
Buckley:
It is 260 ft. long and 130 ft. wide, with out my calculator I couldn’t
tell you. That’s that front area
that the campers are on.
Geeting: That’s the entire lot, right? I am looking for the measurement right just where the campers are sitting.
Buckley: Bob Wehrley used 135x130 as the display area on the drawing 17,550 square feet. Using one space for 500 that’s 35 spots and that took up the area over there. For the building area we got 12 spots required for the size of the building.
Broderick: Do most car dealerships have that kind of parking places for customers? I have never seen except for parking places for customers in Eaton.
Buckley: The requirement they have for a lot that size is more like a bar or restaurant or something that really has a lot of customers where a car dealership or this camper sales is no way going to have that many customers at one time.
Spitler: The drawing you have in your packet from the architect, it might be the last page, I asked Bob about because I was a little confused. This might help you a little bit. The x’s they have shown, the top X says display spaces and there is another X drawn below and it says “50” designated customer employee parking, that’s not proposed, that’s what it would take to put 50 spaces on there. That’s the area it would take for that many spaces so the display space out front would what would be left. That is not what they are proposing it is what they are showing, following our guidelines, that is what would be left for parking.
Geeting: The units sitting out there now are probably in that size lot that is shown here.
Spitler: I don’t know that. If you can remember where the old building was, and I don’t, on the same drawing about the second X for the designated 50 spaces, right where they cross and a little down by about ½ inch, that is where the old building was you can use that to kind of.
Geeting: The units were quite a ways from that from what I saw today. If you took the measurements of where they are sitting now I don’t think we would come up with that 47 or 35.
Spitler: That’s probably correct.
Geeting: It would be much less than that.
Spitler: I just scaled that, it’s a 1-50 scale, let me see if I can give you something. Where it is scaled back what Bob used is, if you would underline existing and draw a line across that lot it is about where 135 scales. That is what Bob used, 130 width times 135 depth for the outdoor display area and he used the 60X40 building for floor area to come up with the 47.
Buckley: That requirement is what we are trying to change. We are trying to get it reduced to where it is feasible for this style of business. In their experience they would only have 1-3 full time employees there. These spaces they are requesting are over and above the required 2 or 3 handicapped spaces that have to be designated there. It may look a little congested if you go by there. The chain link fenced area is going to be removed and the temporary office building will be removed and the whole lot in front of that building will be opened up and it really looks like a lot more space there than what’s there.
Fisher: I will point out something to the Board that came up during staff review, the section that Bob looked at when he calculated parking spaces was Chapter 1169 (e) (6) which is automotive vehicle and equipment sales. Now, automotive vehicle and equipment sales is no where to find in our zoning code. So whether the thought was that RV’s would be included in that, I don’t know. Obviously, if you are going to display an RV it is going to take up a lot more room than it is to display one car. That may not have been taken into consideration when this subject went through.
Buckley: I didn’t know they ever had a RV sales in Eaton before, this is special.
Fisher: That’s really up to the Board to decide if you would consider that a special condition or not, the fact that displaying a RV takes so much room than it does to display a car.
Kirsch: I think what he is asking for seems like it would work because at our site we offer three entity’s of businesses within our structure. There are sales which we have designated eight parking stalls for those and we have service. We have customers that come in daily for service operations and they aren’t planning on doing that and in parts we have designated four parking spots for that. As the law director outlined the way the zone is set up, I don’t think applies.
Buckley: It is going to be a lot better business than what has been in there in the past, it is really going to be a nice place.
Jordan: I feel there is special conditions out there and there is no place in the zoning code that actually per say talks about RV’s and I think that if Bob wanted to go out and apply this 1169 (e) (6) we would have a lot of dealerships mad at us because they couldn’t meet parking requirements.
Coleman: The other thing if 10 parking places are full he is just hurting his own business if they can’t go in and buy something. I think it is fine.
Broderick: Mr. Chairman I move for favorable recommendation on AB-03-03, as far as special conditions I think it is probably, if we are going to look at it recreational vehicles do fall under this. I think they are really just special conditions and circumstances. I really don’t think, probably, that it’s its any other relevant under 1169 (e) (6) but that’s not going to have a change in zoning district so I think it should be approved.
Motioned was seconded by Joe Renner and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Kieffer, Lane, Geeting, Broderick, Renner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
OLD BUSINESS:
Jordan: Next is old business on our agenda. Last we discussed ground signs and portable signs. Would you like to remove this from the table.
Fisher: Yes
Renner: So moved. Tim Lane Seconded and motion was passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Kieffer, Lane, Geeting, Broderick, Renner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Fisher: You will note on your sheets for the proposed new definition of Ground Signs there is the pink area as well. That is actually what Lydia brought up last time about the ground signs being constructed of combustible materials. We went back to the old language. That is what the pink is on the new sheet. The yellow is the changes that I said we were going to make before. I thought this might help explain what we are talking about.
This is something that came up last time. There was some concern that if we changed the definition of ground signs that we were going to effect the signs downtown. Downtown is ‘C-4’. The only signs that are currently allowed down there are projection signs, meaning a sign coming off the wall, wall signs; and ground signs. Now the old ground sign definition it’s temporary advertising signs. These signs that are currently downtown are not legal. If we change the definition of ground signs, this is what a ground sign becomes. These signs become legal. It is not going to negatively effect any signs downtown.
This is the new YMCA sign. This is a ground sign. Bob has given them a temporary permit. If we don’t change the definition of ground signs they are going to have to tear this out and put in one of those nice yellow signs. This ground sign, this is a temporary advertising sign. (yellow sign) This is all they are going to be able to put in front of the YMCA, this is all the school is going to be able to put in front of the school or the Muni Court or ESC. This is how we are currently defining ground signs. These signs will now become temporary advertising signs. They will still be allowed in the same districts the always were. Ground signs will be the short pole signs, the signs downtown, the signs like the YMCA put in. Those will be allowed in the downtown district and the ‘P-1’ district the structure type which they currently are.
Jordan: It’s clearer than mud now.
Broderick: What was that sign that we allowed the VFW to put out?
Fisher: That was a pole sign.
Broderick: It looks like the other signs.
Fisher: Pole signs are allowed downtown. Currently downtown we allow projection, wall, window and ground. So the signs that currently are downtown, like those first two, aren’t legal.
Anything over six feet is a pole sign and under six feet is a ground sign.
Jordan: looking at the pictures – Right there that sign on the left, right now is not currently allowed in the downtown district. The wall sign saying Acton House parking is allowed.
Fisher: That is a projecting sign and that’s allowed.
Jordan: Otherwise they would have to put a pretty yellow sign outside the business.
Fisher: Now it is possible that they had that sign up before zoning went into effect but if it ever got destroyed and they wanted to replace it, under our current zoning regulations, they couldn’t do it. I know the Preble Title sign is new.
Coleman: But they can’t be over six foot, the new.
Fisher: Ground signs can’t be over six feet. If they go over six feet then we are going to call them pole signs. That in the ‘P-1’ district specifically where we are going to have dentist office, doctor’s offices, the YMCA and the school. They will be like the YMCA sign, nice flat signs.
Kieffer: The third sign, Cashland. That is not a ground sign, right?
Fisher: This is what we are currently defining as a ground sign. This will become temporary advertising sign. That is just one of those black signs out on a pole that they carry in and out. We currently allow temporary advertising signs in ‘C-1’, ‘C-3’, ‘C-4’, ‘I-1’, and ‘I-2’districts and we will continue to allow them in those districts.
Broderick: I just have a question on the ground signs, shall be anchored to a minimum of 32 inches.
Fisher: ?????
Spitler: That’s typically the frost line.
Jordan: I thought we just needed something that specified so you couldn’t just pour a slab out there.
Fisher: You see how the Y did. They have two poles sunk down.
Broderick: They are going to be called ground signs, not in ground signs?
Fisher: They are called ground signs.
Broderick: My other question was the fee. Are they going to be paying the same fee as what you would pay for a temporary sign now?
Fisher: It will be just like if I came in and wanted to put up a pole sign, Bob has a certain formula. It would be just like a permanent, they would be paying for this as a permanent sign. Ground signs will be permanent.
Hiestand: First of all if we change this, as you proposed, the pole sign designation in this section 1169.02 (19) needs to be changed also, to read over six feet.
Fisher: No, Bob and I talked about that pole sign, there are certain areas where we allow pole signs and we don’t allow ground signs. Pole sign will be anything, but ground signs can’t be over six feet.
Hiestand: Another thing, in an area like this, maximum of eighteen square feet on one side is not big enough. That surly is bigger than that.
Fisher: 36 square feet for double face signs.
Hiestand: Isn’t that sign a whole lot bigger than that and shouldn’t it be in an area like that ‘P-1’.
Fisher: These I got from Bob and I think he took that off of this.
Jordan: Ione, I think what you got confused there is that a temporary sign is eighteen square feet which would be like your yellow or black advertising signs. Ground signs would be thirty six.
Hiestand: Under ground signs here she has, “No ground sign shall be larger than eighteen square feet for a single faced sign.” I don’t think that is big enough for ‘P-1’.
Fisher: That came from Bob.
Renner: While she is doing that I have a question. I realize that some of this comes in from the existing code. What I really want to say now, no sign may be placed in the City right of way or within six feet of the curb. How many signs would that eliminate if like you said would be destroyed or something. That doesn’t allow any room for a variance and you say you won’t do it. If we are changing code and we should know that is what we want it to be and I don’t know if I am happy with that.
Fisher: You want it closer than six feet?
Renner: You take for example these signs you just showed pictures of they are certainly within six feet of the curb. Are we going to tell Mike Murphy that if his sign gets knocked down that he can’t put it back up?
Fisher: Part of the reason that I did that, and any changes I made I ran past Doug and Bob, Doug said that in a lot of instances that is going to cover our right of way. If we put it six feet back it isn’t going to be in our right of way. If we go in and have to expand sewer, have to repair sidewalk we are not tearing down their sign.
Renne