REGULAR MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING
ZONING AND BUILDING BOARD ON AUGUST 10, 2004
AT 7:30 P.M., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Eaton Planning, Zoning and Building Board met in regular session in Council Chamber on Tuesday, August 10, 2004, at 7:30 p.m.
The roll was called and the following was found to be:
Present: Ron Coleman
Chris Atkins
Harold Geeting
Steve Deffner
Gary Wagner
Tom Jordan
Absent: Tim Lane
Also in attendance were City Manager Dave Daily, City Engineer Doug Spitler and Law
Director Donnette Fisher.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the July 13, 2004 meeting were presented. Ron Coleman made a motion to accept the minutes as written. Harold Geeting seconded the motion and it passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
SWEARING IN:
All members of the audience anticipating to testify before the Board were asked to stand and be sworn in. The Secretary administered the oath or affirmation to the audience.
AB-04-09 – Variance – David & Janice Shock – 300 S. Beech Street:
Jordan: This is a variance of David & Janice Shock. The applicants have applied for a variance from the ‘R-2’ Central Residential District setback regulations to be allowed to construct a new residence at the property located at 300 S. Beech Street, 18 feet from the rear yard line, rather than the required 30 feet. (Because this lot is a corner lot, it has two front yards.)
Who is representing this application tonight?
Shock: We need a variance to sit the house on the lot. We have a sketch here showing Israel Street and Beech Street and it shows the house on a corner lot. The distance on the south side of the lot, where it is marked 18-foot, that will become 30-foot and would become our back yard. It is next to Glen Crowell’s property and his home. The side of his home would be on the south side of the home we want to construct. The 30-foot became an issue, the house is bigger than to allow the 30-foot so we need a variance to make it 18-foot instead of 30-foot.
Jordan: At this time do any of the Board members have any questions for Mr. Shock?
You may be seated and we will discuss your case. Doug, what was staff review on this?
Spitler: The Planning Board makes recommendation to the Appeals Board on variances following Chapter 1133.07 and the Comprehensive Development Plan.
The applicant is requesting the reduction of the rear yard setback from the required 30 ft. to 18 ft. The zoning district is in ‘R-2.’ The variance must meet conditions (1) through (6) of Chapter 1133.07 for approval.
The parcel is in the “South Side” planning area and there are no specific recommendations pertaining to this application.
Jordan: I see, noted on our packet, something about if they combine the two lots they wouldn’t have to have a variance.
Fisher: The way Bob looks at these, this becomes the rear yard because it has more frontage than the front yard. If it was combined into one lot, this would become the side yard and 6-feet is all that is required and they wouldn’t need a variance. They wouldn’t have to have a new survey done. All they would have to do is redraw the deed and state that these two lots once deeded could not be sold separately. That would eliminate the need for a variance. We left it on the agenda tonight because we didn’t know if that would be something the applicant would consider, or if they want to keep it as two separate lots. This lot probably came about before current zoning, but that would take care of the problem without a variance.
Shock: The property is all on one deed. Is it two tracts?
Fisher: The only problem is that it doesn’t say on the deed that the lots cannot be sold separately. That is what we would need it to say for it to legally be one lot. You would have to have that added.
Shock: We didn’t understand that that would be an issue.
Jordan: So what you are saying Donnette, is that if they would just add that language to the deed they would not need to be here tonight and they wouldn’t have to be at the Appeals Board Meeting?
Fisher: Right. I can call Chuck and explain it to him. If that is something you will consider. That means those two lots cannot be sold separately.
Shock: I wouldn’t want the property without the buildings.
Fisher: If you do that you won’t even need the variance. The rear yard will become the side yard when you do that. You are clear that they can’t be sold separately?
Wagner: If they decide to do this, there is nothing they have to do further with the City, just build their home?
Fisher: In order to build their home they need to bring that in and show Bob that it is all in one and that language is on the deed. He would then say that it was okay and that was now a side yard. That is an option. We didn’t know how they felt about combining them like that, so we left it as an option tonight.
Jordan: I will leave it up to you. Do you want to go on with a variance or do you want to add that language to your deed?
Shock: We are interested in starting the house as soon as possible.
Jordan: That would be quicker to just add the language to the deed.
Wagner: Once it leaves here it goes to another Board.
Fisher: Why don’t you just table it and if there is a problem they will be on the agenda in case they need to be.
Ron Coleman made a motion to table AB-04-09 and it was seconded by Harold Geeting. The motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
Jordan: The applicant has applied for a rezoning of the property located at 625 N. Barron Street from ‘R-2,’ Central Residential District, to ‘C-3,’ Community Commercial District. The applicant is proposing to change the use of this property from a single-family residence to a photography business. As this is a Public Hearing, I will open the Public Hearing at this time and anyone who wishes to address it may. Who is representing this application tonight?
Roach: I am Terry Roach. I would like to put my photography studio in there. We are still waiting on some guidance or direction as to which way we need to go. We need to see what it takes to get the ‘C-3’ zoning.
Jordan: Okay. Doug do you have staff review?
Spitler: In accordance with Chapter 1133.03 (b) (2), Planning Board shall review and make a recommendation on proposed zone changes to City Council in accordance with the Comprehensive Development Plan. The Amendment Chapter, Chapter 1135, applies to this application. Requested zoning is ‘C-3,’ Community Commercial.
The intent of ‘C-3’ is to provide for low intensity retail uses providing primarily convenience goods and personal services for community residents. This District is intended to be located at the periphery of residential areas with good access to primary and secondary arterial streets. This District should be approximately one acre in size.
The Comprehensive Development Plan indicates a future land use designation of “Urban Residential.” General recommendations for the lot, located in the “Northwest” Planning Area, state the northwest part of the planning area should continue to be used as Suburban Residential, and the northern and southeast parts should continue to be used as Urban Residential. The remainder of the planning area, which contains mainly larger tracts, should be used as Light Industrial.
This request must meet condition (a) or (b) through (d) of Chapter 1135.01 for favorable consideration.
Jordan: Do any of the Board members have any questions for the applicant?
Deffner: Who is the owner of this property?
Roach: We are.
Wagner: I have a question for Donnette. If we act favorably on this zoning change, could we put a stipulation on the zoning change that if they should abandon or want to sell the property that it reverts back to ‘R-2’? My main concern is if they should decide not to have the photography shop in there that it still stays the same.
Fisher: It would still be Community Commercial. Community Commercial is not as intense as ‘C-1.’ They could do retail, personal services, they could put a restaurant in there, a business office, medical and health related facilities. You can’t put conditions on zoning.
Wagner: Lets say that someone wanted to purchase that lot and put a convenience store in there.
Fisher: A convenient store they could do.
Wagner: A bar?
Fisher: No. Restaurants we allow in ‘C-3’ in the new code but bars we do not allow.
Wagner: What if they ever decided that they wanted to live in a portion of the house?
Fisher: If it is ‘C-3’ then they couldn’t live in part of the house.
Wagner: Do you understand that?
Roach: Yes.
Fisher: That is part of the reason they couldn’t go Home Occupation with this, they are not going to live there.
Wagner: It is tough to act favorably to this because it tends not to agree with (b), (c) or (d). Nothing in the (b), (c) or (d), as it states here, are really applicable.
Fisher: You would have to meet (a) or (b), (c) and (d).
Wagner: That is my point, it doesn’t meet any of them.
Fisher: You decide whether it meets those.
Wagner: I understand what they are trying to do, and I appreciate that. It looks a little bit like spot zoning but I understand what is next to it and what is behind it. Is there still a beauty shop behind it?
Roach: We just spoke to her and we don’t think, because of her health, that there is still a shop there.
Wagner: What kind of signs can go in ‘C-3’?
Fisher: They would be allowed a business sign. Wall signs, ground signs, window signs. They can only have one structure type. If they had a ground sign out front saying Photography Shop, then they couldn’t have a building sign.
Geeting: What were you planning to do about parking? I see in the application that you were going to do away with the shed in the back. Is that a parking area on the side street?
Roach: On the side street. It would only be my vehicle with another customer. It won’t be multiple customers there at one time. We are really looking at a space that will only need to accommodate one to three vehicles at any given time. We could turn the part where the shed is into a gravel parking lot if we are not allowed to use that area on the side street.
It had that gravel all the way, approximately 10-feet from the house and when the City came through and paved the street on Eidson, they went ahead and paved over that gravel area and that is where the church uses to park on Sundays. We were under the impression when we purchased the house, that there are around eight parking spots that are available on the side.
Fisher: How many square feet of floor area do you have? They require one parking space per 200 square feet.
Roach: We would need to ask for a variance on parking because we don’t need that much parking.
Wagner: There is no other option except a zoning change?
Fisher: The only other option is that they could go to the Appeals Board to have it determined that what they are proposing is a use that is similar to what is allowed as conditional uses in ‘R-2.’ If the Appeals Board says that is okay, then they would have to come back here and get a conditional use permit and then go back to the Appeals Board.
Jordan: Does anyone whish to address this tonight? If not I will close the Public Hearing and leave it up to the Board for discussion and decision.
Deffner: How much further north do you have to go on Barron to find ‘C-3’?
Jordan: About three blocks. It would be up to Debbie Drive and Dr. Shafer. To the south you go one block and you have ‘C-3,’ Junction Village, Harvestland Co-Op, Beoddy Oil behind, the print shop and Parker-Hannifin. To me, that would be a good area for ‘C-3.’ You get that transition from heavy industrial downtown, to ‘C-3,’ to residential. I think eventually you are going to see that whole strip ‘C-3.’ If we look at this, I think we can meet (b) (c) and (d). It is more appropriate according to the land use around it. You look on two sides of it and it is already commercial now. That property has been used as a business for the past 30 years. There has been substantial change in the area condition because of the expansion of businesses back in that area.
Atkins: I am not convinced yet. In just looking at it, its not right next to the industrial part and its not right up to the other. It is just in the middle. If it was butted-up as a buffer, it would be a little simpler.
Geeting: I know there has been a business in there quite a few years prior. Recently there hasn’t been, but prior to that there was. I don’t really see much change.
(Not sure who asked this) Was that a home occupation business in there?
Jordan: Yes, Sliver had a business in there.
Atkins: If they lived in the upstairs, could they do it downstairs?
Fisher: If they were living upstairs and they wanted to do it downstairs there is a chance it could come in as a home occupation. They can’t apply for a home occupation because they are not going to live there.
Atkins: Realistically, in theory, that could be something that could happen there.
Deffner: They could rent it out to. Someone else could live there.
Fisher: The home occupation that was re-written has to be accessory to the main use which is ‘R-2.’
Coleman: It has always been insurance since I can remember. This photo business is not like a lot of people going in and out. They are just getting their pictures taken, that is what she does. I don’t see any problem. Parker-Hannifin has been back there for years and the print shop and beauty shop.
Daily: I think in time this Board will be seeing more of this to the area to the south. What was once the downtown City has started going north. Some of the older homes in the area of the high school are now businesses. If you look at the area to the north where the major development is going on now, you have it on both ends. With the traffic going up and down 127 now, that is going to become a commercial area. This is probably the first one we will be seeing, but there will be more in the future.
Wagner: I just want to make it clear that I am not opposed to the photo shop at all, I am concerned if they would close the photo shop and sell the business, what would we be opening it up to in the future. If the new zoning code addresses ‘C-3’ differently than the current zoning code does, then I don’t think it is a big issue. I would hate to see a restaurant or bar there. There is not enough parking for a restaurant anyway.
Daily: Would you feel better seeing the proposed uses in the new ‘C-3’?
Wagner: Yes I would. Is that possible?
Daily: I thought that might be helpful.
Wagner: Has any of the neighbors made any comments?
Roach: The Spencers would be here, but they are on vacation right now. Both of them said they would come and speak on our behalf. We also spoke with Mary at the beauty shop and her hearing is so bad she said she couldn’t make it in. I spoke with Mrs. Lincoln and she has no problems with it. The house directly beside us, Spencers will close on it the day they get back from vacation.
Coleman: Is that church north of them for sale?
Roach: There is a church in the next block that is for sale and there is also a store and lock that is by the print shop. There are things going on. The one across the street is for sale and four houses to the left of us.
Fisher: ‘C-3’ in the new zoning is business professional, business retail, consumer goods as a conditional use and a convenience food store they could do. It was conditional but it was changed. This is not final. It will be coming to this Board to decide. Day care centers are conditional uses, fast food restaurants are permitted, health and personal care, motor vehicle, restaurants are permitted, retail is permitted, skilled nursing facilities are permitted.
Wagner: All of those conditional uses and allowed uses have certain criteria they have to meet?
Fisher: Yes. There was a mention of spot zoning and I am not sure you are clear as to what spot zoning is.
Wagner: Can you give us a short paragraph?
Fisher: A lot of it was, you need to zone for what the use is. That is where we have so many non-conforming uses in the City. We went in and blanketed whole areas with different zoning and it may not have been what the use particularly was, so there has been a lot of uses allowed in areas that aren’t suppose to be there. The beauty shop, a lot of shops around this use are in a residential district and they are not residential uses. They are still zoned residential, but just not used for that. I think they have been afraid to change the zoning to what it should be because that would be “spot zoning.” “Spot zoning” came up more in the civil rights zoning when communities tried to keep out certain groups or low income. There would be an area zoned residential and then quick/ zoned commercial. “Spot zoning” does not mean that we are going to change the zoning to meet what the current conditions of that area are, that is not spot zoning. To change this to ‘C-3,’ if that is what you feel the use in the area is, that is not spot zoning. If they could do this and you went in and changed it to keep them out, that would be spot zoning.
Jordan: Does any more of the Board members have any more questions or comments?
Tom Jordan moved for approval of Z-04-05 based on the conditions they do meet (b) (c)(d) and the change is more in accordance with the land use in the area, especially behind them and to the south of them. There has been a substantial change in area conditions with more businesses growing in that area. There is a need for more ‘C-3’ land in that section of the City. Steve Deffner seconded the motion and it passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Geeting, Deffner, Jordan (5)
Nays: Wagner (1)
AB-04-11 – Conditional Use Permit – Barbara J. Fulton – Adult Day Care:
Jordan: The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to put an adult day care in the building located at 310 N. Cherry , zoned R-3, “Multi-Family Residential.” Who is representing this request tonight?
Felton: My name is Barbara Felton. I am seeking a conditional use on the north annex portion of 310 N. Cherry Street. It is the brick area. I am seeking this for a temporary location for an adult day care. For those of you who are not aware, adult day care is non- residential. It is another long term care option for adults 18 or older. Typically, they are elderly who don’t need to be in a nursing home and may be living at home with family members. Adult day cares operate between the hours of 6:30 a.m. to about 5:30 p.m., so family members who work have an option of dropping off their family member during the day. It would be Monday through Friday. This service delays or prevents institutionalization of elderly family members that don’t need to be in a nursing home.
Jordan: Doug do you have staff review?
Spitler: The proposed conditional use is a permitted conditional use in the ‘R-3’ district. The Board should follow the General Conditions for approval in Chapter 1163.03 (a) items (1) through (3) and the specific requirements of Chapter 1163.03 (b) (1). There is an existing use in the same structure; there are 4 apartments proposed. Off street parking for the apartments require 9 spaces. That is 2 spaces per unit plus guest parking at the rate of 1 per 4 units. Day care centers require 1 parking space per 120 square feet of activity space plus 2 additional spaces, totaling 10 spaces. The applicant has stated that they only need 4 spaces for their use. One loading space should also be provided and required to avoid interference with the public use of the streets or alleys. In looking at our new code, the new code would require one space per employee, plus one space per five children at capacity, plus a drop-off area to accommodate four automobiles. I was over there today. She has provided four different options for parking. In your packets they are A, B, C, & D. The spaces are 9x19; there are a few 18. The arrangement of those spaces are very difficult and the aisle ways don’t provide enough space to get into them. That would be the major concern, parking. The applicant did state that this would be temporary.
Jordan: How temporary are you talking?
Felton: The Council for the Aging has set aside an acre for the permanent location. We need to raise the money for the building. We are trying to establish this service because it will be easier to go out and solicit for funds for the building once the service is established. Hopefully not very long.
Jordan: Doug, you brought up the new zoning code. What is the definition of adult day care in the new code?
Spitler: I don’t think we have adult day care in there.
Fisher: What was that?
Jordan: Do we have a definition of adult day care?
Fisher: Yes, we do. Day Care Center, Adult: Any place where adult day care services are provided with or without compensation for daily average of five or more adults, excluding relatives of the owner or administrator of the center.
Spitler: What do you do for parking with that? Just determine somewhere in here.
Fisher: The new one isn’t in use yet and we haven’t started talking about parking yet.
Wagner: Where you are talking about the turning radius, is that in the back?
Spitler: If you go out the front doors of the High School and face that alley. It is to the right there when you go down the alley. The alley is about 11 feet wide. In our new code, which is not in force yet, we are going to require an aisle way of 22-feet minimum for a 90-degree stall and the alley is only 11-feet. I think you could get some cars in there, but you couldn’t get them stacked in there like that and be able to get out.
(not sure who said this) It was always a nursing home and it worked for that.
Fisher: In the new code, it would be one space for employee plus one space for five people at capacity, plus a drop off area to accommodate four automobiles.
Felton: We will have space, at the most, for sixteen participants. Based on recommended ratios of staff to participants that leaves, four employees. Other than having a place to drop people off, we really only need four parking places plus one or two for visitors. Council for the Aging will be providing transportation for most of the participants. Some will come by private vehicles but our participants definitely will not be driving.
Crelin: Janet Crelin, Director of United Way. The Commissioners will tell you that we have a County that has the oldest medium age of any of the 88 in Ohio, that is 44. If you go to Montgomery County or Greene County, the medium age is 26 and 27. To me, that says that a lot of us are going to have parents who are going to need adult day care immediately or in the very near future. Barb’s problem has been finding a place to get started so people can see that this is a service that she can provide and then she can move on. She has been working on this for almost two years, to find a place. We need it in Preble County and we don’t have anything like it right now.
McMann: I am Alice McMann, Director of Preble County Council of Aging and I have been with my agency 20 years in November. My mother attended adult day care in Dayton in 1986 and 1987. Since that time, I have been looking for a location for adult day care, at different times and different providers, and have not been able to come up with one. This sounds like a good place to locate a day care center. The funders, you have to meet their requirements in order to receive funding for any of the ones who attend. That means bathroom ratio and staff ration and all their regulations. I think this is a great opportunity to get this set up in this area. We don’t have an adult day care here. We transport to Richmond and we have transported to Dayton for people to attend. I feel the time is right and it is overdue.
Jordan: How does the Board feel about this meeting the requirements?
Wagner: I am just going to go back and in the past this was a nursing home for many years and didn’t seem to be an issue. It is a temporary issue we are dealing with, and I agree with the ladies that this is a service for the elderly people in the community, and I think we should look at it favorably at this time. If the Board would like to put a time stipulation on this it might be something we could do also for a conditional use.
Fisher: Conditional Use means that you can put whatever condition you want on the permit. You could make it for six months, a year or whatever.
Wagner: I am not saying that is necessary but if there is some apprehension about favorably approving this (could not make out because of train)
Daily: That way you could periodically review it annually to see if there are any problems.
Jordan: I think that would be a good idea to put some kind of time stipulation on it so we could take another look at it and if there is a problem we could try to correct it.
Wagner: You don’t have a time frame on this?
Felton: How long does it take to raise $250,000.00?
Wagner: That would take a long time.
Felton: I would tend to think two to three years.
Wagner: If we were to put a year conditional use on this and review it every year would that be something you would have a problem with?
McMann: I look at the calendar and it is August. Getting the facility prepared will take several months so when you say conditional use, it won’t actually be used for that for four to six months from now. I have not problem with the review just so you know it won’t be operational in three weeks.
Jordan: I would be comfortable with the year review. Especially with you starting up and the school starting up and a new batch of kids going into the school at the same time. This would give both entireties a chance to feel each other out and see how things are working. You will see more parents dropping kids off rather than parking there now.
Wagner: Since the start up time is six months, I would feel fine with a review in two years. Then we could see what kind of issues we have at that time.
Felton: The location issue has truly been a wall. I can’t hire staff and there are other things I haven’t been able to progress with.
Atkins: How many adults will you be able to watch there?
Felton: Based on the square footage it would be sixteen at the most. That is why we hope it would force us to need a larger location because we hope to serve twenty to forty.
Geeting: Is this a completely separate structure from the main house that is there or is it connected together?
Felton: Connected together with a firewall.
Cahill: This area would be entirely separate as far as access but it is still connected to the apartment area.
Geeting: We can do a conditional change on just part of a building?
Fisher: I am not sure that I understand the question.
Geeting: On a conditional permit, can we do that on a part of a building rather than it being a separate structure?
Fisher: You are giving them a permit to use and it is whatever you put in there. We are giving you a conditional use to use this as residential. Yes, you can do that.
Geeting: Does that have to be completely sealed off from the rest of the building?
Fisher: By the building code I don’t think it has to.
Wagner: I don’t think we need to be overly concerned about that. If we give them a conditional use for that structure, then the whole structure can be used.
Jordan: They are just asking for a conditional use for the annex, the north part.
Atkins: It will still remain ‘R-3.’ You are just allowing more to go on there than what we allowed anyway. We are being more lenient than more restrictive.
Fisher: You can even state in your approval that you make a recommendation of the conditional use for 20 adults, you can make that part of the condition of the permit.
Wagner: I make a motion for favorable approval of case AB-04-11 with the conditions that the conditional use will be in existence for two years in which it will be reviewed again by this Board, and that the conditional use is for the annexed portion of the structure, as applied for and that it meets the specific requirements in 1163.03 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) and (f) and (b) (1). Required parking should be in the rear, which it does. No more than 10 parking spaces will be required to comply with the zoning code, which it does. An A or B-type buffer yard shall be provided at the side and rear boundaries of the site, depending on the intensity of use, it does. One sign not more than five square feet shall be allowed, and the sign may be lighted only indirectly. The structure shall be of the same scale as other buildings in the area and in no case shall be larger than the average size of the immediately adjacent structures and the use shall not generate an excess amount of traffic on residential streets.
Ron Coleman seconded the motion. Motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
AB-04-08 – Variance – Bob Evans Farms, Inc. – 1700 N. Barron Street:
Jordan: The applicant has applied for a variance from the ‘C-1,’ Central Business District, sign regulations to be allowed to have two structure type signs (pole sign and wall sign) instead of the allowed one structure type and to be allowed to have 138 sq. feet of signage instead of the allowed 120 square feet. Who is representing this application tonight?
McKinney: My name is Rick McKinney and I work for Bob Evans Restaurants. As you mentioned we are requesting a variance from the 120 square feet that is permitted by the ordinance and we are asking for 138 square feet. Just to give you a little background on what we normally have on our restaurants. We normally have about 232 square feet of signage. A 100 square foot sign in the front, a pole sign, and then three 44 square foot signs on the building, one on the front, one on the left side and one on the right side. What we have done is to reduce the size of the pole sign to 50 square feet, which is half of what we normally have, and we obviously always have the 44 square foot sign on the front of the building. What we are asking for is one additional sign on the right side of the building, which would be the same as the one on the front. I could go into a lot of detail as to what signage does for us and how it helps. I would like to have a 100-foot high, 500 square foot sign there but that is not an option. That is what we are asking here, is what we normally have, we have look at what we could use here and what would be effective for us and that is what we are asking, for the additional 44 square foot sign.
Jordan: Doug do you have staff review?
Spitler: I would like to ask one question before I do. The sign that says BE44, that picture shows two Bob Evans signs on one side. There is one pole sign, one sign on the front on the wall and one sign on the wall on the right side.
McKinney: Right.
Spitler: I think your photo is wrong on the BE44. At the top of the restaurant, the one on the right would not be one.
McKinney: I think what has happened there is that the sign was originally on the back portion of the building on all of the restaurants and they moved it to the front section. The one towards the front is correct.
Spitler: The applicant is asking to increase the total sign area to 138 square feet from the allowable 120 square feet and they are requesting two structure types instead of the one allowable structure type. The zoning district is ‘C-1.’ Business signs for a single business shall not have greater than one and one-half square feet of sign area for each linear foot of width of a building occupied by the enterprise, not greater than 150 square feet, whichever is less. They have 80-feet across one side, allowing the 120 square feet. Only one structure type is allowed for each building and only two business signs are allowed for each enterprise.
The variance must meet conditions (1) through (6) of Chapter 1133.07 for approval.
Jordan: As the Board members know, we need to look at the standards on this and see if the meet the standards in order to grant this variance. We are dealing with two things, more signage than they are allowed and two structure types in ‘C-1.’ They should be allowed to have a pole sign or a wall sign.
Fisher: Just so you know, in the new code we are not allowing pole signs at all. We had hoped to get this into effect before all that new development went in. They would be allowed a ground sign. Some of the restaurants up around Columbus you will see ground signs out front. Maybe they would consider doing that and it would be allowed. They would be allowed in the new code a wall sign and a monument sign, eliminating pole signs.
Jordan: In the new code you can have one of each or just one in the district?
Fisher: You can have both.
Jordan: You can have both? I wanted to be sure on that.
Fisher: A variance for a monument sign and a wall sign would not be that out of wack with the new code as a pole sign, a monument sign instead of a pole sign.
McKinney: How big can the monument sign be?
Fisher: One square foot per lineal foot of frontage. I am assuming that means building frontage.
McKinney: That would be a really small monument sign.
Fisher: You could still ask for a variance on square foot allowed, it just wouldn’t be a structure variance.
Spitler: The building frontage is 80 feet along one direction, along Washington Jackson Road and 67.66 feet along North Barron Street.
McKinney: I think she is talking about lot frontage.
Spitler: 230.44 feet and 209.58 feet.
Jordan: I would think that would be building frontage not whole lot frontage.
Spitler: If this pole sign is only going to have an area of 50 square feet and the new code would allow 80 square feet and if that would be frontage of the property that would be 230 square feet, that is a large sign.
Jordan: Is it lot size or building size?
Spitler: Currently our code allows you to select, I will read it to you. For the purposes of this section, width shall be measured along the building face nearest parallel to the street line. In the case of a corner lot, either frontage may be used in determining width, but the frontage selected shall be considered the front wall of the building for the purposes of this section. This says you can use either one, so what Bob did was to take 80-feet, which is the larger of the two, multiply it by one and one half give you 120-feet. I am not sure if that is what the new code says or not.
Wagner: What we are trying to decide here is whether or not we will accept the monument size opposed to the pole sign?
McKinney: What we are actually asking to vary is for the additional building sign.
Atkins: And the pole sign because the pole sign is too big too, right?
McKinney: No, it is 50 square feet and that is allowed. We are normally 100 square feet and we reduced it to 50 square feet.
Fisher: It is building frontage.
McKinney: It is building frontage? That is a very small monument sign.
Fisher: It is one square foot per lineal foot of frontage as defined or 40 square feet or whichever is less. It is not set in stone yet.
McKinney: So, how big of a monument sign?
Fisher: Forty square feet that would be 6x6?
McKinney: So you are going six feet from ground?
Jordan: Hasn’t Bob been determining the signage as one square footage and then structure as another?
Fisher: The monument sign is one is like the “Y” has and the Municipal Court has.
Jordan: Municipal Court is more than a 6x6.
Fisher: The Bob Evans in Richmond, is that a monument or pole?
McKinney: Pole.
Wagner: Don’t you think we need to act on what he is asking for and either deny or approve and go forth from there?
Coleman: Or we could table it until you guys get something straight here.
Fisher: We see too many sign variances coming through because our sign regulations are so messed up. I guess what we were suggesting as staff to the Board is, if you want to consider this as a variance, maybe you could consider this as a variance for a monument instead of a pole, which is called ground sign in our current code. There won’t be any pole signs allowed in there so this would bring it more in line. I think they would still need a variance on the square footage.
Daily: What we are trying to do with the new code, you come into town now and you got these forest with the big trees. We are trying to go like the other communities Centerville, Dublin where it is clean when you pull in. Communities where you see these ground signs similar to Municipal Court or something like the YMCA. That is where we are trying to go with the developments to the north. As Donnette mentioned, instead of doing a variance for a pole sign do a variance for a monument sign.
(Unable to tell who) What about Wal Mart, what are they?
Daily: That is a whole another animal. They are a pole sign, but we spent almost two years in Federal Court, that came out of the Federal Court Order. It wasn’t what we desired but the judge ruled on it.
McKinney: Is there a way to make the approval contingent upon us putting a monument sign in. Can that be done?
Fisher: It has to go to Appeals Board. You could certainly do that if you wanted to recommend favorable approval to Appeals Board, condition it upon them bringing to Appeals Board a monument sign application instead.
There are going to be so many Eaton people there all the time that you aren’t going to have to worry about bringing traffic in.
Daily: Let me ask you a question. You are obviously in business with new construction. What do you find the trend to be in other areas?
McKinney: It varies. There are a lot that are still using the pole signs. I would say it is 50-50 right now. It also depends on the development. I am not as familiar with this site. I am standing in for Scott Wallace, I was standing in for him last time. He is in Dover, Ohio tonight. I am not as familiar with this location, I have driven by it and you bring up a good point and I don’t think the monument sign is going to fit.
There is a parking space that is 19 feet on here and the grass strip is probably 10 feet that number looks like 11. It looks like there is 29 feet of grass strip on the corner.
Fisher: That is probably where they want it, on the corner, right? Without interfering with the traffic.
McKinney: That would be the next thing to look at, but it is going to be light controlled, so unless someone is running the red light you don’t need a lot of sight distance.
Fisher: But there is room?
McKinney: There appears to be.
Fisher: How quickly does this need to be approved?
McKinney: That is one of the last things done. The big issue is that when they start construction they need to know about running electric, foundations and things like that.
We just closed on the property.
Fisher: That is the only thing I would say and it is up to you, if you want to send it on to Appeals Board and let them decide. If you want to see it again, if they do a monument sign, they will need to measure, can they fit one of these out there, where are they going to put it, are we talking about the same amount of square feet area total sign?
McKinney: I am thinking that is bigger than the 50 square foot one.
Wagner: That depends. Do you count this as part of the sign or do you just count the sign?
Jordan: I think you just count the sign.
Wagner: Then the actual sign that he is showing here is 5 foot x 10 foot and 5x10 is 50 square feet.
McKinney: The other question is height. Do you have a height requirement for it?
Wagner: This sign is 8 foot from the ground to the top of the sign. The sign area itself is only 50 square feet.
McKinney: Most of the time they give you the size of the sign and they give you how tall the sign can be.
Wagner: I got no problem with this sign. It might not meet the code in height here. It is 8 feet and the code says 6 feet but it is 50 square foot.
McKinney: You bring up a good question. How do you measure the size of the sign? The reason I am asking is that we measure, the one that you are showing on that building, we just square it in. That is how we come up with 44 square feet and in other areas that I have been in the ask me to actually measure the square footage of the letters. I know for sure that that one is only about 32 square feet once you do that.
Fisher: Bob does the total sign area, doesn’t he?
Daily: Right. He does not use the frame, but the actual sign area. The dimensions of the sign.
McKinney: There isn’t any frame on ours, it is just script letters. I was wondering that because they said we want to know exactly how big the letters are and I have to have somebody do that for me.
The reason I brought it up is that if you take two of our wall signs, we are under the 120 square feet then. That was going to be my support position.
Fisher: If they don’t have to have this done right away and you want to see it again, if you can wait a month, it is up to you.
Jordan: I think the Board can make a decision and forward it on to the Appeals Board.
Fisher: The square foot is going to be different, somewhat, and you have a different construction type.
Jordan: How soon do you need your signage approved by?
McKinney: When is the Appeals Board?
Daily: You are looking at the fourth Monday, Doug when is that?
Spitler: The 23rd.
Daily: The 23rd of August or the fourth Monday in September the 27th.
Fisher: If they can wait until September, do you want to see it again?
Daily: You don’t want that?
McKinney: They will be under construction before then and I will have to have everything in the ground.
Daily: You need to go then on the 23rd to Appeals?
McKinney: Can I ask what it means to go to the Appeals?
Jordan: This Board makes a recommendation to the Appeals Board and then the Appeals Board has final say on our recommendation. It is a two-step process.
McKinney: If for some reason I get back and they say, “No, we can’t do the monument sign.” Is this a situation where we go back to where we have approval to do one building sign and one pole sign?
Fisher: They won’t say that.
McKinney: If we stay with the pole sign and one building sign, we are under the 120.
Jordan: I think what is going to happen if we stay with the pole sign, you are not going to get a recommendation to go forward. You are allowed either the wall sign or the pole sign.
McKinney: No, we are allowed two signs.
Fisher: Under our current zoning code you are only allowed one structure type. So it is your signage on the wall or all your signage on a pole under current zoning.
If you look at C-1 only one structure type is allowed for each building. Structure types are wall, ground, window, projected signs, roof signs and pole signs. So you are actually asking for variance on your square footage total and on being allowed two structure types instead of just one.
Wagner: If he has the ground sign, as he shows here, which is fifty square feet, and he wants the building signs, what is the square footage of that?
Spitler: The same, 138.
Wagner: I don’t want to make a motion for a sign you don’t want to have.
Fisher: What?
Wagner: I don’t want to make a motion for a sign he doesn’t want. He is asking for a pole sign and a wall sign at 138 square feet that will probably not pass. We are saying to him as a Board that we may approve tonight a monument sign or ground sign, as you call it, and the wall sign as allowed, he is allowed two in the new code, which we can’t talk about actually.
Fisher: He is either allowed a wall sign or a ground sign. He is asking for two variances, one on the square footage and one on the two structure types.
Wagner: You have told us that the new code allows for two signs.
Fisher: Yes, the new code completely eliminates pole signs. The new code would allow both types.
Wagner: So, I guess my question to him would be if we approve a ground sign and a wall sign for 138 square foot, would you?
McKinney: 138 square feet that we were asking is two wall signs and a pole sign.
Wagner: So, you are asking for three signs?
McKinney: Yes.
Fisher: They are asking for two structure types. Not two signs total, it is structure types.
Jordan: Under our current code they can either have the ones on the building or the one out front?
Fisher: They could have six wall signs if they wanted as long as they stay in the square foot they are allowed, but they wouldn’t be allowed any other type of signs.
Atkins: If he goes with the monument sign, would that cut down on his square footage any?
Fisher: That would require a variance to.
Atkins: It would still be 138 square feet.
Fisher: What we are saying as staff is that if you are going to be considering a variance maybe you consider a variance on allowing wall signs and monument sign, which is called ground sign in our current code, instead of wall sign and pole sign. When the new code comes into effect, in a couple of months, it’s going to be in conformity with our new code.
Atkins: Then will he need a variance for height because the sign he has drawn is 8-feet and you can only go to 6 foot?
Geeting: Did you say you could alter the height off of the ground, pedestal?
McKinney: We could change the base on it.
Geeting: If you would reduce that down to a foot then you would be within the 6-feet.
Fisher: I am pretty sure that Bob just measures the sign face because if that isn’t how he does it, then we wouldn’t have that new Municipal Court sign.
Jordan: The square footage is not the problem, we are talking about the height of the sign.
Fisher: I think as long as the sign face is not more than 6 feet then you are okay.
Atkins: If we make a motion to approve the variance, it has to meet all six of those?
Fisher: First you have to know if the applicant is willing to amend his application to ask for a monument sign or ground sign instead of a pole sign.
McKinney: If I could get the two building signs. The only problem is I don’t know if it fits. That is the issue. If it doesn’t, then we would have to come back through?
Daily: This gives you a few weeks to get with your people and show them that this is what you are working with and can you go ahead to the Appeals Board.
McKinney: I would need four hours. That is all I need.
Daily: Okay, you can have two weeks. It gives you an option here to meet that August 23rd deadline.
Fisher: The reason we suggested it is because the way the new code is coming with the review committee. We though at staff that both boards would probably be more agreeable to granting a variance on two structure types, monument and wall, than they would wall and pole.
McKinney: I don’t see any problem with a monument sign if it fits.
Daily: It sounds like what Doug has penciled it, you have 29 feet.
Spitler: If the pole sign would fit there, you would chop off the pole and place the top of the pole sign on the ground. It would still fit. I would not want them not to look at it either, but it would fit there.
Daily: Also you would need to know that as that area develops its not like you would be the only one with the monument sign, they all will and you will fit right in.
McKinney: My only concern with it is that it fits. I just want to make sure there aren’t any trees in front of it.
Jordan: There aren’t any trees left.
McKinney: We will put trees in. I don’t have any problem proceeding with that if we can have the two wall signs and do the monument sign. I don’t know which one you would prefer there. I like the one with the keyhole.
Jordan: That is the nicer looking sign. The other one looks like a blank wall.
McKinney: Going back to the code now, you are saying that we can only have a building sign or pole sign?
Fisher: You could only have a wall sign or pole sign.
McKinney: One or the other.
Fisher: One or the other.
Wagner: So you are agreeable to the monument or ground sign.
McKinney: Once I make sure it will fit and we will look at that in the morning.
Deffner: Where would you locate that?
Jordan: See the little cut out there on Washington Jackson? That is where the sign will be.
McKinney: That is a challenge right there. You put a monument sign there and this side is useless, you are going to have cars parked here.
Atkins: It has to meet all six, still?
Jordan: I think.
Atkins: I will make a motion for a favorable recommendation on AB-04-08 on the basis that the pole sign be modified to be a monument or ground sign with the same square footage allowed the monument sign and the two wall signs, based on, Chapter 1133.07 (1) thru (6); and that conditions exist which are peculiar to the property as it is on a corner lot; and providing this would provide them with the relief necessary to have the signs; and there are no conditions or circumstances that result from the actions of the applicant; and that strict interpretation the zoning code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district; and that the variance will not constitute a change in zoning district and would not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
The motion was seconded by Gary Wagner and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
MR-04-04 – Minor Subdivision – Joan Kayler – 1214 Park Avenue:
Jordan: Joan Kayler is wishing to split off a lot, who is representing this application tonight?
Stevens: I am Tony Stevens, Joan’s neighbor and I live next door to her. What we are trying to do here is, I want to buy 75-foot x 51-feet of land. It is right behind my house. If you look up here on the map, Joan now owns these two lots with this whole parcel Lot 92. I own this lot right here that is 75x150. I am wanting to add on the 50-feet and the 75 to go straight out with her. It is just bare land and she is tired of mowing it and she offered it to me and I thought we would go ahead and do it if we can. We did have it surveyed through Mr. Wikle, from West Alexandria. He put the pins out there and staked it. My question is, is there any type of right of way that DP&L or anybody has that you know of that goes through there?
Spitler: We don’t have that kind of information and the best place to find that is at the recorder’s office. You could search the lot and it would show any easements or anything on that lot.
Stevens: My next question is that if you guys okay with it, what is my next step on getting a deed to it and would I have to deed it to the property I have now or could I keep it as a small out lot?
Jordan: You would have to have it all on one deed. Otherwise we can’t create a lot with no frontage and that lot would have no frontage.
Stevens: It wouldn’t have frontage from the back end.
Fisher: Who is going to do you deed?
Stevens: Her son-in-law, John Petry.
Fisher: When he does the deed, he will do a title search on that and he will be able to tell you if there is any type of easements and all he will need to do is to rewrite your existing deed and add that.
Stevens: I think there is a five-foot one, but that doesn’t matter.
Fisher: You will take it subject to any existing easements, but he will be able to tell you.
He will just add that on to your existing deed and then they will just stamp it “minor subdivision no plat required,” and you will need that stamped before you record it.
Stevens: He will be able to take care of that for me then?
Jordan: Basically that was the only thing I saw Donnette was that it would be all tied into one deed, we couldn’t split that off separately?
Stevens: She now has it as an out lot that isn’t tied to her deed.
Coleman: How does she gets to that garage?
Stevens: Her driveway goes all the way to her back garage. There are a couple of little apple trees sitting on the lot I want to purchase off of her. It is right up against the drive to the nursing home. You have a right of way beside my house on this side that is blacktopped and then you go around and it is the nursing homes property in the back.
Jordan: Do any of the Board members have any comments or questions on this?
Wagner: We really are not making this a minor subdivision, all he has to do is to change his deed to include the lot, right?
Fisher: It still counts legally as a minor subdivision.
Wagner: We would have to stipulate that it must become one lot?
Jordan: Right.
Wagner: I move that we approve MR-04-04 minor subdivision, at the rear of Lot 1724 with the stipulation that it becomes one lot.
Ron Coleman seconded the motion and it passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
OLD BUSINESS:
Jordan: Does anyone have any old business?
Coleman: What about the fence at the old bowling alley? What is going on there?
Fisher: They had put a sign up for a non-existing business. They had never applied for a sign permit and they didn’t meet the requirements, so Bob sent them a letter and made them take it down. They have had several meetings with Bob and I know they are still working on it inside. I know they have bought three mechanical bulls and that is about it.
Jordan: There was an article in the Register Herald about the business and it is going to be a family restaurant not a bar.
Fisher: The liquor license had expired out there before they even bought it. There are some available liquor license in town.
Daily: You probable remember the history with that down-town. Bob was watching that closely and was watching the new signage.
Wagner: On the new code, do you think we are going to have the new code in two months?
Daily: No.
Fisher: We will have it here within two months.
Wagner: I will sure be glad when that is done. It is difficult sitting up here and working with no code and seeing what is going to happen in the future. Not only is it difficult to work with, but it doesn’t look good to the applicants.
Daily: That is part of what I went out and explained to him and he laughed and said all of the communities are redoing their codes.
Jordan: I think once we get this new code done, we won’t have so many meetings. A lot of them can be done in-house. We won’t have to deal with them.
Wagner: We won’t be dealing with variances anyway, it will go directly to the Appeals Board.
Fisher: You will have final say on Conditional Uses in the new one. It won’t be a recommendation, you will be approving them.
Jordan: Any more old business?
NEW BUSINESS:
Jordan: Anyone have any new business?
Fisher: Zoning review committee meets next Tuesday and meets on the 31st. We just started into Article 6 – parking, signs, that kind of stuff, if you can make it.
Coleman: What about the house on Lexington Road behind the church with the Pod in the driveway? Why is that there?
Geeting: They must have emptied the Pod out because there is a lot of stuff sitting around.
Jordan: Do I have a motion to adjourn.
Wagner: So moved. Seconded by Coleman. Motion passed and meeting was adjourned.
___________________________________ ____________________________________
Secretary Chairman