REGULAR MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING
ZONING AND BUILDING BOARD ON JANUARY 14, 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, January 14, 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 Engineer Doug Spitler and City Law Director Donnette Fisher.
REORGANIZATION
OF PLANN ING BOARD:
Jordan: The first thing on the meeting will be the reorganization of the Planning Board.
At this time I will open the floor for nominations to Chair and Vice Chair.
Renner: Mr. Chairman I would move that yourself and Mr. Geeting be reappointed to the Chair, Vice Chair positions, respectively, for the coming year.
Coleman: I second that.
Jordan: Any other nominations?
Renner: Will the nominations be closed?
Broderick: I second.
Jordan: Call the roll for closing nominations, please:
Ayes: Coleman, Kieffer, Lane, Geeting, Broderick, Renner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Jordan: At this time we will vote on the election of myself to Chairman and Harold Geeting to Vice Chair.
Renner: So move.
Geeting: Second
Jordan: Call the roll.
Ayes: Coleman, Kieffer, Lane, Geeting, Broderick, Renner (6)
Nays: None
Abstain: Jordan (1)
MINUTES:
The minutes of the December 10, 2002 meeting were read and approved as written. Ron Coleman made a motion to approve the minutes and Joe Renner seconded it. Motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Broderick, Renner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
Abstain: Kieffer (1)
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.
PBR-03-01
- ESC - Site Plan Review:
Jordan: The first item on the agenda will be PBR-03-01 the site plan review for ESC. Who will be representing this request tonight?
Erslan: I can, Paul Erslan and we have our architect Tom Thickel and our civil engineer Gil Pasqual also.
One question that has not yet been answered or I don’t know that you have been privy to, is the deed did actually transfer from the Commission for the land and has been filed at the Court House so the governing board of the Preble County Educational Service Center now has the deed of the property in question. I know the City Council and the Planning Board approved the zoning contingent upon that transfer of deed. I share that information with you.
You have had an opportunity to look at the plans and I know Doug had some questions today as a follow up to a question that had been previously asked about bus traffic into the site. Apparently that news article appeared again in the paper and it is not correct. It is not intended bus traffic to come to that site. There are four educational classrooms planned in the facility. One is a pre-school that currently exist in Camden, Preble County Pre School, and parents are responsible for transporting the children to and from school. So that is automobile traffic. The other classroom that is our Alternative School, which is high school students, and they are responsible for their own transportation either parent or however they get there. That is currently on High Street. The other two classrooms, one is intended to be leased to Miami Valley Career Technology Center and that will be adult students or high school students attending those classes and they will be providing their own transportation and the other is intended to be leased to Miami University, Middletown and that would be high school students or adult population. The plan is for only automobile traffic to the site.
I would be glad to try to answer any other questions the Board may have or if I can’t I am sure Tom or Gil would be able to.
Jordan: Thank you. Doug would you like to go over staff review of this?
Spitler: According to Chapter 1152.04 (a) (2), site plans for buildings in a P-1 Professional Service, district over 5,000 square feet must be approved by the Planning Board.
Staff calculated parking required for senior high schools as 1 space per 60 square feet of classroom space and 1 space per 100 square feet of office space which requires 74 spaces; additionally, calculations were done for professional and business offices as 1 space per 200 square feet of floor area which requires 75 spaces; 74 spaces have been provided. Setback requirements on the site have been met. The drive width of the property line is approximately 24 ft., which allows two-way traffic and is below the maximum of 30 ft. The site has a detention pond to control storm water run-off and the drainage report was submitted summarizing site storm water flows.
Buffering is required since this site abuts a residential district to the east and west; currently though there are established tree lines on the east and west site boundaries, so the Board may want to take a look at the aerial photo I have here. If you haven’t looked at the site take a look at that and maybe the buffer requirements have already been met.
Erosion control is shown on the site plan. I had two additional requirements in addition to what is shown:
1.) A note addressing temporary or permanent seeding.
2.) Additional silt fence along the east site boundary.
I spoke with the engineer and he said these items would be addressed in the final submittal with the architect’s plans.
One other item that I was unable to get in touch with was the Ohio EPA. It is our understanding that everything that is not a single-family residence has to have a PTI.
It is called a Permit To Install water and sanitary. So at this point we haven’t heard, No they don’t have to have it so it’s still a requirement that they have to have it. If we find out that they don’t have to have it obviously we are not going to make them have it. At this point it should be required before they start to install their facilities out there.
The requirements for the turn lanes were reviewed and the site’s proposed trips in the peak hour did not meet the requirements in the Ohio Department of Transportation Access Management Manual for construction of turn lanes; additionally as Mr. Erslan said this site will not have any bus traffic.
I believe that is all I had. Mr. Erslan and I did talk about sanitary sewer and they have shown on their plans a connection to a proposed sanitary sewer out there and I think they are going to try and arrange with the County Commissioners a tap in to another line temporally until that sewer can be installed. I believe there project is going to happen before our project will happen. In case that happens I want them to have another outlet for their system.
Slides were shown.
Broderick: Doug I have a question, where the line is behind the Fine Arts Building, is there going to be any buffer required there?
Spitler: It wasn’t shown on my map. It is “R-1A’ single family residential so that is another consideration for the Board, if that needs a buffer there.
Jordan: There is a pretty good buffer there where that house is.
Spitler: Yes it is, we drove out there yesterday.
Geeting: The remainder of that land, out front where that swale goes, will that all be manicured lawn?
Erslan: Yes
Broderick: The way your building is going to sit on that lot, are you going to be fairly visible from 732 or are you pretty much behind the Fine Arts Building.
Geeting: There was a comment one time about using the Children’s Home driveway as the access to it. Did that not work out?
Spitler: They don’t have that shown. I don’t know, you can ask them but they are proposing a drive in looking at the turn lane for the school that’s going likely to occur, we moved ESC’s drive access all the way to the west because of the turn lane conflict there for the school. So I am assuming that that’s what they have submitted that there is no longer access through the children’s home.
Geeting: Is that true?
Erslan: If there were discussions about that it was before my time on the job.
Thickel: There were some discussions of that. That road is not, would have to have been upgraded, widened in order to accommodate the traffic into our site. It was really inadequate for that purpose. At one time it was looked as something that, it would be on county property and it would be maintained by them but it was not usable in its current condition.
Broderick: So the driveway that you are proposing if just a lane in and out driveway.
Thickel: Two cars can pass each other on one drive.
Renner: It seemed to me that that property may be ‘R-1A’ one family residential but the practical use of it is not ‘R-1A’ and I don’t think it probable ever will be. I wouldn’t think it would seem reasonable to require a buffer all along that west side. If they are going to have a nice lawn there it will benefit that area more than anything up front and all the way back there are already some trees it look like along that line anyway pretty much. The east side now should be made, since it is actually residential, you say it is pretty full now but if there are vacancies I would think you would have that filled in. I don’t know how full it is.
Broderick: I guess that was my concern to talking about the line behind the Fine Arts whether you were visible, I would really hate to see a buffer there. I don’t think it is necessary to have those two properties divided like that.
Geeting: Not if you have a lawn and so forth.
Jordan: What would be your options down the road if they would expand this facility and start taking bus traffic.
Spitler: In front of their access point there is going to be the two lanes, two way left turns. It is the suicide lane like from the railroad tracks up to five points. I talked to Steve Simmons a little bit and that does play a little differently in the equation. He said he needs to get together a few more heads and ours to. There is a possibility that we could just re stripe that into a dedicated left turn lane. There should be enough storage there for some bus traffic. As it stands right now there will be a two way left turn lane there and in the future it could be re striped into a dedicated left turn lane.
Jordan: My only concern about the buffering was up there where that one actual residence is along the east side. I think as long as they maintain buffering there and didn’t take out the natural buffering we should be okay.
Coleman: If they take out the natural they would be required to put more buffering back in.
Jordan: When I looked at it there was just a few sparse spots, it really didn’t seem me to be hurting anything, there weren’t any buildings close by.
Broderick: Is there going to be a sign anywhere out towards 732?
Thickel: We have discussed a sign on the building itself but nothing out by the road at this time.
Fisher: It depends on what you do later tonight. In ‘P-1’ they are only allowed to have ground signs a wall sign.
Geeting: Are there detention ponds designed or is that existing pond suppose to take care of it?
Spitler: That existing pond is not on their property, is that what you are referring to.
Geeting: Right
Spitler: They are having their own. The first large swale as you would come off the road heading back towards the rear of the property, there is a large swale there. They are going to dike up one end of that and use it as their detention pond. They also have a lot of off site water passing through there that they are allowed to let the water naturally pass through but they have to hold back what their facility is increasing. So they are better utilizing that big swale. I don’t know where it feeds through once it goes off the property. We didn’t have a topographic information for that but I am sure some of it will probably go to that pond.
Geeting: I am sure it would. I just wanted to know if there was going to be something on this property that would use the dike for that possibly as the roadway to go across then.
Spitler: They have a culvert underneath the roadway and that is their outlet structure from the detention pond.
Jordan: So basically the buffers were our main concern and the PTI which you can handle in house whether they need it or not?
Spitler: Correct
Renner: Can we just approve it waving the buffers on the west side and leaving it to him to police it on the ease side as he sees fit along Medaris place there?
Jordan: I would say that would be adequate.
Broderick: You were satisfied with the parking.
Spitler: Like I said one staff member calculated it as a senior high school and I calculated it differently as a business and office and we were within one parking space of each other. One was 74 and they have 74, I calculated 75 so they don’t really fit either one so between the two I thought that was close.
Jordan: Board members have any questions on this matter?
Renner: I move for approval of PBR-03-01 waving buffering on the west property line which encompasses everything on the west side of the property and the east side to be governed by the City Engineer as to what he feels is appropriate along the existing residence. Motion was seconded by Lydia Broderick and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Kieffer, Lane, Geeting, Broderick, Renner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
MJ-03-01P
- Preliminary Plat Approval - Rolling Hills Section 3:
Jordan: Who is representing this request tonight?
Kramer: Doug Kramer with Kramer Associates to represent Mike Watkins. If you are ready for the comments I will point it out over here. The two drawings here, the one on the bottom shows the existing Sections 1 and 2 along the east side of East Avenue. The proposed Section 3 is just to the north of Section 2. This is Rolling Hills Avenue that would be extended on and the T right inside of East Avenue and there would be the extension of East High Street, a small extension to that and also a street called Tippecanoe Drive that eventually in the next section would come on out to East Avenue. There was a preliminary in more of a grid pattern a few years ago and that had a street that came out closer to Lexington Avenue but as you might remember there was a hill there creating some sight distance problems. In order to make it safer for existing traffic we eliminated that exit and put it down here where there is adequate sight distance to the north. I don’t believe there is anything else to point out. There are extensions of existing sanitary and water systems. One major feature of this is that in addition to, you might remember, not too long ago Meadowbrook Section 3 approval that has a water line loop over to this point Section 3 of Rolling Hills, now also include pages and plans that require the extension of the water loop line loop on over to the existing end of Prairie View Drive. That means that there will now be water line loop from Rt. #35 up to East Avenue. Of course there is a line down East Avenue in from the water plant clear out towards West Alexandria on Rt. #35 so there is a loop in this whole thing. This is a lot better fire flow. The City Engineer saw to it that we included that in the next section of both Meadowbrook and Rolling Hills. I don’t believe there is anything else to point out. It takes 8.9 acres and 18 new lots for Section 3.
Are there any questions?
Jordan: At this time I don’t think there are any. We will let Doug give staff review and see what comes up.
Spitler: The platting procedure in Chapter #1103 is followed for preliminary plats and the required documents for major subdivisions are outlined in Chapter #1105.
Staff has checked the plat for general engineering and conformity to required public improvements and generally found the public improvements to be adequate, noting there are improvement details which need to be discussed and made before final plat approval; staff comments will be discussed with the developer’s consultant so that the changes can be made for final plat submittal.
The approval of the preliminary plat must meet the conditions in Chapter #1103.01 (a) (3)
Jordan: Did you have any problems with the plans that are submitted?
Spitler: There are a lot of detailed items, I have a list of them Doug will be happy to know. Unless you are really interested in them, they are all small items and I think they can all be addressed in the final. They are all very detailed things and I think they can be made without any problem.
Jordan: Okay. Any Board members have any questions for our Doug or Mr. Kramer?
Geeting: Just to get myself acclimated, the northeast corner cul-de-sac you have on your plans there, is that the spot you turn around in at the present time?
Kramer: No – The spot you turn around in is right here (pointing to the map) and it will be extended on up the hill there.
Geeting: It will be approximately where your street intersection would be then?
Kramer: Right – That is a temporary cul-de-sac and so noted on Section 2 that it will be discontinued when the street is extended. If for some reason there would never be a street extended then it would remain there permanently, it is noted that way to take care of that.
Geeting: That makes a little more sense because when I drove back there to look at it I couldn’t tell. The other question I have is where Tippecanoe comes out onto East Avenue. That’s just off of the crest of the hill to the north right?
Kramer: Actually it’s pretty far south of that Harold, it’s probably in the neighborhood, I will add up some things, about four or five hundred feet south of Lexington Avenue.
Geeting: I meant on East Avenue, there is a crest right below there to the south a bit.
Kramer: Just a minor one between the two streets, not the major one I was talking about. I guess you could say to help everyone visualize it is about half way between High Street and Lexington Avenue. That is about where the new intersection will be.
Geeting: Then the intersection of Tippecanoe and East High Street is down in a pretty low area. It looked like there was a sizeable water way coming through there. Is it going to be built up?
Kramer: It’s not going to be built up much but there is a proposed pipe going through there for storm drainage that is 30 and 36 inch. There is 36 inch pipe going to outlet that. It will be higher at that point at the intersection to accommodate the limited ----- that is in there now.
Spitler: That swale that goes around that cul-de-sac is temporary and approximately on lot #62 there is like an 8 inch clay tile coming out and that is what that temporary swale is designed to. To take that water around that temporary cul-de-sac and they have it noted in the plans to connect that into the storm sewer so that should go directly into the storm sewer somewhere at the intersection of Tippecanoe and Rolling Hills Avenue, somewhere in that area and go underground then in the storm sewer system.
Kramer: What Doug is talking about is there is an old clay tile that winds its way down through the field here. We are going to tie that into the storm sewer system and we made sure that the new system that will go generally right down Tippecanoe and we have made provisions. As you know there have been some drainage problems over on Eagle Manor, Meadowlark and we have sized this to take care of that drainage problem.
Renner: I have heard about that just once or twice.
Kramer: You remember that. I don’t hang around there much, I have heard about it to. We are going to take care of it.
Jordan: That will be a good reference point where Tippecanoe is going to come out because that is just about where that crosses the road, East Avenue.
Kramer: I think it is just south of that. It shows here it is about 100 ft. south of that. That culvert now again, just comes out, it is just a blind culvert out into the east side ditch of East Avenue. The water has to jump up the side ditch side and find it way down through that 8 inch tile, find its way down the field. We will have a lot more positive ----for that. We have had those plans in the works every since we first looked at the Meadowlark land several years ago.
Jordan: Any other questions for anyone?
Geeting: Is there parking allowed on those streets?
Kramer: They are wide enough for parking. The streets are the standard width that we went to almost 20 years ago now. If you can just think back through the various subdivisions this will be just like Jamesway and Meadowbrook on the east side. There were some early streets in the Maplewood subdivision that were the minor streets, not Maple Street, but some of the side streets that were 31 feet and this Board asked that that be changed to 35 feet and the regulations were made to 35 feet back at that time. Probably about when Maplewood was 1/3 done and now they are all now 35 feet and all just about the same. The only ones that are different are the wider ones for instance Aukerman Street and some of those major through streets.
Jordan: How many lots did you say this was Doug?
Kramer and Spitler: 18
Jordan: Any more questions?
Renner: I move for approval of MJ-03-01P.
This motion was seconded by Harold Geeting and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Kieffer, Lane, Geeting, Broderick, Renner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
AB-03-02
- Rolling Hills Sec. 3 - Variance of Setbacks:
Jordan: The applicants is seeking variance on setbacks for Section 3 in the Rolling Hills
Subdivision. The requested variances would apply to the eighteen lots in Section Three, zoned ‘R-1A’. The applicant is requesting that lots 69-72 be allowed front yard setbacks of 35 feet instead of the required 40 feet; and that lots 33, 34, 42, 43, 55, 62-65, 68, 73, and 74 be allowed front yard setbacks of 30 feet instead of the required 40 feet; and that lots 66 and 67 be allowed front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet each, instead of the required 40 feet setbacks.
Who is representing this variance?
Kramer,B: I am Brad Kramer and I am here to represent this case. I made a separate sketch like the one on the board that is highlighted. This is very much a continuation like we have done in the past with Rolling Hills. I think we asked for a similar type of variance with Frizzell’s over in Meadowbrook. The setbacks are at 40 feet and what it does is creating difficulty fitting these larger homes on these lots. The buyers and developer has been comfortable with those lot sizes, the sizes required by the zoning, the setbacks are pretty big and it makes it difficult to fit some of these standard floor plans on the lots. I highlighted in yellow the setbacks so you can see where we are asking for 30 feet and 35 feet. I think in the future sections we are going to do like we have done in the past and ask for 40 feet around the cul-de-sacs and then 30 feet or 35 feet where needed around the main lines of the streets. That gives you a little more flexibility for placing the building floor plans.
Broderick: So the way I read this variance you have apparently in Sections One and Two did have variances on just specific lots, it wasn’t the whole subdivision?
Kramer B.: How it was before, and maybe it was achieved with a less formal process, it was a okay by John in the past said that was fine if you go with a different set backs other than cul-de-sacs yeah this is a continuation of what was done before.
Jordan: We approved a blanket variance on Section One and Section Two.
Kramer B.: Well then it has went through the whole application process.
Jordan” Lot #66 and #67 wanted rear yard because of the earth and mound there.
Kramer B.: That was basically because you could, that is one of those double fronted lots with 40 feet on each side especially with an increased right of way on East Avenue which we are going to be dedicating additional right of way. That really limits your ability to place a house in there, so that’s the reason for asking for those lots as well.
Fisher: Really Brad they could build a house on those lots either way.
Kramer B.: I think so but I am not sure if our covenants don’t restrict that.
Fisher: I mean you could have a house facing East Avenue but your driveway comes out on Rolling Hills Drive.
Kramer B.: I suppose so.
Fisher: With 30 feet you are covered either way the house faces.
Kramer B.: I looked at the definition of double fronted lots, what’s considered front and what’s considered rear --------its’ really a fact that we have additional right of way on East Avenue and it really makes it narrow in there.
Jordan: Doug was there anything in staff review that is concerned.
Spitler: The main concern was the fact that those two lots 66 & 67 were not going to have access onto East Avenue. The access would have to go onto Rolling Hills Drive. That was the only other concern that I had.
Renner: You could control that with driveway permits, right.
Jordan: As long as you can control that down the road if that would occur. I don’t see how that would but you never know. We can certainly take care of it by motion if you wish.
Spitler: Do you have a preference, Donnette?
Fisher: I didn’t hear the question.
Spitler: We can control the access through our driveway permits, but they can take care of it through a motion as well. Do you prefer which way they would do that to make sure their driveways are accessed on Rolling Hills Drive instead of East Avenue if that would occur on those lots.
Fisher: If they want to do it through a motion they can but I think through the driveway permit would be fine. We can do it through the application of a curb cut.
Jordan: Board members questions?
Broderick: Mr. Chairman I move for favorable approval of AB-03-02 in that it meets standards in Chapter 1133.07 there has been a precedent set that variances have been granted. Motion was seconded by Ron Coleman and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Kieffer, Lane, Geeting, Broderick, Renner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
OLD
BUSINESS;
Jordan: The next item on the agenda is Old Business. Last meeting we discussed the definition of ground signs and portable signs and did we table that or just discuss it.
Renner: We tabled it. I make a motion to remove from table. This motion was seconded by Harold Geeting and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Kieffer, Lane, Geeting, Broderick, Renner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Fisher: The definition for ground signs, those haven’t changed based on the concerns that were brought up in last meeting. What we did do was 1169.03 (h) addressed ground signs which when you look up the definition ----------so I went through with Bob and we revised that section, that is this new language at the bottom of the page which addressed most of the concerns you had.
Temporary advertising signs, what we did, it is still the same definition that I presented to you before but we took the old language that applied to these types of signs, if they are called ground signs and beefed that up somewhat as well.
The third page, we went through the minutes and looked at the questions that you raised and I made a list of the answers.
There are building specifications, the main reason we are doing this is because of the ‘P-1’ district. In ‘P-1’ it states specifically in that section that you are only to have ground sign and wall sign. The way ground sign is currently defined in our zoning code it means one of those yellow signs with the arrows and the flashing bulbs. We now have the YMCA, High School, ESC and we have the new Muni Court. Now some of those, the issue of getting these signs in is going to come up before we get the zoning code re written. So we got to get this issue of ground signs addressed for when it comes up. The Y will be the first one. That’s the reason we are doing this now. The way we have changed it, there is a minimum depth of 32 inches for the ground sign. If the sign is large enough there are design requirements in the building code that the building department will enforce. There are restrictions currently in temporary advertising signs and we just carried that over. It can’t be larger than eighteen square feet for a single faced sign or thirty-six square feet for a double-faced sign. I talked to Bob and he also felt that that was also adequate under our new ground sign definition, so new ground signs will be the same size as well.
Our code defined as temporary, if you put your temporary sign or sign holder on the sidewalk or on the ground within 6 feet of the curb, temporary means not longer than 14 consecutive days no more than twice per year per address. If you place it outside of the City’s right of way or more than 6 feet of the curb then you could do it for 30 consecutive days twice a year. Now an example that Bob gave me of this is Cashland. They do their IRS, Come Cash Your IRS Check. They put a sign up for 60 days, so they use their two 30 days together and then they are done for the year. Temporary, the way it is now in under our code, this is just a temporary fix. We are going to rewrite the zoning code this year and we are just trying to get it to a point it’s going to work for us over the course of the year. Temporary depends on where you have it. If you put it in the right of way or outside of the right of way. Again, those are the same time limits. Basically if you are outside of the right of way you can do it 60 days total and if you are inside of the right of way you are looking at two 28 days total. I ask Bob about the tractor-trailer parked in at K Mart, any attempt to do this he would go to the violation in the Property Maintenance Code. Because we define temporary there are size limitations and they probably wouldn’t be able to do it anyway. What I did was, I went through and highlighted it, anything that is highlighted in yellow are changes that Bob and I made. Basically what we did, this old language of Ground Signs we beefed it up a little for new Ground Signs,
we copied it again, this would be a whole new section 1169.03 (L) Temporary Advertising Signs. That should cover any contingencies until we get codes redone.
Now until you decide what to do about signs I will go on to the open storage.
There is no application in this case. We don’t need one. Amendments can be initiated by motion of the Planning Board. If you decide to make those changes you can initiate them by motion.
Jordan: Okay
Geeting: Under ground signs, the new language #3 No ground sign shall be constructed of combustible materials, you are saying you cannot construct it out of wood of any sort?
Fisher: Bob and I just copied that the way it was before. We can change this back was, Inside the fire limits, no ground sigh shall be constructed of combustible materials, except ornamental features. I guess this was written to think of like the flashing neon signs. We can take that out or do whatever. I imagine that if they are going to put up a permanent ground sign, they are going to anchor it to the ground, its probably not going to be wood.
We could always change that to say that no ground sign shall be constructed of combustible material except inside of the fire limits.
Shannon: Donnette is that for ‘P-1’ only or for all signs.
Fisher: It will apply to all districts.
Shannon: We have some downtown that are predominantly wood and that is a concern.
Fisher: That are ground signs?
Shannon: Yes
Fisher: That would be non-conforming uses.
Shannon: But, should someone else want to put up a sign that would require a variance?
Fisher: If they have ground signs right now, their ground signs are going to become temporary advertising signs.
Shannon: Okay
Fisher: What was ground signs will become temporary advertising signs and as far as those it’s the same. Inside fire limits no ground sign shall be constructed of combustible materials but outside the fire limits, the structural frame shall not be erected of combustible materials. We are completely redefining ground signs and with our ground signs downtown they will be come temporary advertising signs and their restrictions are not changing at all.
Jordan: Well, I was just trying to think of a ground sign downtown.
Shannon: Down in front of Pete Holtzmuller’s building and down where EMT’s have that little cut out in the sidewalk out by the street.
Fisher: My guess those aren’t ground signs. If its ground signs as they are now defined mean temporary advertising signs, that’s what ground a sign is now.
Renner: If Pete’s sign --------- they have been there for fifteen and I would say that is pretty permanent.
Fisher: My guess is that Pete’s sign is a business sign. You have to remember that what was ground sign now means temporary advertising sign. We are shifting its definition.
Jordan: Because the only thing I could think of would even fall under this downtown would be those Party Planners when they put the easel board out there when they advertise occasionally.
Fisher:
That would be a temporary advertising sign.
It is just, for whatever reason, when they did ‘P-1’ they had it did
ground and wall.
Do you have any other questions? Does this address most of your concerns?
Jordan: It’s a little more clear than it was a month ago. I have a better understanding of what we are trying to accomplish.
Ron do you have any more questions?
Coleman: (cannot make out what he said)
Renner: I need to read this more. I can’t vote on this tonight.
Jordan: Do you wish to retable it, we can that’s fine.
Renner: I am only one.
Jordan: Whatever the Board wishes to do. It doesn’t have to be done tonight.
Fisher: I will ask, do you want to table the whole thing or are you comfortable with the Industrial uses or vote on it all at once. That one it didn’t seem to bother anybody no seemed to have any problem with it last time. The highlighted is the new language we added. If you recall the reason we are recommending this is the way our open storage wording currently is in the Industrial districts, it says you are allowed outdoor storage but then it says you can’t have outside storage in the front, side or rear yard. So we did change that. One thing I did add was if the outdoor storage area is in the rear or side yard and it abuts a residential district it has to be at least fifty feet away from the residential lot lines. I also changed to say no outdoor storage area shall be allowed within any front yard, not required front yard. Because if your required front yard is 20 feet, okay here is my required front yard and I am going to put my outdoor storage in this extra 30 feet. So that is why I changed it to any front yard. I also added that if the outdoor storage area is in the rear or side yard that abuts a residential district, the fence shall be of solid opaque material so the people who live there aren’t having to see that.
Those changes were just made. I think that’s they were trying to get to with the old wording. No storage allowed within the required front yard, got to be enclosed by a fence, I think that is what they were trying to get to, it wasn’t just worded correctly.
If you are comfortable with this one and you want to do that tonight, that’s fine or if you want to do them all at once, that’s fine.
Coleman: Mr. Chairman I move that we just table this whole thing until next month.
Jordan: The whole proposed text amendment?
Coleman: Yes
Renner: Second
Roll was called and motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Kieffer, Lane, Geeting, Broderick, Renner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Fisher:
If anybody has any questions while you are reading that feel free to call
me.
Jordan: Is there any other Old
Business? If not we will move on to
New Business.
NEW
BUSINESS:
Jordan:
If you look at the draft we got the first half was just basically a
lesson, an introduction, a long introduction to a book.
It’s good to hear it, where the City was and where it is going, where
it hopes to be. When you get to the
back of the book it is where we need to concentrate.
Broderick: I kind of felt when I got to the back when they are talking about proposed changes, if you read a section, say East Avenue for example, it invariably would say, should remain as is. I just got the feeling that there were very few concrete recommendations to change. It should stay suburban residential, it should stay ‘R-1’, it should stay Commercial or whatever, There just weren’t very many changes back in there. Did anyone else get that feeling? There might have been one or two but out of all of that it was just pretty much status quo.
Geeting: I think what they were trying to do is take what was there now and just build on it for the future, not thinking about changing what’s there now. That is the idea that I got out of it.
Fisher: You are saying to be more detailed instead of saying, as is ‘R-1A’ it should stay ‘R-1A’.
Broderick: And why should it.
Fisher: This is not law, it is the policy on which we are going to formulate the law, which is the zoning code. Make sure you have got the policy the way you want it.
Coleman: One of the things I found interesting was that they had Five Points in there and how it should be addressed and I thought of one of the meetings when Doug (Kramer) had said that he addressed that 20 years ago and it is still there.
Broderick: It doesn’t really address it at all.
Geeting: One thing they didn’t do, they said change it but didn’t say how.
Fisher: They may not know how to change it until something happens up there. The one thing it is that you want to be careful of, since this is just policy, this is going to be policy for the next five years. You want to be somewhat specific but not too specific that you are locking yourself into, this is absolutely how it is going to be. You could have done the last zoning code, okay we are going to keep everything out on 732 residential, period. Nothing but residential, that’s all we want there. What happens when the school comes in, ESC comes in, the church comes in based on the conditions that’s proper for that out there now. So you want to give yourself enough leeway if things change in an area you’ve got the leeway in your policy to do that.
Jordan: I look at it like it is a road map and road maps are subject to change due to engineering specifications.
Fisher: Yes, you just need to give yourself enough wiggle room so things can change.
Jordan:
So I would say if anybody has any comments or you want something looked
at, get a hold of someone on the staff here at the City Building. When we get
the revised, revised, revised when we are happy with it then we will move it
forward.
Geeting: Will the updated version coming out this next week have all the maps and charts in it?
Shannon: I hope.
Jordan: I guess just approach it with an open mind and remember that its our Comp Plan not theirs.
Fisher: They are not going to have to live with it for the next five years, you guys are.
Jordan:
If you are not happy with it we will get it so you are happy with it.
Kramer: If I could just suggest, it is difficult for you to know how to apply this document that’s you are going to do and it is just like Donnette said it needs to have plenty of wiggle room in it. I am sitting here trying to decide if the same reaction happed five years ago and everyone got together and specifically requested it not have any fluff in it. The only way I could view this as a Board member would be to try to think of some specific cases where I have applied that plan and the north end may be an example. Where have you applied the plan and how have you used it. Try to decide whether this worked for you. The only way to really make use of planning as a tool is to somehow look back. Look back and see how it worked for you before such as on 732. That more or less amounted to a more contemporary look as to what seemed to be best out there for the different uses that have come up. I think it is real frustrating to try and define planning. I was just sitting here thinking about that.
Jordan: Hopefully this Comp Plan will be good for five years. What is our one now ten years old. Hopefully it won’t take that long to re do it again.
Kramer: One of the elements is a good transportation plan. I thought it was interesting that there were some pedestrian routes.
Coleman: This one had that part about soils and different soils and all of that. When I was reading that I was wondering about that thing that was in the paper about the school out there, having all that water in the soil and having to put lime down. Would that have been something that would have helped them. Didn’t they look into that?
Spitler: As far as their specific problem, I don’t know. Looking at how you would use a soil map, I guess if there was a really bad area that was identified in the Comp Plan and the developer was wanting to develop there, Planning Board, I don’t know if they could stop that, they could definitely make the developer aware that this was a bad place and whether the developer wanted to continue or not and get into a problem. At least you have it shown on your Comp Plan as an undesirable place to develop.
Fisher: What kind like flood plain.
Spitler: I don’t know.
Fisher: If it is a situation like that, you got an area that shouldn’t be developed because it is a flood plain, then what you do is in your zoning code you de a flood plain overlay district. Yes it may be residential but in these areas there is a flood plain overlay. If you are going to try to develop it you have all these other requirements you have to meet as well. That is how you get to that, in your zoning code. You can do overlay districts based on conditions that if they are going build in a certain type of area, if this was Florida it would be swamp land, you can do a swamp overlay district. If you are going to try and build on an area where there is sand or quick sand there are all these other requirements you got to meet.
Geeting: Your question concerning the school. They should have known the type of soil that was there and that they did have moisture in it and planned for that. The fact that it came out in the paper the way it did who knows that might be just.
Coleman: I was wondering if that was going to be mold later on.
Kramer: They did know what that soil contained.
Jordan: Any other new business?
Ron Coleman moved to adjourn and Joe Renner seconded - Motion approved.
__________________________________ _________________________________
Secretary Chairman