REGULAR MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING
ZONING AND BUILDING BOARD ON NOVEMBER 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 November 11, 2003, at 7:30 a.m.
The roll was called and the following was found to be:
Present: Ron Coleman
Chris Atkins
Tim Lane
Harold Geeting - Vice Chairman
Gary Wagner
Joe Renner
Tom Jordan - Chairman
Also in attendance were City Manager Dave Daily, City Engineer Doug Spitler and Law Director Donnette Fisher.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the August 12, 2003 meeting were read and approved with one correction made to the end of the minutes; Joe Renner made a motion to adjourn the meeting not to resign the meeting. Joe Renner made a motion to approve the minutes with this correction and Ron Coleman seconded. Motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Geeting, Wagner, 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-03-05
- Board of
Preble County Commissioners/Health Department - Public Hearing:
Jordan: The first item on the agenda tonight will be Z-03-05, a Public Hearing. Board of Preble County Commissioners/Health Department, 615 Hillcrest Drive from ‘R-1A’, One-Family Residential District to ‘P-1’, Professional Service District. The applicant is proposing to move its offices and health facilities from North Barron Street to this location.
Who would like to represent this request for the County?
Spencer: My name is Stan Spencer and I am with the Preble County Commissioners. What we are asking to do, we are moving the Health Department from its current location on South Barron Street to the former Children’s Home on Hillcrest Drive. They are crammed in their present quarters and we saw that as a good facility to serve the public as health matters coming to that location. It is a good use for that facility once it was vacated and we saw that as a good move. In its current zoning, we are asking that it be rezoned to Professional Services which is what that facility will do.
Jordan: Thank you. Doug would you like to give staff review?
Spitler: In accordance with Chapter 1133.03 (b) (2), Planning Board reviews and makes recommendations on proposed zone changes to City Council in accordance with the comprehensive development plan. Also, the regulations of Chapter 1135, Amendments, apply to this application. The tract is currently zoned ‘R-1A’ and the requested zoning is ‘P-1’. The intent of the ‘P-1’ district is to provide for professional, institutional, community and limited commercial uses outside the Central Business District. This District is intended to be located adjacent to primary arterial streets. All ‘P-1’ districts should be a minimum of 10 acres in size.
The Comprehensive Development Plan indicates a future land use designation of ‘Institutional for this tract. Additionally, the comp plan shows tract in the Southwest Planning Area and recommends this planning area be developed as a combination of Institutional, Estate Residential and Recreational and Open Space. The zoning request must meet condition (a) or (b) through (d) of Chapter 1135.01 for favorable consideration.
I have the Comp Plan on cd, so if there is anything you want to look at, I would be happy to put it up on the wall there for you.
Jordan: Is there any board discussion?
Wagner: The school property across the road is ‘P-1’?
Jordan: Correct. Mr. Spencer?
Spencer: Yes.
Jordan: Were you aware of the site plan requirement, you must submit a site plan on this?
Spencer: I wasn’t until today; I was made aware of that today. We will get that to you.
Jordan: I see this as a good use for that area. The school area is there with 70 plus acres and is ‘P-1’ and we have all the professional services coming into that area. It looks like a good zoning change to bring it in line with the other areas around it.
Renner: What is the acreage on that area?
Spitler: Children’s home is 12.23 acres and the Art Association is 2.133 acres, so combined it will be 14 plus acres.
Wagner: I must state that I agree with Tom here in that with the school being zoned ‘P-1’ it seems appropriate that those two plots should also be ‘P-1’ for their purposes they are going to be for. I will support that.
Geeting: If I am not mistaken the ESC is also ‘P-1’.
Spitler: Right.
Renner: I move for favorable recommendation on Z-03-05. I believe it is more appropriate and conforming to the area. Obviously you have a lot of ‘P-1’ building in that region. There has been substantial change in area conditions with the closing of the Children’s Home and the plans for using it as office space, seems more appropriate at this time.
The motion was seconded by Gary Wagner and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Geeting, Wagner, Renner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Z-03-07
- Board of
Preble County Commissioners/Art Association - Public Hearing:
Jordan: The next item tonight is Z-03-07, another Public Hearing, Board of Preble County Commissioners/Art Association, 601 Hillcrest Drive. The applicant has applied for a rezoning of the Art Association property from ‘R-1A’, One Family Residential District to ‘P-1’, Professional Service District.
Would you like to add anything to that Mr. Spencer?
Spencer: Other than the fact that we are the owners of the building and the property that they have the art association on but, they run the building there. It is a matter of legalities and the way they put things together. One thing I might say, you say that ‘P-1’ is coming to all those facilities in that area. When ESC was built it went in with that going in and I think this would be a good way to make all of that conform in that area. We ask that you might consider it in that way. Again, it is a public use, institutional. Everyone knows what the Art Association does.
Renner: When the lot was divided off for the Art Association it was just left what it was before, ‘R-1A’, I take it?
Wagner: Again, I think this is exactly the same situation that the other hearing was for.
Jordan: We are just moving down street.
Renner: How does the fact that it is only 2 whatever acres?
Fisher: What that section says is, that it is not the individual parcels have to be an acreage, byt the district as a whole. In that area it certainly meets the 10-acre requirement.
Renner: I move for favorable recommendation of Z-03-07. I believe it is more appropriately conforming to the area and the changes in the area with new buildings being constructed and approvals that have already been granted.
The motion was seconded by Harold Geeting and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Geeting, Wagner, Renner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Z-03-06
- Eric Deeter - Public Hearing - 1417 E. Main Street:
Jordan: The applicant has applied for a rezoning of the old bowling alley property on St. Rt. 35 East, from ‘C-3’, Community Commercial, to ‘C-1’, General Commercial. The applicant wishes to change the building and parking lot into storage areas for motor vehicles, boats, trailers, RV’s and travel trailers. This use is not allowed as a permitted use or a conditional use in the ‘C-3’ District; however, it may be allowed as a conditional use in the ‘C-1’ District.
At this time I will chair this meeting, but I will abstain from discussion and voting.
Earley, D.: Dirk Earley for Mr. Deeter. At this point I think everyone knows what the planned use is. Mr. Deeter, after the fire at the Bowling Alley, basically for economic reasons was pretty much forbidden from rebuilding the facility and using it in that manner. The economic use of it at that point pretty much outweighs the cost of rebuilding it and bringing it up to code the way it is now. The building has been there for twenty-five plus years and wouldn’t meet the building code now. What he sees is a lack of storage for people for boats, recreational vehicles and wants to make use of the property to store those for the people in the city and county. So what he is requesting is a change of the zoning to ‘C-1’, which as a Conditional Use in ‘C-1’ storage facilities have been granted before. It is not actually in the City but the county property across the street, owned by Hudson’s, has been zoned for store and lock facilities. I don’t know how long ago the zoning was changed to that but, it hasn’t been utilized for that yet but it has been changed to allow it. You have agricultural across the street and mostly commercial around the property except for one residence stuck back behind everything.
Planning Board
Page 5
November 11, 2003
Renner: It is the Frizzell property that we annexed, directly across from this, the Hudson property is not across from this?
Earley D.: No, but it is caddy corner across from it, we included it in there just because in looking at the map it looks like some small corner of that may be directly across from it. The Frizzell property that is zoned agricultural is directly across the street from most of the property.
Wagner: Let’s bring up a point here. I know that the area behind McCabes Crossing, where Five Points Car Wash is, I think that is zoned ‘I-1’ and they are permitted to park recreational vehicles, trucks and semi trailers in there. I was wondering why you selected ‘C-1’ as opposed to ‘I-1’.
Earley D.: Basically, after discussing it with counsel for the City. It was their suggestion that ‘C-1’ is the place where most of these storage facilities end up in the City and that was their suggestion. Storage for motor vehicles and that type of things were most closely related to the purposes of ‘C-1’ with the car sales and car services that is already approved in a ‘C-1’ district.
His conditional uses are a little bit more closely related to the purposes of a ‘C-1’ district than anything else. As the zoning code now is, I guess there is not a premitted use, until we redo it, for these types of facilities anywhere in the zoning code.
Wagner: When you look at the Comprehensive Development Plan and you look at the East Gateway Planning Area recommendations, are that the north side should be used as Suburban Residential and the south side as Suburban Regional Commercial and Office and Light Industrial.
I think what my concern is that it doesn’t become a junkyard.
Earley D.: I noticed that you have received someone else’s concerns about that to. The plan is for it to be used to store things that people put in storage in the wintertime. Boats from Lakengren, recreational vehicles, travel trailers, things that people are going to take out during the summer and use, which are now being stored in barns all over the county, behind people’s houses or wherever they are. The plan is to use it to store things that are operational and will be used half of the year and won’t actually be sitting there. If they are they are going to be put in and taken out for five or six months at a time. The plan is to use it for operational vehicles not junk.
Wagner: From what I read you were only considering storing the vehicles in the paved areas?
Earley D.: The plan to start with, depending on demand yes is to store them on the paved area. They have fenced all the area and there is parking lot that surrounds all the building, there is grass area out there that could possibly be used for storage also if it is demanded. Long term the plan, at this point, is to use that open span space in the building once they can get architect drawings to actually have inside storage for these things.
Fisher: Mr. Earley and I had talked about that earlier. He is aware that now they can only use the paved area because of current parking regulations. You have to have a hard surface to park on. If the demand was there and they wanted to use that backfield they are going to have to put some kind of hard surface down. It would have to be gravel at a minimum.
Earley D.: Then obviously, being as late in the season as it is, would probably be next year at the earliest when that kind of demand would come up. At this point most people have started to store their things elsewhere.
Coleman: We have seen storage areas in other places that are just used 365 days a year. There is always something there. This is coming in from the east end of our town and this is the first thing you are going to see. Do we want that? That is what we have to look at.
Earley D.: Well, what you are looking at now is not the most attractive thing to begin with. You have an abandoned bowling alley; the building next to it, while it is being operated, is not the most attractive thing to have out there. If there are suggestions to make it more palatable to everybody, I am sure he will be more than willing to listen to those. The fence is up for security reasons and from the way everything else is out there, nobody has gone so far as to figure if more of a solid fencing across the front would be better. I think ultimately that’s probably a suggestion and if it is required it would be considered.
Wagner: Correct me if I am wrong here, if the zoning goes through as ‘C-1’ can we restrict what is stored there?
Fisher: If the zoning goes through we will rezone this to from ‘C-3’ to ‘C-1’. We had actually, when Mr. Earley contacted Bob and I, we had suggested they follow this route because it was the only way we saw you could even make application for this type of use. In the ‘C-1’ district there are different type of automobile uses and we saw this similar to that. If there is a Conditional Use you can put any reasonable conditions you want to apply. You can say only operational vehicles may be stored there, only licensed vehicles may be stored there, you can do that. If you want to say the fence must be opaque, you can do that. That is not part of that rezoning but, when you hit the conditional use, yes.
Wagner: Can we restrict the time of the Conditional Use? Can we make it for a year or two, three and then make the person come back and if we have a problem we can just rescind it?
Fisher: Yes.
Wagner: The areas that are west of Wayne Trace Road are zoned ‘C-3’? That is where the camper place is and the car lot?
Spitler: I believe it is ‘C-1’.
Renner: I was going to ask about the Glatz property, is it ‘C-3’?
Spitler: ‘C-3’.
Wagner: I would like to see something happen to the building besides sitting out there vacant the way it looks. It is not attractive the way it looks now. Again, we are all concerned with what might take place with what is stored out there. I think we would have the option to control that to some degree.
Atkins: What kind of fight would you have if you did put a Conditional Use on it and then you are trying to go back and change it? Would it be a huge deal, once he gets established, to go back and change it?
Wagner: I guess if he doesn’t comply with the restrictions.
Fisher: If anything goes wrong and the conditional use is lost it will remain zoned ‘C-1’. If you look at your packets there was the page with ‘C-3’ and ‘C-1’, a lot of the permitted principal uses are the same. In ‘C-1’ you have a little more intensive uses than you can in ‘C-3’ but, there is not that much difference. Both allow consumer retail, both allow personal service, both allow restaurants and bars, both allow professional and business offices, community services. As you get into ‘C-3’, the things that would be permitted in ‘C-1’ tend to be more conditional uses than in ‘C-3’. ‘C-3’ is usually a little bit of lighter intensity. If something would go wrong with the conditional use then it would still stay ‘C-1’.
Atkins: What I am saying though, if he gets that full of vehicles and gets a lease agreement with people to store them there and a year from now he has it full and he has contracts with people to keep all of these vehicles there and it looks like a junk yard and we don’t like it any more, do we just tell him his conditional use has expired, you have to move this all out?
Fisher: Part of that is what Gary asked before. You can make the conditional use, we can give you a conditional use for a year, two years. See how it goes and if it goes well then you can grant it open ended, done deal. You can put conditions on it that it must be maintained in a neat appearance and no junk vehicles. If those conditions are violated, at that point Bob would let them know that you are in violation of these conditions and if it is not corrected then he could end up losing that permit. There is also our Property Maintenance Code, with certain things that have to be kept neat in accordance with that.
Renner: As we have found before, sometimes applying those standards don’t always work out so well. We have found that many times. We have granted conditional things before and when it came time to enforce that, for whatever reason, it didn’t happen. We have had that happen a couple of times since I have been on. It is something you have to bear in mind.
Jordan: As this is a Public Hearing, if anyone else would like to speak on this matter they are more than welcome to come to the podium and state your name and address and let us know how you fee.
Unger: Jay Unger, I own property just east of the building. My biggest concern is the water situation. We already have a problem there already in my field. If you go back there and blacktop that or fill that dirt in with gravel or whatever, it is going to create more of a puddle out there for me. You won’t be able to farm it at all then unless they open that ditch up in some way to get the water out of there. That is my big concern.
Earley D.: Ultimately that is a concern for what happens if you pave more of that later. At this point the paving has been there for twenty years at least. I can understand the concern for some point in time in the future but, I think that will probably be a concern that will be addressed if something happens and they decide to pave the rest of the 3 ½ acres that is out there. If gravel suffices for parking out there, I would assume that that would be a viable alternative because it would allow the water to drain through it and it wouldn’t create more of a run off than you get from the pavement that is already out there.
Coleman: I sort of go with what Joe said, if we give this conditional use and let it go for so long, this person does it own their own. He didn’t come to us to ask about putting the fence up or doing anything. He just does it, what he wants to do. Maybe that should tell us right here what we have to look forward to.
Earley D.: Other than in the front, the fence was put up too close, in the set back. Not by his doing but by the guy who put the fence up. He said that was where he was allowed to put it so that is where he put it. As far as I know he didn’t need a permit to put a fence up on the property, other than he did violate the set back.
Fisher: He is allowed to fence the property, the only issue is the fence is too tall and too close to the front setback line but, as far as the back and the side, he can fence his property.
Earley D.: He relied on the guy who had been stringing the fence for 30 years when he said, yes we can put it here and only after I heard from Bob did we find out that he was 12 feet into his setback.
Wagner: Does the fence actually go into Mr. Glatz property?
Earley D.: Mr. Deeter and I, the first we heard of this was 32 minutes ago. According to the way the tax maps are and the way they have maintained the property for 25 years, the answer to that is no. I understand he has a survey and hopefully tomorrow I will look at that and we will straighten out if there is actually a boundary line problem.
Fisher: Actually the set back in the very front, I think part of that was that area was already paved before it was brought into the City, so the area that was paved was already into the setback line when that area was annexed in. They just put the fence up along the edge of that paving, not realizing that that paving was into the right of way which created a problem of where the fence is in the front yard.
Earley D.: I understood your question as to be whether he is encroaching on the neighbor’s property.
Wagner: That was my question if he was encroaching on that property.
Earley D.: I have seen the letter. I got it today and this is the first Mr. Deeter has seen it to. Hopefully I will get to look at a survey that he sent along with that. According to the way the property has been maintained for 25 plus and the way the maps from the county office came, everybody assumed that the property line was where the property line was. We will look at the survey and we will correct the boundary issue.
Fisher: That is a private civil issue.
Earley D.: Nobody had any intention of encroaching on his property. They fenced off what they had been using as their property for 25 years.
Wagner: When you look at the standards 1135.01, it goes along with the Comprehensive Plan to some degree by description, but it doesn’t, in my mind, meet those conditions that are in 1135.01. There haven’t been any existing land use changes for the area.
Earley D.: Which are why we ended up and the conditional use is because it is something that just doesn’t exist in our zoning.
Renner: Is the letter received from Cassano’s, Mr. Ferrazza, does that enter into the record or how does that work?
Jordan: Do we need to officially enter this? We do have one letter here from Cassano’s.
JORDAN READ THE LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 6, 2003
- IN
FILE
Jordan: Did you receive a copy of this?
Earley D.: Yes.
Jordan: Does anyone else wish to address the board about this matter?
Hudson: I am Nancy Hudson and I live at 1265 East Main Street, right across from him.
We have permission for a rent and store. The only thing I have to say is that we have to put a buffer zone on ours and I think they should to.
Jordan: You talking about buffering the front?
Hudson: Yes. We had to buffer it to the City side and to the housing. We are going to use a natural tree line.
Fisher: You are in the county though, right?
Hudson: Yes but we had to take the City into consideration.
Fisher: That is county property.
Hudson: We are surrounded by City property.
Jordan: Anyone else? We will close the Public Hearing. Doug, staff review.
Spitler: Essentially they have covered everything. I was going to read the intent of ‘C-1’is to provide for general commercial activity, including a wide range of goods and services that will serve the region. This District is intended to be concentrated around transportation nodes (such as the intersections of primary arterial streets). This District shall be at least two acres in size. With the combined lots of 1915, 1916, 1917 and O.L. 142, which make up the parcel, it is 3.386 acres in size. As Mr. Wagner said the Comprehensive Development Plan indicates future land use of “Suburban Regional Commercial and Office”. One thing I would just like to add is, the new comp plan has planning areas. It is in the Wayne Trace area and it has recommendations for that. Also, the tract is in the Gateway Overlay District so there are different suggestions in the overlay district. One of the suggestions for the Gateway Corridor encourages the city to enact zoning amendments and design guidelines that address private property development standards such as off-street parking, landscaping, lighting and signage within the corridor. That is all I have that hasn’t already been discussed.
Geeting: Is the new code we are studying at the present time, will it spell out in black and blue or red and white a little bit better how this conditional use would fit in?
Fisher: The new Zoning Code will. In the new zoning code, what we will do is, conditional uses will be broken down more into use types rather than specifically listing them out. So you can look at what fits the particular use type and put any conditions you want on it. It will be a little easier to work with than what we have now. With what we have now I hear so many things that are not listed. As things change, uses change and businesses change there are just so many things that are not listed in there.
Wagner: If we were to deny this request for rezoning to ‘C-1’, under the new zoning could he come back later?
Fisher: He can certainly do that if that is what happens tonight, you are just making recommendation to Council, so Council has final word on that. If you approve it than the next two, Conditional and Variance should be conditioned on Council approving the rezoning. If you make a negative recommendation tonight, then I would suggest you table the Conditional use and the Variance to see what Council does. If Council approves the rezoning then you are going to have to hear those two.
Wagner: So we could actually throw this into Council’s hands without.
Fisher: Council makes the final decision about rezoning.
Renner: Tom, do you need to introduce that letter also from Mr. Glatz the way you did Cassano’s letter?
Jordan: Should we put that into record to?
Fisher: Yes.
Jordan: Here is another letter from Mr. Robert Glatz, Managing Partner – Glatz Investments.
JORDAN READ THE LETTER DATED 11/02/03 – IN FILE
Earley D.: I would also like to have the record reflect that this thing says there is a copy of this memo attached to it, I don’t have it, I don’t know if you guys do. Like I said it was 7:29 p.m. when either one of us found out that they had a problem with any of this. Again, I will just
reiterate that the way the fence was put up was according to maps that came from the tax map department and the guy who strung the fence has been doing it forever and was comfortable with the way it was from the way the property had been maintained. Nobody had any idea until 7:29 p.m. this evening that anybody thought that he had encroached on anybody else’s property. I will go back again to the fence, he didn’t need anyone’s permission to fence the property to begin with so what that has to do with this, I don’t know. Glatz’s property could fence off their
property and they wouldn’t require your permission to do it or mine either. I don’t know that that
has anything to do with it. Obviously we plan to address the problem with the boundary line dispute. Ultimately I don’t know how that factors into your decision, but we plan on addressing that now that we know there is one.
Atkins: The fence you put up there is too tall, right?
Earley D.: In the front, what it is, if the fence is in the set back in the front yard it can’t be over four feet. The guy who strung the fence was going by the state’s setback off of their highway other than the City’s front yard setback. The fence can be where it is, it is just two feet too tall according to the building code. That is what the conditional use or the variance that comes after that is to get the extra two feet of height on the fence that is there. That was Bob’s suggestion, was to request a variance on it and if they say no then we will have to tear it down and move it back.
Renner: Maybe I do not understand? The fence obviously is too tall but it is or does not have to be moved?
Earley D.: It either has to be lowered if it is going to be kept where it is, it has to be either four foot tall or you have to grant a variance on it or it has to be moved out of the set back. You can put the fence in the set back; it just can’t be over four feet.
Fisher: It can’t be higher than four feet in the front yard.
Renner: You keep talking about set back. What does that have to do with it?
Earley D.: There is a thirty-five foot front yard set back.
Fisher: You are not allowed to put anything in that set back.
Renner: So the fence has to be moved and lowered or get a variance, correct.
Earley D.: It has to be moved or lowered.
Renner: If it can’t be in the setback it can’t be in the setback.
Earley D.: No, it can as long as it is four feet or under.
Renner: I am asking our lawyer.
Fisher: I believe it is in the setback. The setback is twenty-five feet and this is 18-20 feet from the road.
Spitler: You mean the right of way?
Fisher: Yes.
Spitler: If it is in the right of way it will have to be moved.
Fisher: I think part of the problem there is, I am not sure if it is in the right of way or the setback.
Earley D.: It is in the front yard setback.
Fisher: They just kind of put it where the edge of the paving was. I don’t think we checked that. If it is in the right of way it will have to be moved.
Renner: So we don’t know that?
Fisher: We are not sure. I don’t think it is. We are probably ok there.
The biggest issue with the fence is height. You are not allowed to have anything above four feet in the front yard and this is six. If the variance is granted he can keep that, if it is not then he will have to move that back.
Earley D.: Out of the front yard or he can lower the fence.
Fisher: Yes, or lower the fence.
Renner: It is either have no fence in the front yard over four feet or get a variance.
Earley D.: Or get a variance to do the six-foot.
Renner: As long as it is not in the right of way.
Jordan: But, first thing they have to do is deal with the zoning.
Renner: You are right. I am sorry; we kind of got off the beaten path. It seems that it all has to be looked at though. The fence is erected. Right you can fence what you want as long as it follows code. You erected the fence, not to code. You erected a fence that may or may not be the right width. We don’t think it is but it may or may not be. There is obviously some conflict with the Glatz property, however that comes out we don’t know. There is no survey apparently, so we have been told. You have been advertising that you are going to have this facility up and running on the internet before you even made application to the City at all. It appears to me that the cart was well before the horse here. I think the demonstration has been as Mr. Glatz hasindicated and as a couple of members have indicated that we may just have a problem before we get started. We may not have to.
(part missing of the conversation)
Spitler: The City has no plans to put sewer in. If the developer wants to do that and dedicate it to the City the sanitary would be available to abutting owners. The storm sewer issue is, there is a storm water improvement committee for the Wayne Trace Road residents that they are working more on the Rocky Run Creek corridor. They are more interested in what is in their back yard not necessarily what is in the field behind Mr. Unger’s.
Hudson: Some of the other problem that I see is evidently Dirk and Eric didn’t receive the letter from Glatz’s. We received ours a week ago. Maybe we should put this on the table for a month and let them have some time to work things over with the letter and they can figure out what is going on. Come back next month and have that done. That is your job it is not mine, just a suggestion. A month isn’t going to kill nobody. It is going into wintertime anyhow.
Daily: I think I would just like to comment here. One of these letters was address to you, Eric, you didn’t receive it?
Detter: I have had no knowledge or contact with the Glatz’s property owners. I am very easy to find. My picture has been in the paper, I have a shown presence on a local, City, community website portal, Eaton Link, I am sure you are all familiar with. If they really had an issue with it they could have found me.
Daily: Becky talked to Mr. Glatz when this came about and we knew there was a letter coming. It was our understanding that Mr. Glatz was going to communicate with Mr. Deeter, that was our impression.
Horine: Mr. Glatz said that Eric would not return his calls.
Fisher: The fence issue is between Mr. Deeter and Mr. Glatz. You don’t have anything to do with it. It is not your responsibility to solve, you don’t have the authority to solve it. It is a private matter between those two parties.
Daily: The point I am trying to make is that I hated that you received this 32 minutes ago. We were under the impression that you were fully aware of this because of the attempts that Mr. Glatz made.
Deeter: Again as you have been told by your own attorney, that’s immaterial in this particular instance. The property issues with myself and the adjoining property owners have no bearing on this board’s decision, correct?
Daily: That is correct Mr. Deeter. Your attorney brought the subject up that he had just received the letter 32 minutes ago and this gentleman brought it up to suggest that this Planning Board
should table it. My point is, speaking for the administration, we were under the impression that you had received it and I am just trying to relay this to the Planning Board. I don’t want them to
be under the impression that there was a breakdown of communication here. It was our understanding from Mr. Glatz, he stated that you would not return his calls. We have a letter that was addressed to you and for whatever reason, it is a situation between you and Mr. Glatz.
Fisher: Just a reminder to the Board, I know this is hard to not just look at this as one thing but it actually breaks down into three separate issues. The fence in the front yard is a variance issue, using it as storage is the conditional use issue, and the first thing you are looking at is just the rezoning. The issue there is does what has been requested meet those standards?
Wagner: By standards you mean 1135.01?
Fisher: Yes.
Wagner: I move that we recommend denial of this application Z-03-06 because of finding of fact that it fails to meet standards of 1135.01. Ron Coleman seconded this motion and it passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Geeting, Wagner, Renner (6)
Nays: None
Abstain: Jordan (1)
Jordan: The next two items on the agenda are Conditional Use and Variance connected to the previous item.
Wagner: I move that we table AB-03-10 Conditional Use and AB-03-11 Variance. This motion was seconded by Harold Geeting and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Geeting, Wagner, Renner (6)
Nays: None
Abstain: Jordan (1)
AB-03-10
- Eric Deeter - Conditional Use - 1417 E. Main Street:
AB-03-11
- Eric Deeter - Variance - 1417 E. Main Street:
Wagner: Mr. Chairman I request a five-minute recess.
Jordan: So granted.
PBR-03-02 - Dr. Jane Smith
- Planning Board Review - 890 S. Barron Street:
Jordan: I will reconvene this meeting. The next item on the agenda is PBR-03-02 - Planning Board Review - 890 South Barron Street. Who is representing this application?
Smith: Jane ???? - 890 South Barron.
Jordan: You can give us a brief description as to what you are requesting here.
Smith: Forgive me. I apologize apparently for the time frame. I had talked to Bob and he had given me the amount of frontage of my building. I have this amount of sign. We made the sign right below that; it is just a standard size sign. After we finally got the design and all that other stuff we find that it has to be so far off the ground, not so tall and I would end up with a banner. That is not what I was hoping for. As far as I know the sign is very appealing, should not be offensive, should be pretty much going along. I assume it may be one of those things that rules are as strict as they are so that everything gets checked through and gets the general okay. That is fine with me I just wish I would have known before because I don’t like to do things this way.
Jordan: Okay. Doug staff review on this.
Spitler: Chapter 1169.03 (i) states that pole signs may be located within required yards, if approved by the Planning Board. It was determined that this was a pole sign and meets requirements for a pole sign. A pole sign must be 15 ft. from another business lot and 50 ft. from a residential district line. The maximum size of any face of a pole sign is 50 square feet and the requested area is 40 square feet per face. The pole sign should not exceed 40 feet in height, which it does not. It is only approximately 6 feet in height. The tract is currently located in a
‘C-1’ district.
Jordan: So basically what you are telling me is the only reason we have to grant this is because it is not 30 inches ground clearance?
Spitler: Bob initially review this and that is what he had determined.
Fisher: I don’t think you have any problems in setbacks or anything, it is just that under our zoning code, and a pole sign in this area, the Planning Board has to approve it.
Jordan: So what is actually the ground clearance now?
Spitler: I don’t know either.
Smith: The other thing is that the plastic on the outside can be lifted up so that we can ???
Spitler: I would say it is about a foot, which would put the sign right at about six foot.
Wagner: So, if we approve it does she have to move the sign up to 30 inches from the bottom?
Jordan: She is just asking for a variance on that ground clearance, being it is classified as a pole sign in our code, which actually it isn’t a pole sign just classified as a pole sign.
Smith: If I can ask for the pole sign then I can shift it up and we would get the ground clearance.
Spitler: I think the ground sign is the one that requires the 30-inch clearance. This did not meet. I think at first it was thought to be a ground sign but because it did not meet the 30-inch clearance, is now a pole sign.
Renner: The pole sign simply needs our approval?
Fisher: Anything over 6 feet is automatically a pole sign.
Spitler: Okay, that is correct.
Wagner: I went down there and looked at the sign and it is a very attractive sign.
Renner: All we need to do is to approve a pole sign on that lot.
Fisher: Basically, whatever 1169.03 (i) says, Pole signs may be located within required yards, if approved by the Planning Board.
Renner: So moved. Seconded by Ron Coleman. Motion was passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Geeting, Wagner, Renner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
PBR
-03-04 - Jack
Conley Homes - Planning Board Review - 414 N. Barron Street:
Jordan: The next item on the agenda is PBR-03-04 – Jack Conley Homes, 414 North Barron Street, for a proposed permanent sign. Who is representing this request tonight?
Dillman: My name is Matt Dillman and I reside at 221 N. Maple Street and I am representing Jack Conley Homes. We are asking to place a sign in front of our business. I believe that we
meet all the requirements and the setbacks. I don’t know if the zoning is the same as the last one that we talked about but we are 15 foot to the south of the Kramer’s and at least 20 foot to the north of the storage building there. I have a picture of what the sign will look like. It would also
be a pole sign. It would be roughly 8 foot tall and each of the signs are 34 inches and we will have the 30 inches clearance above the ground so that would put us somewhere around 8 feet.
Jordan: Doug do you have anything to add to that?
Spitler: It is the same thing as the last one. One thing to remember is the property that is to the south, owner by Mr. Cobb, and that is zoned ‘C-3’. This one, since it is in ‘C-3’, should not exceed the coping of the nearest building and their sign is 9 feet and it is a two-story building so there should be no problem.
Jordan: Do any of the Board members have any comments or suggestions?
Geeting: I move that we approve the application. Ron Coleman seconded the motion and it passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Geeting, Wagner, Renner, Jordan (7)
Old Business:
Jordan: Do we have any old business tonight?
New Business:
Jordan: Do we have any new business? Being that Mr. Wagner has been elected to City Council and he was appointed to the Zoning Review Committee by this board, I would at this time like to appoint Harold Geeting to that seat to replace Mr. Wagner.
Fisher: Since Council actually appointed that committee, we will take that to Council at the