REGULAR MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING
ZONING AND BUILDING BOARD ON JANUARY 13, 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, January 13, 2004, at 7:30 p.m.
The roll was called and the following were found to be:
Present: Ron Coleman
Tim Lane
Harold Geeting -Vice Chairman
Steve Deffner
Gary Wagner
Tom Jordan - Chairman
Absent: Chris Atkins
Also in attendance were City Manager Dave Daily, City Engineer Doug Spitler and Law Director Donnette Fisher.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the December 9, 2003 meeting were read and approved. Harold Geeting made a motion to accept, the minutes and Ron Coleman seconded. Roll was called and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Deffner, Wagner (4)
Nays: None
Abstain: Geeting, Jordan (2)
REORGANIZATION
OF PLANNING BOARD:
Jordan: The next item will be reorganization of the Planning Board for 2004. At this time I will open to the Board for nominations for Chairman.
Coleman: Mr. Chairman, I move that we nominate Tom Jordan to the position of Chairman and Harold Geeting to the position of Vice Chairman.
Wagner: Second.
Jordan: Any other nominations?
Wagner: I move that nominations be closed.
Jordan: Call the roll please.
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner (5)
Nays: None
Abstain: Jordan
Jordan: At this time we will vote for the position of Chairman first:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner (5)
Nays: None
Abstain: Jordan (1)
Now we will vote for Vice Chair:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (5)
Nays: None
Abstain: Geeting (1)
The house keeping is out of the way now, and at this time anyone that wishes to address the board tonight will have to take an oath. At this time we will proceed.
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.
Estates Section 4:
Jordan: Jim, are you representing this tonight?
Kramer B.: I am Brad Kramer from Kramer and Assoc. here to represent Frizzell Construction. As you see before you and here on the board to your right, we are planning another section of Meadowbrook. This will be Section 4, which consists of 21 lots situated in zoning “R-1B’. It is just more of what you have seen before, I don’t have a lot to add but I will be glad to entertain questions.
Jordan: Doug, staff review on this.
Spitler: The platting procedure for preliminary plats for major subdivisions is followed in accordance with Chapter 1103.01 and the required documents for the major subdivisions are outlined in Chapter 1105.
Planning Board
Page 3
January 13, 2004
Staff has checked the plat for general engineering and conformity to required public improvements and generally found the public improvements to be adequate, noting that there are several improvement details which need to be discussed and made before final plat approval. Staff comments will be discussed with the developer’s engineer so that the changes can be made before the final plat submittal.
The approval with the preliminary plat must meet the conditions in Chapter 1103.01 (a) (3). The general things will be taken care of during final plat approval. It gets more into details, and we gave them a list today and they are typical and will address them when the final plat comes in. At that time we take a more detailed look at it.
Jordan: Do the Board members have any questions or comments?
Harold Geeting moved to approve the preliminary plat in case MJ-03-02 and Ron Coleman seconded it. Roll was called and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Jordan (5)
Nays: None
Abstain: Wagner
AB-03-14
– Variance – Mark Cain – 604 Park Avenue:
Jordan: The applicant is seeking a variance from 1171.12 (b) of the City’s Zoning Code, which states that a property owner may not have a fence that exceeds four-feet in any required front yard. The applicant is requesting he be allowed to maintain the six-foot fence in his front yard that has been in place for some time. Mr. Cain.
Cain: I am Mark Cain and will present my application. As you can see on the photo’s here. Originally before putting the fence up I got with Bob Wehrley. Bob said everything looked fine. When I started construction I received a call from Bob stating that he made a mistake that he forgot that me being a corner lot I had a front yard on the front and side. I already had my post in and my 6 foot fence already had a 6 foot fence and I was going to go ahead and put it up. He said he didn’t have a problem signing off on it as long as it doesn’t block any view of the people turning. That is why I went ahead and took the pictures. The bushes that people have in front of their house are about 8 feet further out towards the road than my fence is. It is more of a safety issue. A lot of people like it because we have a swimming pool in our back yard and it makes it look nice.
Jordan: Doug do you have anything on staff review?
Spitler: The recommendation from Planning Board goes to Appeals Board on variances following Chapter 1133.07 and the Comprehensive Development Plan. The applicant is asking to vary the height of the fence allowed in a front yard from 4 feet up to 6 feet. The variance must meet conditions (1) through (6) of Chapter 1133.07 for approval. In the Comprehensive Development Plan this is in the Near West planning area and it doesn’t really specifically mention any recommendations for things like this.
Jordan: When I drove down by there I didn’t see anything that was going to interfere with sight view. We have had these situations in the past on corner lots with two front yards.
Wagner: I will just echo that. I drove down there and didn’t find any safety issues with traffic. It doesn’t meet all six criteria’s under 1133.07 but common sense would tell me to support this.
Lane: I drove down there too and it looks like an improvement with the swimming pool and everything, it is an improvement.
Cain: It is more of a safety issue with me with the traffic coming through. Some of the cars do 60 mph down there. I have two boys under five and I don’t want them getting out on the road.
Coleman: It looks fine with me. I have seen his kids out there before and with the train there I think it is fine.
Ron Coleman moved for favorable recommendation of AB-03-14, stating that it doesn’t meet all of the items in 1133.07 but it does meet common sense. The motion was seconded by Tim Lane and motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Department - 615
Hillcrest Drive:
Jordan: Who is representing this request tonight?
Green: I am Chris Green with Brandstetter Carroll Architects representing the Preble County Commissioners. They are wishing to move the Health Department into the former Childrens Home near the new high school construction. We have designated a parking layout for you to see the 43 plus 2 ADA compliant spaces. The drawing you have states 44 and it is a typographic error. The re-striping plans have been indicated to designate those spaces and the entry way to the existing pavement that is already there.
Jordan: Doug what did staff find?
Spitler: Most of the requirement that we typically look at for the site plan approval do not necessarily apply with the change of use. All of the culverts that are required on site are already there and they are not changing anything unless it is inside of the building. A few of the things that came up he has already addressed. The parking required is 43 spaces and you are showing 45 with the two handicap. They have converted a couple of the basketball areas into parking. Parking lot surface must be hard or semi-hard dust-free surface and I think they are showing gravel access just off of the existing driveway into the new areas, so that should be fine. The basketball courts are paved.
Are they going to be using this facility after dark?
Green: I believe so. No.
Spitler: We just received an application today and I wanted to make sure the applicant understood that their application stated that no sign was requested and I have heard from Mr. Douglas that they will, and they will have to go through the Building Department for that application. That is not reviewed here, especially since we didn’t have it.
The buffer is proposed to remain as it currently exists. They are planning on using the existing trees as the buffer. The current tract does abut a residential district to the west and the city corporation line to the south of the county property. I want to remind the applicant that the building department does have additional requirements for the building submittals and that is not part of this review.
Jordan: This is currently zoned ‘R-1A’ or is this one that has just been changed?
Spitler: This has been changed to ‘P-1” and I am not sure if it has been through Council?
Daily: We will have the second reading next Tuesday night and then law 30 days after that.
Spitler: It is proposed ‘P-1’.
Jordan: I thought that was where we were. Then ‘P-1’ takes over both lots?
Spitler: Yes, it is ‘P-1’.
Daily: This next Council meeting will be this and the arts center. The whole block will be ‘P-1’.
Wagner: You asked the question about use at night and Jim said seldom. What is seldom? I think the question is about night use.
Douglas: In-service training or people coming to our place for training. It would be a half dozen times a year.
Wagner: Once a month?
Douglas: No, more than that.
Fisher: You will have your monthly Board meetings there?
Douglas: That is in the daytime.
Wagner: Is there any lighting there now?
Douglas: I don’t know.
Wagner: Is there any criteria that we as a Board need to look at concerning the lighting if they are going to use it once a month or is that an issue?
Spitler: Here is what it says, if the parking lot is to be open for use after dark, it shall be provided with not less than two lumens of light per square foot of parking lot surface. Lights shall be shielded so as not to shine directly or in an offensive manner on the adjoining residential property.
It doesn’t sound discretionary but I would have discretion myself, Law Director? Does the Board have discretion? It doesn’t sound like the code has discretion but one time a month; does the Board have discretion to require lighting?
Fisher: Do they have the discretion to require lighting? Our code doesn’t?
Spitler: It doesn’t say how many times.
Fisher: So basically it is a question of interpretation, which this Board can do.
Spitler: This is on page 119, 1167.04.
Jordan: When I read that section my main concern was as long as the light doesn’t reflect on the neighboring properties, which unless they move a lot of light poles it isn’t going to do that because they are so far from the property lines. I didn’t read the ‘P-1’ requirements.
Fisher: As I recall, in the back of that building there are security lights for the parking lot in the rear and on the building.
Jordan: There used to be when it was used as a Childrens’ Home. There were lights to the rear and lights to the front of the basketball court area. Whether they still exist or not now I have no idea.
Fisher: As far as I know, they haven’t taken the lights off the building. There is some lighting currently there.
Jordan: It is an interpretation matter, does it have to be lighted or does it only have to be lighted only when their discretion feels it should be lighted at night when they are using the facility?
Fisher: How much lighting do you want to require? Is what is there sufficient?
Wagner: It says two lumens. One question I would ask the staff, if you had been told the building was going to be used once a month for meetings at night, would you and staff recommend that they have lighting or not?
Spitler: That is an excellent question. Seriously, I would have talked to Bob Wehrley about that, knowing that I would say yes. It doesn’t give discretion here. I think I would have to say, yes.
Wagner: If this were to receive a favorable approval could the Board designate lighting be required or could we have the Building Department look at the situation and come back with a recommendation on lighting.
Fisher: You could if you want. You could table this and have Bob go out there at night and see how the lights are.
Wagner: Tabling this would do what to you, your schedule?
Fisher: Council votes on it on the 20th. If Council votes to approve the rezoning, the rezoning doesn’t become effective for another 30 days so they couldn’t start building out there until the end of February anyway. The rezoning wouldn’t be effective.
Geeting: The training sessions that you might be having at night, that isn’t open to the public, it is just staff people?
Douglas: Staff or select people within the City or a company.
Geeting: Under our rules or our regulations would that exclude that from the total number of spaces that would have to be lighted? What I was thinking was that if it was lit up in the rear only to satisfy that situation and perhaps it already is.
Douglas: It had a light the last time I was out there.
Geeting: I know that wouldn’t bother the neighbors.
Wagner: I don’t know if the issue is bothering the neighbors, I think the issue is lighting the parking lot for safety reasons.
Fisher: If you table this for a month and Bob and Doug look at the situation, you are not going to hold them up. If the rezoning is approved by Council, next Tuesday, the zoning doesn’t even become effective for 30 days so they couldn’t start doing anything out there for 30 days anyway and you would hear it again before then.
Jordan: Would that through your schedule off if we tabled this for 30 days and try to get an answer on the lighting?
Green: Based upon what she says, no. I didn’t know that but I do now.
Jordan: Before we table this are there any more concerns that the Board members have about this matter? I don’t have any other concerns about this it is just that lighting is a serious issue, but not a real serious issue, but I think it needs to be clarified before we make a decision. Do we require them to light it?
Fisher: If you have questions you might as well table it. Your aren’t going to hold them up, you have some time to look at it and decide what you want to do.
Wagner: I move we table PBR-03-06 and request review by the building department concerning the lighting situation in the parking lots. The motion was seconded by Steve Deffner and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Jordan: Mr. Gunlock.
Gunlock: My name is Bo Gunlock, I am with RG Properties, Dayton, Ohio. We are the developers of the new Preble Crossing Shopping Center at the to be newly constructed intersection of Washington Jackson Road and Barron Street. The plat that is before you, this is a final plat. This is a result of a Court Ordered Settlement or Decree that was a result of some litigation that was filed against the City as a result of the denial of the rezoning, after this Planning and Zoning commission recommended approval to the City Council some months or years ago. The plat before you is consistent in every form or fashion with the Settlement Order. There are a few items that I wish to point out to the Planning commission, as much for education, some modifications that were requested of us as we have worked through the final details with staff. The first, which has to do with the right of way and the lane configuration right at the intersection of Washington Jackson Road extension and Barron Street. There will be two inbound lanes that will be eastbound from that intersection to a revised access point that has been moved back to the east, further away from the intersection to allow for stacking at that location. The northernmost lane going in this direction will drop at this location so it will operate as a left turn lane at that location. That intersection will accommodate dual left turns for westbound traffic on Washington Jackson Road to go south onto Barron Street because there are substantial traffic volumes generated from this type of development. Because the development and concerns about access into the site, there will only be two access points, and from a literal sense only one, because this will be a public street and that right of way is being dedicated and 67 ½ feet at that point and then narrows back to 66 feet as you go further east. Many of you are aware that road, through the agreement that we have now with the City or the order, will be extended further east to tie in with the extension of Aukerman Street. The purpose of that is to allow traffic coming out to the site during the busiest times to come in the back way and avoid that plague problem area known as five points here in Eaton. The access point at this location will be restricted and left turn movement will not be permitted out of the site at that location, which will increase the volumes of traffic both at this intersection here and traffic coming back the other way because we anticipate that a large portion of the traffic entering and exiting the site will be coming from the south. One thing that has changed during this process is we have gone back and purchased and have options to purchase a number of the frontage lots along Barron Street. Those lots are now being included in the plat that is before you. Part of our commitment as part of the order was to restrict movements onto St. Rt. 127 or Barron Street, as those lots took on a commercial air. That property is in the annexation process and has been approved by the County Commissioners and will be before City Council for the first reading next Tuesday, along with a request for rezoning that this Board is recommending to City Council for the two lots at the southeast corner of this new intersection. We are actually taking, as you can see from the plat, a portion of the land that we originally purchased from Whispering Oaks Farms, Ted Price and his group some years ago, to square off this lot and allow this access point to run at a “T” intersection so we don’t have cross movements. We have already talked about, on a preliminary basis, about the ‘P-1’ zoned lots that are being used as a buffer. They will be mounding to the far south side of the site. All of the easements for sanitary sewer and water are shown on the plat along with access, because as these lots redevelop for commercial access will be denied on Barron Street and they will be accessing off of this internal private road system. All of the easements are consistent with the wishes of the fire department and the utility department.
We do have users committed for this lot, which will be a combination of two lots, each lot is just under ½ acre and so in order to make a useable lot we are combining those and in some instances to square up this road we are taking small slivers of land from this larger parcel and combining them. When you come out there this time next year it will look substantially different than it does now and consistent with the five lane road section that sits in front of the site, it will be all commercial in nature. The road improvements associated with this project for Washington Jackson Road, from here to here, and all of the work out on Barron Street is being funded privately by us, also consistent with the court order and that included the traffic signal that is going to be installed at that intersection. Now, can I answer any questions?
Wagner: Could you explain to me, the big lot behind the 20-acre lot, what is that, I don’t see a lot number?
Gunlock: I think the lot numbers all get assigned by the county after they are recorded. This is a future development lot that we are going to retain ownership of. I think all of you are aware that we are going to transfer fee title to this parcel to Wal Mart. It is almost impossible to get them to lease. This lot will be for a future development parcel; we don’t have any plans for it. We have provided for access here and here so this lot has adequate access.
Wagner: Does the same apply to the front two?
Gunlock: This lot we are planning to be building about 17,340 sq. ft. of retail space and all of that space, although all of the leases aren’t signed, all of the space is committed. We will be constructing that concurrent with the Wal Mart. Our schedule, pending your approval tonight, is to be before City Council in the next two meetings for annexation approval, the rezoning and plat approval. We hope to be under construction in early March.
Geeting: Did I get that straight that there are only two accesses into the total property?
Gunlock: That is a little misleading. There are two access points off of Barron Street. I don’t want to mislead you, there are actually three access points off of the new Washington Jackson Road. There are three off of Washington Jackson Road and one parcel curb cut off of Barron Street.
Geeting: Will we have a turning lane in there?
Gunlock: Yes, there will be decel lanes and a center turn lane. This goes from five lanes, the five-lane section ends here, and after these turn movements have been made it narrows back and tapers to three lanes to go off to the east. The five-lane section on Barron Street will be continued. Right now it begins to terminate back in here and it will be continued as part of this project, past our property.
Spitler: We are also going to construct a right turn lane northbound before Washington Jackson also, as a right turn lane and that will be a right turn lane at your north access point. We will also be doing some alignment on the west side of Washington Jackson, the existing roadway, to make that align with the extension of Washington Jackson Road.
Wagner: You are talking about the intersection?
Spitler: It will be in between the gas station and K-Mart.
Atkins: To make them line up properly we have to do work on both sides?
Jordan: The north access, where is it in relation to the City’s utility? Is it where it goes back?
Spitler: It is south of there. The north access is where Mr. Taylor used to park his motor home and that is what is shown.
Gunlock. The area here and here is going to be used for storm water retention. The City had made a recent request and those will be fenced because they will hold water and the City made the request to which we are going to accommodate. We will extend the fences so that the well field area, there will be a fence here and here, and it is their intention to continue that here so that the well fields will be protected.
Wagner: Traffic coming south on Barron will not turn left into that north entry point?
Gunlock: We hope they do. One of the things we thought was important, especially for the businesses located on this end of the development is not to force the traffic to come all the way here and then all the way back. What you won’t be able to do is after you leave this business you won’t be able to come out here and turn left out. You have to come down here and that is one of the reasons that the dual left is important. Once we get them in they will find a way to get out we just need to make sure they can get in.
Jordan: Doug, anything more from staff that Mr. Gunlock hasn’t discussed?
Spitler: I would like to discuss this with you for the record because the City Manager, Law Director and myself have had some discussions in the last couple of days when we were meeting with Mr. Gunlock and his engineers as to how we got to this point. We didn’t have a preliminary and now we are at the final stage and I would like to try to go through that so the Board understands that.
We are following Chapter 1103.021 in the review of the Final Plat. Essentially, the Court Order has much to do with this development. The Court Order trumps a lot of things in our review, such as the arrangements for the financing of the required public improvements. We typically do that through a bond or some other funding and the Court Order is basically established what Mr. Gunlock will do for this development and the City entered into that. That part of a typical plat has been taken care of through that Court Order. There was no preliminary plat because of the Court Order. We can only make changes agreed between the City and Mr. Gunlock, small changes other than what the Court Order says. The Court Order basically laid out the site plan that was very extensive in how the roadway and improvements would all be laid out including sanitary, storm water, roadway, lighting the whole utilities required. The construction plans for those roadway improvements are being reviewed by Kramer and Associates and they are not complete with the review but they are getting very close. Again, those tie to the Court Order which ties to the development. The EPA has a Permit To Install, permits required for the water and sanitary and then additionally there is a new storm water permit that is required for areas equal to one acre in area. I did note that they are showing setbacks that are going to be vacated as part of this plat and setbacks are typically shown on the plat. They have to meet our setbacks when they come in. That is something that we have let, before, they can change before they come to Council that is a minor change and if the Board so wishes that they would make that change before coming to Council it can be included in the motion this evening. Everything we have been discussing between staff and Mr. Gunlock for some time and we have it worked out.
Gunlock: The plat restrictions that you see on the drawing, it is in the area that we have added to the development since the Court Order, the Court Order dealt with the main part of this, some language in there, some "what if" language like, if we pick up this and they close access to Barron Street we will grant them access here. We are doing all of those things consistent with the Order. The restrictions that are being vacated here are old residential plat restrictions that existed when this property was being used for residential purposes. I wasn’t aware of the requirement to put zoning restrictions, obviously we are subject to all the setbacks, I didn’t realize that would be part of the plat because those restrictions. I don’t know if setbacks are being considered as you amend your zoning code but those are the kinds of things that change from time to time. We would not put those on a record plat because that becomes a permanent record for the development and if the restrictions change. If that is the City’s wish it isn’t that big of deal for us to add that line.
Spitler: They would show all of their setbacks.
Wagner: What is the setback now?
Spitler: It is 35 feet on front setback and the side and rear depends on which district they abut.
Wagner: So what you are saying is that when the motion is made we should include the setbacks according to our zoning code as part of the final plat to Council?
Spitler: I would suggest that, yes.
Jordan: If the access of these lots along 127 is from the east is this going to be rear set back along 127?
Spitler: I would like to talk that over with Bob. I believe the front set back would still be off of Barron Street because that is where the dedicated street right of way is. They have a private access but that is.
Jordan: You classify that as private to the east, so we have to go off of the public right of way?
Gunlock: This would be the rear yard and this the front yard. The concern is getting the buildings too close so you interfere with traffic visibility or potential widening in the future.
Fisher: It is up to you. Doug is right that our current zoning code, the way it reads, requires set back lines established by the zoning code be shown. By the time they are ready to develop these lots, we are going to have a new zoning code and the setbacks may going to be different. By the time they are going to develop, the setbacks that are on
there are going to be the same. If you want to go ahead and make them do that consistent with the current zoning code that is fine or if you want to consider waiving that because they are going to be different. Not having them shown there doesn’t waive them.
Wagner: Can the motion say in accordance with the code, the one that exists at the time they apply?
Fisher: This plat is going to go to Council next Tuesday night. You need to either make them put setback requirements as they are now on this one or waive that requirement.
Gunlock: This will likely be recorded in the county courthouse before your new planning and zoning code will go into effect.
Fisher: But before they build, our new zoning code will be in effect. The plat will get recorded before the new zoning code comes into effect and the buildings will get developed after.
Wagner: Will they have to comply with the new code or the current code?
Fisher: The new code.
Wagner: Then why would they go to all the expense of platting all of this?
Gunlock: That is why we don’t usually see that kind of comment. If someone is going to find out, they go to the courthouse and they say what am I allowed to do and not to do. Usually the restrictions that appear on a plat are the ones that are forever and you have to amend the plat completely to do that. You wouldn’t want everyone running back to the courthouse to change the setbacks every time you change the zoning code to change the setbacks.
Fisher: There have been a number of occasions where developers have done subdivision plats and shown the setbacks on all the lots and then come in for variances on the setbacks. They do not then go and file new plats. That is one of the things we are going to change in the new code, because right now we are requiring them to put that on there but a lot of times we vary them within a couple of months of having approved the final plat.
Wagner: So if we ignore the set backs now, when they develop the lots they will have to comply with the setbacks?
Fisher: Yes.
Gunlock: Whatever the code is at the time the permits are pulled
Fisher: You are not really ignoring them, you are just waiving the requirement that they show them on the plat. That doesn’t waive their duty to comply with them.
Jordan: If we ask them to show the setbacks today, if they want to change the setbacks to the new code when they come in effect, they have to come and get a variance if it is different from what it is today or we can waive the requirement to have the setbacks noted on the final plat?
Fisher: In the future we will not be requiring setbacks on the final plat.
Jordan: Which makes sense.
Gunlock: In these plats you see a plat restriction that says that we want all the houses 55 ft. off the road and whoever platted the property said that was what they wanted. It was a private decision, it was a separate zoning restriction when the properties were in the county or township that might have said 10 feet but this developer said that he wanted them back 55 feet. Those are being vacated, they are plat restrictions. Those are the kind of things we would have on the plat. There is a sign easement that we are platting at this location and that is private. There is going to be a sign there and these access easements are private and they benefit everybody that is a part of the plat and that is the kind of things we typically put on record plat like this.
Wagner: I move for recommendation of final approval of MJ-04-01 Final Plat Approval for RG Properties, Inc., Preble Crossing Plat, 30.063 acres and we will waive setback lines shown on final drawings. The motion was seconded by Harold Geeting and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
Tom Jordan advised there would be a 10 minute break.
Douglas: Jim Douglas asked to address the Board.
The architect firm went to the site of the new Health Department and reported back to Jim that there are five mercury vapor lights, two in the back and two in the front, all working. Also, one on a garage building that is behind that and the county uses that as a storage barn. Two building lights, one in the center on the back and one in the center in the front. The one in the front is not burning, the bulb is out. From his design point of view it is more than the two lumens referred to in the code. Everything else is working and you could play basketball out there at night.
Jordan: Thank you.
Amending
the City of Eaton Planning and Zoning Code - Chapter 1173:
Fisher: This is a change to our current zoning code. The language as it is will be included in our new zoning code. The reason that we are doing it now is that the new zoning code is taking a little longer than we had hoped it would. When you are dealing with sexually oriented businesses, SOB, once they are here you can’t do anything about them. The only way to deal with them is to get your restrictions in place before they come. We would like to get this in our current zoning code so that we have got something in place to deal with it. The way we are going to deal with SOB’s is two ways. Number one is the zoning requirements, which is this, Chapter 1173, and there is also going to be licensing requirements. That doesn’t come through Planning Board that is something we will put in the Business Regulations chapter of the Codified Ordinances. Licensing requirements will be not only for the business, but also the employees, and they are very stringent. If you want to open a SOB here with the licensing requirements it is going to be a real pain. You have still got to have something in your zoning code- where are we going to put these? You cannot completely restrict them, you have to allow them to go somewhere. We picked the Industrial District. If you look at 1173.04, they can only be located in an area zoned for Industrial Use. The restrictions are that you have 500 ft. radius. When you do this what you have to look at is, if this is Industrial and one can go here how much are we restricting them? Say you have a City of our size, you put regulations in place in such a way that you can only have one, the courts are going to kick that out-too restrictive. We did 500 feet of any religious building, educational facility which includes child care, nursery schools any kind of educational, 500 feet of a residential district that also includes any legal non-conforming residential district that may exist, public park or within 500 feet of each other. You can’t have more than one in a single building. We also did lot area, widths, setbacks, buffering, yard area are the same as the Industrial Districts that currently exist in our Zoning Code. If it is an adult cabaret, parking requirements is the same as they are for restaurants. For any other SOB they shall be as those specified for retail stores. We severely limited the type and size of the signs they can have and what they can display. This is a zoning amendment, it is an amendment to the text. There are three ways to do that per our code. You can do it through an application from an owner, or another way is through recommendation from the Planning Board. What we are asking you to do, to get this to Council, is for you to look at this, and we would like you to make a recommendation, through your own motion, to Council so that we can go ahead and get it in our current zoning code.
Geeting: What you were going through here with the 500 feet, practically, almost, limits the possibility of them coming into town.
Fisher: You can’t eliminate them you can only strongly discourage them and that is what we are trying to do. The biggest Industrial area is on 35 West, then you have the area around Neaton.
If you don’t have any more questions I will let you open it for Public Hearing.
Jordan: This will be an addition to the code we now have and it will be incorporated in the new code?
Fisher: Becky just informed me that we never advertised for Public Hearing so you will have to have the Public Hearing next month.
Jordan: You just want us to table this?
Fisher: We will schedule the Public Hearing for the next meeting.
Old Business:
AB-03-10 - Eric Deeter - Conditional Use - Storage
AB-03-11 - Eric Deeter - Variance - Fence
Jordan: We have two previously tabled applications. Is there anyone here to represent them?
Fisher: We just put them on the agenda to remind you they are still there. Council won’t make a final decision on the rezoning until Tuesday. You can leave them tabled until next month.
Jordan: O.K.
Wagner: The table we did to the Health Department on the lights, he gave an explanation on the lights. Is there any reason to untable that tonight?
Fisher: I don’t know that it would be a bad idea to have somebody from staff, basically Bob, go out at night and take a look at it and make a recommendation.
Jordan: I think that would be fine. It is not going to hurt them if we table it or not.
New
Business:
None
Motion was made to adjourn by Ron Coleman and seconded by Steve Deffner. Roll was called and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
_____________________________________ _________________________________
Secretary Chairman