REGULAR MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING
ZONING AND BUILDING BOARD ON DECEMBER 14, 2004
AT 7:30 P.M., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Eaton Planning, Zoning and Building Board met in regular session in Council Chambers on Tuesday, December 14, 2004, at 7:30 p.m.
The roll was called and the following was found to be:
Present: Ron Coleman
Harold Geeting
Tom Jordan
Absent: Chris Atkins
Steve Deffner
Gary Wagner
Also in attendance were City Manager Dave Daily, City Engineer Doug Spitler, Law Director Donnette Fisher and Engineer Tec. Joe Ferriell. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
Dave Daily approached the Board.
Daily: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to
report to you on what is happening within the City, we are having some
administrative staff changes. Much to my displeasure, we are losing Doug
Spitler. He has accepted a position in
Back in August we hired Mr. Ferriell as the Engineering Tec.
for the City. Joe has a long history, in the private sector, of
success. Joe comes to us with two Associate Degrees, one in Architectural
Engineering and a Bachelor Degree in Business from
support Joe. That is an update as to where we are. Doug will leave here on the 31st and
start his new position on Monday the 3rd of January. Joe will become the City Engineer and we will assess how he progresses over the next six months, and the position of Service Director, I will be assuming that position, so we won’t have that burden on Joe and he will be able to concentrate on engineering functions, which as you are aware we have a lot of those issues in the City right now. Thank You.
Donnette you are not allowed to leave and Joe, best of luck.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the November 9, 2004 meeting were presented
to the Board for
approval.
A motion was made by Ron Coleman and seconded by
Ayes:
Coleman, Lane, Geeting,
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-04-08 – Public Hearing – Zoning Amendment – Terry
Mantle – 111 W. High
Mantle: I am Terry Mantle and I own 111 W High Street and would like to change the zoning from ‘C-3’ to a ‘R-2’, so we can put two efficiencies in that building and we also need a variance for the set-back on this building.
Ferriell: As you stated this is a Public Hearing. Planning Board reviews and recommends zone changes to Council in accordance with the Comprehensive Development Plan and Chapter 1135. The requested zoning is ‘R-2’ Central Residential.
The intent of ‘R-2’ is to recognize existence of older
residential areas of the City where homes have been built on smaller lots and
where the existing housing stock should be encouraged. The ‘R-2’ allows
for existing moderate-density housing and new single-family development.
The minimum lot area should be at least 8,000 sq. ft. for a double-family
dwelling and a minimum of 700 sq. ft. floor area. This tract is located
in the “Short North” planning area; with a future land use of Urban
Neighborhood, Commercial and Office as a link to downtown and
Fisher: If you approve the variance, you approve it upon condition that Council approves the rezoning.
Coleman: I drove past and looked at that.
Fisher: He talked to Mr. Wehrley about that and Bob indicated there would not be any problem putting two efficiencies in there.
Lane: There is plenty of parking there.
Geeting: I don’t really see any problems with it considering the zoning in the neighborhood and what we may be thinking about in the future with future growth and changes.
Fisher: All the way between North Barron and Beech is
‘C-3.’ From High Street all the way down to
Lane: Plus, it is a good use of a vacant building.
Daily: He has tried for quite a few months to get a commercial use for this and can’t find anyone.
Mantle: It has been up for rent a month or so for $350.00 per month and I am really surprised since the other two buildings that are there and have people living in them, that someone hasn’t approached me to rent it to live in it, but they haven’t. It is zoned for business but still you have the couple of houses that are there that are zoned with the commercial rating that people are living in them. When you try to rent something that cheap, I am really surprised that someone hasn’t approach us to move in there. I have only had one call on it.
Geeting: I move that we recommend approval on Z-04-08,
Terry Mantle to change from ‘C-3’ Community Commercial to ‘R-2’ Central
Residential on the basis of Chapter 1135.01 (a).
Ayes: Coleman, Lane,
Nays: None
AB-04-19 – Variance – Terry Mantle –
Mantle: The way I understand it is that the setbacks, even for a commercial building, don’t meet that.
Ferriell: Planning Board recommends to the Appeals Board on Variances in Chapter 1133.07 and the Comprehensive Development Plan. This applicant is requesting a reduction in the setbacks. The front setback for ‘R-2 is 25 ft. and the current setback is 7 inches, requested variance of 24 ft. 5 in. on the North side. The side setbacks for ‘R-2’ is 10 ft. one side and 25 ft. total and the current setback is 4 feet and he requested a variance of 6 feet and that is on the east side. The set back on the west side is within the requirement at 29 feet. The rear setback for ‘R-2’ is 40 feet and the current setback is 2 ft. 4 in. leaving the requested variance of 37 ft. 4 in. on the south. The minimum lot size required is 8000 sq. ft. and the current lot size is approximately 2925 sq. ft. however, the building officials noted lot adjoins alley so therefore 3333 sq. ft. is available under section 1171.08 (d). The requested variance of 4667 sq. ft. is needed and that is a change from your sheet.
This variance must meet conditions (1) through (6) of Chapter 1133.07 for approval. The Comp Plan and the ‘Short North” planning area with the future land use of Urban Neighborhood, Commercial and Office.
No special recommendations pertain to this application.
Geeting: With the changing and the building already there I don’t see but what we need to go ahead and allow the variance because it does meet all six.
Coleman: I move for favorable approval of case AB-04-19 for a variance of the property and that I see that it meets all of the requirements of 1133.07 and that this be conditioned upon favorable approval of Council to grant the property going from “C- 3 to ‘R-2.’ Harold Getting seconded the motion and it passed as follows.
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Getting,
Nays: None
AB-04-18 – Variance – Ann M. Napier – 808 East Avenues:
Napier: I am Ann Napier and I am applying for a
variance for
Coleman: Is there a reason you can’t turn the house?
Napier: Turn the house, you mean sideways? It wouldn’t be the same as the other houses then. I am trying to conform to the other houses on the road. I am trying to make it look correct. I am just trying to build a nice brick home in the area of the same type of home, I am a widow.
Ferriell: Planning Board makes recommendations to the Appeals Board on Variances following Chapter 1133.07 and the Comprehensive Development Plan. The zoning district is ‘R-1A.’ The applicant is requesting a reduction in the setbacks. The side yard for ‘R-1A’ 10/25. The applicant is requesting a setback of 8 ft. on the north with a total setback of 18 feet. The variance must meet conditions (1) through (6) of Chapter 1133.07 for approval. I would like to point out that this lot size is approximately a .51-acre lot, and we have subdivisions that have .25-acre lots and we are building houses on those and are staying within the required setbacks.
The Comprehensive Development Plan for this area is “Stoneybrook” Planning Area with a future land use of Suburban Residential. Recommendations for this area should continue to be Suburban Residential.
Napier: Well the house is wider than the lot allows for, but this is the plan that I really want to build. I particularly want, and I found this plan that I really like and this house will be the length of the lot and I would have to change plans to go to a smaller home. I have looked for years, since my husband died, at homes around town and there is just nothing that I really found that I liked. I found a house plan that I really like now and it is what I truly want to build on this lot and it just happens to be wider than the lot would allow only being 100 feet wide. I doubt that I could switch to a different house plan and build a smaller home but that is not really what I want to do, this is what I choose to do. I have two girls that are in college and I need the extra bedroom, they are back and forth and my father stays with me off and on, he is 89. I do need the extra room. I think the house pretty much fits with the area. I think the house is going to be very nice. I think it is going to improve the area. I have talked to Mr. Caudill and he is very willing to have the variance as far as his side is concerned. I have moved a lot for 40 years and I am anxious to build what I would like to build.
Napier: Probably not. I am all new to this.
Fisher: They are listed on the application.
Napier: I am confused. You say that I am not meeting them, as far as?
Coleman: That is why I said to turn the house. Your lot is deep but is not that wide for this house you want to put on it. If you turn the house.
Napier: It would look silly. All the other
houses are facing
Coleman: You would just have a small frontage and a much deeper house. A lot is a lot. You can’t change that lot you have to build a house to fit that lot. You are trying to take a house that is not going to fit that lot and you can’t stretch that lot. A variance is something that you want to give people when they are living in a place and they want to make some changes and they can’t do it, they are in this house built long ago and they can’t do it. With a new one, you haven’t started yet. There are things that you can do that you won’t need the variance.
Napier: The only thing I can do, it couldn’t be turned, and I think it would be ruining the neighborhood to do that. I don’t think the neighbors would be happy with me.
Coleman: I don’t necessarily mean the plan that you have.
Napier: I would have to change plans, that is the only thing I could do. I have looked for a long time.
Fisher: If you look at the setbacks for the ‘R-1B’it is six on one side and fifteen on the other. Standards will not constitute a change of zoning district. You have a ‘R-1A’ lot and going by the standards of ‘R-1B.’ Changing the zoning district might be an option.
Fisher: Two separate lots. When the application was originally submitted it was submitted as two separate lots. We did get with her and she contacted her attorney and they corrected it on the deed. There is now a covenant on the deed stating that the two lots may not be sold separately.
Napier: Like Mr. Ferriell said they are building at Sterling Homes on much smaller lots.
Fisher: I think what the Board is trying to say is there are other ways to get there. Variances are supposed to be granted on very rare exceptions. There are other ways to get there, switching the house, using a smaller house plan or rezoning the lot. In ‘R-1B’ your setbacks are fine. This may not be the best way to do it.
Napier: Like I said, this was all new to me.
Fisher: She could build a house of that size in an ‘R-1B’ lot because those setbacks are 6 on one side and 15 total. She now has 8 on one side so she is 2 feet over there and 18 total, which is fine. The lot size is 10,000 sq. feet and she is okay there. All of the setbacks are smaller. There is no way you can put this size of home on a ‘R-1A’ lot and meet the setbacks.
Napier: Is what she is saying, is that an option?
Fisher: She would file the application and the deadline is the 15th of the month. If you get it in tomorrow you would be on January’s agenda and if you can and you get it in by January 15th it will be on Februarys agenda. From the date you file the application, if approved, it generally takes about three months. The rezoning goes from Planning Board to Council and they do two readings and then it goes in effect thirty days after that.
Napier: So it is going to take another three months?
Fisher: If you come in and fill the application out tomorrow, I think we have most everything that you need for rezoning. It is just a different application form that you have to fill out.
Fisher: If she wants to go ahead and see. They just make a recommendation over there. You better go ahead and make your recommendation and see what Appeals Board does with it. If Appeals Board denies it she can still apply for the rezoning.
Daily: She probably wants to do the rezoning.
Napier: Yes.
Daily: Are you going to try and get it in here by tomorrow? It sounds like we already have 90% of the information.
Fisher: Everything is already here, all she has to do is come in and fill out the application.
Daily: If you are going to come in and apply and want to get it on January’s agenda, that is your choice.
Fisher: They could table it.
Daily: They could table it?
Fisher: Yes, but I don’t know why. She can file the application for rezoning tomorrow and still appear at Appeals Board on the 27th. If the Appeals Board would grant it then all she would have to do is to withdraw her rezoning application and if they don’t then she already would have her rezoning application in.
Napier: Not really.
Fisher: The reality is, a negative recommendation is probably what is going to happen tonight. She has the right to take it to the Appeals Board if she wants to. She can have an application for rezoning sitting while Appeals Board is going. File an application tomorrow and all you really need to do is to come in and fill out the form. It will go on Planning Boards January agenda. If you want to see what Appeals Board will do with this, their meeting is on the 27th of this month. Even if they deny it the rezoning would still be in the works and nothing would be held up.
Napier: We can do that.
Napier: I think so.
Napier: I didn’t know it would be such a big deal. I didn’t know it was that hard to get a variance.
Fisher: If you come in tomorrow and fill out the right application.
What are the Board’s wishes on this matter?
Coleman: I move for an unfavorable recommendation for AB-04-18 in that it doesn’t meet all six of the requirements from Chapter 1133.07. Harold Geeting seconded the motion and it passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane,
Nays: None
Oyster: Good evening, my name is Ryan Oyster and I work
for the GPD Group and our client is the Daland Corporation and they are the
ones proposing to construct the new Pizza Hut on
Fisher: The one across the access drive there is Murphy Oil.
Oyster: Basically, we meet all the requirements for parking and drive-thru stacking, setbacks. We are here for two items tonight. The first is what we are talking about now is a 12-hour drive-thru. This drive-thru is not like a typical fast food drive-thru where you have the ordering back and forth I guess we will handle the variance after this. If you have any questions?
Ferriell: The Planning Board makes a recommendation to the Appeals Board on Conditional Use following Chapter 1133.03, the Comprehensive Development Plan and Chapter 1163.
The proposed drive-thru retail is a Conditional Use in the ‘C-1’ district. Additionally, Chapter 1163.03 (b) (9) addresses drive through retail. For one drive-in station as requested, a queue of seven vehicles is required. This Conditional Use must also meet the general requirements of Chapter 1163.03 (a) and the specific requirements of 1163.03 (B) (9) (A) – (E). Per Special requirement 1163.03 (b) (9)(D) the Board needs to request buffer type A or B on the north side.
Geeting: Which side of the building is that drive-thru going to be on?
Oyster: The drive-thru is to be on the north side.
Oyster: Yes, the access drive.
Geeting: We have to show 154 feet of space for 7 vehicles, how far back will that take us?
Oyster: Our stacking goes all the way back here. A buffer separates it.
Oyster: This buffer here is just going to be green space; I think it is a 3-foot lawn. You are talking about the north side of the property?
Oyster: We were told because this residential district was not in the City it was in the county that no buffer was going to be required.
Fisher: Buffer is required.
Fisher: I know we had site plans that showed a fence there, correct? From the Federal Court Order, the site plan that Council approved, show a fence.
Oyster: We don’t have any problem with putting a fence there. I had just contacted Mr. Wehrley’s office and was told that the fence wasn’t necessary. We had seen those plans but through discussion we didn’t think it was going to be necessary but we have no problem with it.
Is that just a 6-foot board-on-board fence?
Spitler: A fence is not addressed in our zoning code as a type of buffer. We also have a requirement about the 6-foot fence in the front yard? Can you have the 6-foot fenc all the way out?
Fisher: Not in the front yard. They would have to stop it back behind the pole.
Spitler: Pizza Hut has also asked for site plan approval. Staff has not completed that review and that is why we are a little confused tonight. We are going to be looking at that in more detail but haven’t got it done yet. That is not something for Board consideration, since it is in a ‘C-1’ not ‘P-1’ the board doesn’t have to look at it. We are still considering whether a 6-foot fence is required or if it is too large for the front yard.
The Board may want to discuss that to.
Fisher: If the board will approve a fence as a buffer, we will be happy.
Oyster: I would be willing to do that.
Fisher: Doug and Joe will probably work out with the site plan exactly what type of fence and height and how far out it can come.
Fisher: It shouldn’t specify the height.
Coleman: The only thing about a 6-foot fence, the people coming out of their driveways, that is going to be a hindrance.
Fisher: We have to look at how far out the 6-foot fence would come. I think the neighbor would like a 25-ft. fence. Fifth Third, we didn’t have them bring that buffer all the way out because of visibility. I imaging Doug and Joe will probably do the same thing in site plan review. They will determine where it should end. You will note on your sheets that (c) (d) and (e) don’t really have any application because those items were already addressed in the Federal Court Order.
Geeting: I think everything looks fine.
Geeting: I move that we grant the Conditional Use for AB-04-20 as it meets the general requirements of 1163.03 and the specific requirements that are applicable, with the understanding that the fence will be worked out satisfactorily Ron Coleman seconded the motion and it passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane,
Nays: None
Oyster: There would be basically, four signs on the building. In addition we would be requesting a monument sign and that is in your packets. I spoke with Mr. Wehrley about this and we had not proposed a pylon sign because the City is trying to take that out of their ordinances and are trying to have more manageable type of signs. In order for us to get the signage that we would like for this building, we dropped our monument sign down to 6 ft. tall and only 23 sq. feet, so we would like a little extra signage on the building to make it more identifiable.
Ferriell: Planning Board makes a recommendation to the Appeals Board on variances following Chapter 1133.07 and following the Comprehensive Development Plan. The zoning district is ‘C-1.’
The applicant is requesting an increase in the proposed signage square footage. It is a variance request of 8.8 sq. ft. plus to allow 2 structural type signs. The applicant is requesting to be allowed two types, a ground sign and a wall sign. The maximum signage allowed is 150 sq. ft. and the total signage they are requesting is 158.8 sq. ft.
The monument sign meets the requirements.
This variance must also meet the general requirements of Chapter 1169.06 (a) & (b) (1) (A&B) page 138. The comp plan is the “North Gateway” Planning Area, with a future land use of Suburban Regional Commercial and Office.
Fisher: This is one of those situations that have arisen because we didn’t get the new zoning code done when we said we would. If the new zoning code were in effect we would not even be hearing this. When the new zoning code gets done, it won’t be non-conforming, it would be in line.
Oyster: Let me ask just one more question. You are trying to get all monument signs in the City from now on, right now and what is the maximum height allowable?
Fisher: It would be 8 ft.
Oyster: We would like it to be whatever the maximum height is allowed.
Fisher: From the base to the top of the sign is 8 ft.
Daily: You are saying that you want to comply with whatever it is 6ft. or 8ft.?
Oyster: Right. We just want to be at the maximum. I can touch base tomorrow and verify the height.
Daily: Yes.
Fisher: Under the current code yes, but under the new code it will be monument sign.
Fisher: Yes.
Coleman: The sign that you are putting on the building, are they lit? They are flat with fluorescent bulbs behind?
Oyster: Right.
Coleman: I think it will be fine. Like you said it isn’t going to be anything in four months.
Lane: I move for a favorable recommendation of AB-04-21 variance for Pizza Hut signs.
The motion was seconded by Ron Coleman and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane,
Nays: None.
Fisher: It is in your packets.
Coleman: I make a motion to remove AB-04-16 from the table. Harold Geeting seconded the motion and it passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane,
Nays: None
Would the Law Director like to summarize what she wrote?
Fisher: I took a look at the auditor’s website and I was able to find that the mobile home had been there since at lease 1960. The farthest back I can find our current was about 1968 so it appears that it was there before the zoning was in effect and is a valid non-conforming use. If you look at our zoning code it states that the substitution of a lawful nonconforming use with another equally or more appropriate nonconforming use shall be permitted, provided no structural alterations are made. I don’t know how you would ever replace a non-conforming building with another building without making structural alterations. It seems to me that this section was only meant to apply to uses and not the actual buildings. If you had a motor shop in a residential area you could not expand that by making structural alterations to the home.
I then went to the Ohio Revised Code, which said that you have to allow for reasonable restoration, reconstruction or substitution, including buildings and structures.
I was then able to find two cases; there were none in the 12th District. I was able to find one in the 6th District and one in the 8th District. The 6th District, in 1996, Kelley’s Island v. Johnson case, that was a case where someone took out a valid nonconforming mobile home and replaced it with a newer model. The Court held that replacing it with exactly the same use was a “reasonable substitution.”
The 8th District looked at that in two separate cases, 1997 and 2003,and they furthered clarified that. In those cases the Plaintiffs had attempted to replace their mobile homes with larger models. The Court in those cases said that you had to have a variance for that. If the mobile home was the exact same size as the previous and sets on the exact same footprint then you have a valid substitution and you don’t even need a variance. If it is any larger and sits on any different footprint, then you need a variance.
That is kind of what it came down to. I am not sure that we were sure whether the new mobile home that they want to put on the lot is the exact same size? If it is the exact same size and the exact same footprint, then we don’t even need a variance, based on those two cases. If there is any difference in the size of the mobile home or where it is going to sit or the amount of space it takes up on the lot, then they would have to have a variance. Which you don’t have to grant.
Fisher: Yes. Other than that they would have to
have a variance and both of the cases from the 8th District, the
Millers: Betty Lou Miller and Gary Miller.
Miller: About 4 feet. The trailer that was in there had the add-on rooms and they were equal to about 8 feet. Actually, it is just a little smaller, the main body. Lengthwise the trailer if the same.
Miller G.: The one that was in there, the main body, was 10 ft. wide and this one is 14 ft. but it had about 6 ft. add on, on the trailer that is presently sitting there. It would be 2 ft. smaller than the overall dimensions.
Miller G: Yes, that would be the same.
Fisher: You don’t think the setbacks will change?
Millers: No.
Miller: You can’t do nothing else with it. You can’t build a home in there, that lot is too small.
Fisher: Actually, you could, Bob Wherley said so.
Fisher: It is a valid non-conforming use. You determine the size, if the footprint is the same and you can dismiss the application, send them on their way they can put the new one in and they don’t need a variance.
Fisher: If you interpretate that it were a different size then you would have to grant them a variance for it.
Coleman: We don’t know. All we know is what they tell us.
Johnson: Actually, you should already have the papers on that. He brought them up and we gave them to Mr. Wehrley’s office that showed everything on it.
Fisher: We didn’t have anything submitted that showed what the old size was.
Johnson. It was smaller.
Fisher: It showed the new one but not the old one.
Johnson: You showed it up on the slide that showed the extensions.
Miller: It was 10x50, main body and then it had two add-ons on it and they come out six to eight feet.
Johnson: When the side part was build the brought it all the way out to the driveway, on the old one.
Spitler: Was the add-on the same length?
Miller: No. It was like two small sections where they added on to the living room and then made a bedroom out of one.
Spitler: How long do you think they were?
Miller: Maybe, 6x10 and 8x12.
Discussion among everyone.
Spitler: I come up with 656 sq. ft. for existing as opposed to 728 sq. ft.
Fisher: We knew it was going on the exact footprint but didn’t know how wide.
Fisher: If you determine that it is the exact same size you wouldn’t need to do anything.
Coleman: The odds of it being the exact same size is slim.
Daily: The standard is exact.
Fisher: In both of these cases the plaintiff had tried to put in bigger mobile homes.
Miller: This one might be bigger than what was in there.
Daily: When you say add-on? That was not part of the original trailer?
Miller: Well, the guy that we had come and look at the trailer, to see about pulling it out said it look like at one time that it was a slide out. That one section of it actually pulled out but over the years it was probably because of leak damage it became permanent. Another section of it has been added on and it wasn’t part of the original trailer.
Daily: Which part?
Miller: The back part. The one back next to the garage.
Johnson: Basically what it comes down to, here is the trailer, and it sits here, with the extension here. The trailer they are putting in is, we measure it at 6 ft. over from what the extension was. It is going to be the same length but smaller this way.
Miller: Because of the add-ons.
Geeting: The add-ons didn’t go the full length of the original trailer? This would be full length and 14 ft. wide. It could come out more unless we know the figures.
Miller: The new one is very nice. It has a singled roof and everything. We had to look for a certain size because that is what we knew we had to put in there.
Fisher: Kelley’s
Johnson: The old one is trash, beyond repair.
Fisher: Technically, you could say the exact same size is the exact same footprint.
Fisher: You have to allow for reasonable substitution, by law. So, if we find this a reasonable substitution, that same footprint, they are done.
Geeting: I think I would rather see some measurements.
Miller: What do you want measurements of?
Johnson: Length or width?
Geeting: All of it.
Johnson: Isn’t there a place on the auditor’s page that lists exactly all the measurements?
Spitler: If you would like, staff will go out and measure it for you.
Miller: There is nobody there. We are just trying to get it fixed up and we want her daughter to move in there.
Spitler: Staff will go out and measure it, Tom.
Miller: There is no reason nobody can’t go there.
Fisher: I know it seems like a pain to you, but if they measure it and it is the same then you are done and if they don’t and you take your chance on a variance you take a chance of needing it. I think measurements are a good thing.
Daily: If it is the same footprint and they bring it back to Bob and he agrees it is the same footprint, then they are done.
Miller: Is there certain type of paperwork we will need to get that one moved out and the new one moved in there? The person we were talking to about moving it said we had to have a written paper from Council.
Daily: There is a permit for that and Bob will take care of that.
Miller: Do you want me to take these measurements?
Miller: Do we not have to come back, Dave?
Daily: We will get the measurements and if it the same footprint, then Bob will say yes or no. We will let you know.
Fisher: If it were the same footprint, I would imagine this Board would dismiss the application.
Coleman: I move that we table AB-04-16 until we have clear measurements. The motion was seconded by Harold Geeting and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane,
Nays: None
Fisher: You will be getting your zoning code at the January meeting. You will have to decide when you want to start going over it, and if you want to set up work sessions. To try and go through the zoning code and deal with all the cases you have just wouldn’t work. If you want to set up some work sessions, I will get you copies.
Daily: If they wanted to, they could meet at like 6:30 p.m.
Fisher: What we will probable have you do, we will have you establish yourself into a committee as a whole. We will have to advertise, it is a public meeting. That way anyone in the public that wants to come can come. We will do all of that at your next meeting.
Pope: My name is Stephen Pope and thank you for
allowing me a few minutes of your time. I am here tonight on behalf of my
client Andrew Conley and Robert and June Day. Robert and June Day own a
piece of property, seven lots at the end of
Jordan: Off the top of my head, looking at this, I would not recommend it.
Coleman: The thing I was wondering is about the drainage and the Flood Plain. This may is a little vague, but you know water does get in there.
Pope: In 1959 Eaton suffered one of the worse floods it ever had and I have a photograph of that area, Decatur and Park Avenue, and it is about four feet deep at that location. I took this information from two sources, the FEMA map and the county GIS system that they have. The flood elevation at that point, at the intersection of Decatur and Park Avenue for the 100-year storm is 1026. The four lots that we are proposing this development on is well above that. We would supply the necessary calculations, if zoning was approved and it went that far, we would submit all the necessary engineering documentation that would back that up. The flood plain does not pose a problem for what we are proposing for these four lots.
Coleman: Every couple of years when we drive down that way in March and April and we go through water.
Jordan: I am sure they could control the floodwater but you are putting a multi-family of three or more into a ‘R-2’ district which is two-family residential and I just don’t like the sounds of that. I can see problems developing, but that is just my opinion.
Pope: Sure.
Jordan: If anyone else would like to give their opinion, they are more than welcome to.
Any other new business?
Ron Coleman made a motion to adjourn and Tim Lane seconded it. All ayes and meeting adjourned.
_____________________________________ __________________________________
Secretary Chairman