REGULAR MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING

ZONING AND BUILDING BOARD ON MAY 11, 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 May 11, 2004, at 7:30 p.m.

The roll was called and the following was found to be:

Present: Ron Coleman

Chris Atkins

Tim Lane

Harold Geeting

Steve Deffner

Gary Wagner

Tom Jordan

Also in attendance were City Manager Dave Daily, City Engineer Doug Spitler and Law Director Donnette Fisher.

MINUTES:

The minutes of the April 13, 2004 meeting were presented and approved noting a correction on page 4. The first paragraph stated that Donnette said “it would fall under B as he submitted the application” when in fact it should read, “it would fall under A as he submitted the application.” Ron Coleman made a motion to approve the minutes with the correction and Harold Geeting seconded it. The roll was called and passed as follows:

Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)

Nays: None

SWEARING IN;

All members of the audience anticipating to testify before the Board were asked to stand and be sworn in. The Secretary administered the oath or affirmation to the audience.

MJ-03-02F – Final Plat Approval – Meadowbrook Estates – Section Four:

Jordan: The first item on the agenda tonight is final plat approval for Meadowbrook Estates, Section Four. Mr. Kramer are you representing this request tonight?

Kramer: Yes sir. I am Doug Kramer of Kramer & Assoc. and I am here to represent Frizzell Construction. I can show you on the drawing here is the extension of another section of the Meadowbrook area. One of the situations that exist here is that the 12 in. water line, which will eventually loop around the whole City to the East, is partially constructed to here from 35 and will then be constructed the rest of the way through in this section so that there eventually is a large water service up the Wayne Trace corridor to the north.

Storm drainage, there are no unusual situations. It will be taken care of by the retention

basin that is down here. Sanitary sewer is going over towards the west to Rocky Run Trunk line. That is water, sanitary, storm and streets as I described them. Are there any questions?

Jordan: Staff review on this Doug?

Spitler: The zoning is R-1B and there will be 21 lots in this section. I did notice that I had 6.449 acres and I noticed in here that it says 10.53 acres. Do you think that this is the most current one?

Kramer: I don’t have a comment or an answer, but I will have to find it out and will address it on the final plat before we have it recorded.

Spitler: Planning Boards approval or disapproval is forwarded to Council. The City staff did review the construction plans and we did require some changes that we provided to Mr. Kramer. If all the changes can be made before the plat is scheduled for action at Council, we can recommend to the Board that we can do a motion conditioned upon those changes being made and accepted before Council action. Additionally the PTI, permit to install, for water and sanitary is required from the EPA prior to the installation of these utilities. That is a separate review from the City review. The arrangements for the financing and inspection of all the required public improvements will need to be arranged by the developer; that is typically done with a Subdivision Agreement that the developer coordinates with the Law Director. We have recommended to the Board that that not necessarily be done here if you don’t wish, that as long as it is done before Council action, a condition could be placed upon the motion.

Jordan: Any Board members have any further questions for staff or Mr. Kramer?

Coleman: The little detention pond on the backside, what is going to happen when houses go in there? What is going to happen to that water when those houses go in there?

Kramer: The water does drain down to the south. This is a start of that area that the detention basin was designed for.

Jordan: You have received the conditions that Doug came up with and are you comfortable with the fact that they will or can be taken care of?

Kramer: Yes, I am sure that there will be no problems.

Harold Geeting makes a motion to approve the final plat on the conditions that the City Engineer’s items are taken care of and a subdivision agreement is entered into. The motion was seconded by Tim Lane and passed as follows.

Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Jordan (6)

Nays: None

Abstain: Wagner (1)

AB-04-06 – Variance – Juanita Cottingim – 201 E. Spring Street:

Jordan: The next item on the agenda is AB-04-06, variance for 201 E. Spring Street.

The applicant has applied for a variance from the City’s accessory use regulations to be allowed to maintain the shed she has already erected in her front yard, located at 201 E. Spring Street. Who will be representing this application tonight?

(Tape Inaudible)

[Juanita Cottingim represented herself for the application. She told the board that when she placed the shed in what she thought was her side yard, she wasn’t aware that her house was considered to have two front yards. It is a corner lot facing East Spring Street and North Cherry Street. To access her driveway you must enter from an alley off of E. Spring Street. The most likely place to put the shed was on the west side of her house. She proceeded to state that since she applied for this variance her mother took ill and she is the caretaker for her. At this time, she is renting her residence on E. Spring Street. She is using the shed for storage of her belongings that she isn’t using since moving in with her mother.

Doug Spitler, City Engineer, gave staff recommendation. Planning Board makes a recommendation to the Appeals Board on variances following Chapter 1133.07 and the Comprehensive Development Plan.

The applicant is requesting a variance from 1171.13 (a), which states, “In any residential district, no garage or other accessory building shall be erected in any required side or front yard.”

The building official submitted a memo and a copy could be fount in your packets. The variance must meet conditions (1) through (6) of Chapter 1133.07 for approval.

Mr. Wehrley provided the Planning Board with his response to the Applicable Standards, Chapter 1133.07 Variance:

No variance shall be granted unless the Board finds that all of the following conditions exist:

1. The only thing different about this lot is the fact that it is a corner lot with two front yards, I don’t feel that this is really a “special condition” or a circumstance peculiar to the property. There are corner lots at every intersection.

2. Other property owners would not be permitted to place a shed in their required front yard.

3. Ms.Cottingim has already placed the shed in the front yard without inquiring about location or permit requirements.

4. Relocating the shed to 301 Evergreen would provide the necessary relief without granting a variance.

5. Granting the variance would not be in the best interest of the neighborhood and would in fact be detrimental to the overall appearance of the neighborhood.

6. Granting the variance would not constitute a change in zoning.

It is Mr. Wherley’s recommendation to table this application.

The Board suggested that she either move the shed to the east side of her property that is next to the alley, or remove it from this lot and put it on her mothers lot.

Ms. Cottingim stated that she didn’t think it was correct to ask her to remove her shed from her property and place it on someone else’s property. The renters that she has on E. Spring Street now have a swing set in the area that the Board is suggesting her to move it. She also stated that if she moved it back by the alley, her neighbor would not be able to see when going and coming from her residence. It was brought up that there has been vandalism in the past in the alley and she would rather have it where it was more visible. It was also brought to the attention of the Board that children play in the alley most of time.

Ms. Cottingim’s neighbor, Bev Sams, addressed the Board and stated that having the shed located on the west side of the property and in view of her front door, proposed no problems for her. She also stated her concern if the shed was moved back by the alley, it would be a sight problem for her.

Mr. Wagner said that it is tough for the Board to approve things that the rules rule

against.

It was everyone’s opinion that the lot be measured and the rear set backs checked and see if it would be possible to move the shed closer to the house and back some at the southwest corner of the lot.]

Gary made a motion to table Ab-04-06 and have City staff go to the site and measure it and report back to the Planning Board next month. The motion was seconded by Harold Geeting and passed as follows:

Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)

Nays:

AB-04-05 – Conditional Use – Murphy Oil, USA, Inc. – 1716 N. Barron Street:

(Tape Inaudible)

[The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to put a fueling station with a 208 square foot kiosk on Lot# 3308, at the corner of N. Barron Street and the Wal-Mart north access drive. The zoning of this lot is C-1, General Commercial.

Jim Vitter of Kimley-Horn & Associates and Tom Bentley with Murphy Oil USA, Inc. are representing the application.

The Federal Court Order has already approved the placement of the Murphy’s Oil in the Wal-Mart parking lot. If they put it in the middle, like they have at other Wal-Marts, then you have access from four or five directions. Mr. Vitter and Mr. Bentley stated Murphy’s would rather see it moved where they can control how many ways you can get into that station. Murphy’s thinks that if the station is moved to the outlot, they can control that and it is not going to be such a haphazard entrance and exit.

They are here requesting a Conditional Use to move to the front lot facing S.R. 127. If they are allowed to move there they are also requesting a north access to the fuel station. The traffic would be coming off of 127 and into the entrance to Wal-Mart and would have right in only entrance to the station.

Doug Spitler gave staff review. The location of the Murphy’s Oil fueling station was on the approved site plan attached to and a part of the Federal Court Order from the Gunlock vs. City of Eaton case; this location was within the parking lot of the proposed Wal-Mart, not on this proposed outlot. The Board may entertain this application if it believes the proposed location is more appropriate or may deny based on the original approved location in the Court Order. If the Board allows this application, the staff does not agree with the proposed curb cut on the north access drive.

Mr. Vitter and Mr. Bentley explained they want to move the station for better exposure from traffic traveling in and out of Eaton via North Barron Street. Most of their customers do come from Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart customers get a discount when buying gas at Murphy’s, but by being on the front row of the complex they may capture local traffic. Mr. Spitler stated it was his belief that if the north access is allowed it could propose a problem with traffic backing up in the right turn lane off of N. Barron Street. During the discussion, the Board did state that they were not opposed to the move but would be opposed to having an access from the north. At this time, Mr. Vitter and Mr. Bentley aren’t sure that Murphy;s will proceed with the Conditional Use if they were not allowed to have the north access drive. If the drive would be denied they might just stay in the parking lot where they have already been approved.

Gary Wagner said that he didn’t have any real problem but since they have already been approved for the parking lot site he would hate to take the extra outlot from the project.

The move could be approved but not the north access drive.

Tom Jordan said that the Planning Board has to do what they think would be best for the City’s growth. If we don’t grant the north entrance then everyone will be on the same page and come and go to the rear.]

Gary Wagner made a motion for a recommendation of approval on AB-04-05, Murphy Oil USA, Inc. with the condition that the north entry point that was presented tonight be eliminated. Harold Geeting seconded the motion and it passed as follows:

Ayes: Atkins, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (6)

Nays: Coleman

FIVE-MINUTE RECESS

SIGN PERMIT – J & J Beverage Depot – 508 N. Barron Street:

(Tape Inaudible)

Dennis Boyd, owner of Coletown Signs, is representing this application. He has recently canvassed the City and spotted signs in the City that needed repaired or replaced.

When they saw the J&J Vending sign it was mounted to a utility pole and that is not permitted. This business is located at 508 North Barron Street and is zoned I-1. When the owner of the business was approached he was already making plans to replace the sign. The business was just purchased by a new owner and the name had changed. They are seeking Planning Board approval to place a pole sign in a required yard. Mr. Jones, the

new owner, did not want a massive sign, just one big enough to place the new name, store hours and that it was an Ohio State Liquor Store.

The proposed sign would be 6x8 and placed 10’ from the right of way.

Doug Spitler gave staff review and said that there wasn’t anything out of the ordinary with this application it just required Planning Board approval under Chapter 1169.03 (i).

There was some discussion that Mr. Boyd thought the Board was going to require them to place the sign so far back on the property that traffic could not see it.

City Law Director Fisher told the Board that there are no conditions for the placement of a new sign. 1169.03 (i) states that a pole sign may be located within required yards, if approved by the Planning Board. If there was a residential district butting up to the business there might be a problem, but this is not the case.

Chairman Jordan said that he could see no problem with placing a new sign on this property. All it is going to do is to clean up an old sign and it will be replaced with a cleaner, new sign. There is already a larger sign on either side of the property.

The sign will be a 6x8 sign. It will consist of a 4x8 changeable that lights up and the Ohio State Liquor logo will be additional panel and will not light up. The total square feet will be 48 sq. ft .over all.]

Gary Wagner moved to approve the sign with the condition that the old sign on the pole be removed and it was seconded by Ron Coleman. The motion passed as follows:

Ayes: Coleman, Atkins, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)

Nays: None

OLD BUSINESS:

NEW BUSINESS:

Gary Wagner made a motion to adjourn and Steve Deffner seconded it. Motion adjourned.

__________________________________ ___________________________________

Secretary Chairman