REGULAR MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING
ZONING AND BUILDING BOARD ON NOVEMBER 9, 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, November 9, 2004, at 7:30 p.m.
The roll was called ant the following was found to be:
Present: Ron Coleman
Harold Geeting
Gary Wagner
Tom Jordan
Absent: Chris Atkins
Steve Deffner
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.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the October 12, 2004 meeting were presented to the Board for approval. Ron Coleman made a motion to accept the minutes as written and Gary Wagner seconded the motion. The motion passed as follows.
Ayes:
Coleman,
Nays: None
Abstain: Lane, Geeting (2)
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.
At this time I will open the Public Hearing and anyone wishing to address this should come forward and state your name and address.
Daily: Thank you Mr.
The request is to rezone the property which is currently
‘R-1A’ to ‘C-1’ and this will be for the use of the HIT Foundation, which is
located here in Eaton. I have here with me tonight Fran Alvis, who is the
Executive Director of the Foundation. As we all know the
Coleman: What is HIT?
Alvis: I am Fran Alvis, Executive Director for Home Is The Foundation. The HIT is for Home Is The Foundation. Without a home we can’t have our families and before we can do the things we need to do, that is where the name came from and it has been shortened to the HIT Foundation.
Coleman: Is that what you try to do then, find homes for people to live in?
Alvis: Yes, that is part of our mission. It is community development and housing and neighborhood development. It is working with low and moderate-income families and also down town Eaton, we work with that group as part of community development. This would only be used for office space, it would not be used for housing at all. We are currently housed with Eastway and the Red Cross. We have been there for about six months, sharing their space.
Daily: Basically, sharing a desk in the old DP&L building downtown.
Spitler: The Planning Board reviews and recommends zone changes to City Council in accordance with the Comprehensive Development Plan and Chapter 1135. The requested zoning is ‘C-1’ General Commercial. The intent of the ‘C-1’ District is to provide for general commercial activity, including a wide range of goods and services that will serve the region. The District is intended to be concentrated around transportation nodes (such as the intersections of primary arterial streets). The District should be at least two (2) acres in size.
The Comprehensive Development Plan indicates a future land use designation of “Special Planning Area.” The tract is located in the ‘North Gateway” Planning Area; there are some recommendations on pages 10-17 to 10-19 and I will outline a few of those I think apply to the application. It says new, private development should not occur without a future land use analysis and/or a Gateway Corridor plan. However, this is a redevelopment. Future land use analysis and/or a Gateway Corridor Plan should address the need for the following; mitigation of the effect of traffic congestion generated by the new development, an assessment of existing public utilities and the need for expansion for those utilities to meet necessary site development. As the applicant stated, there is no municipal water or sewer services. We did contact the Health Department and they have no reported problems on that parcel.
Back in April 2001, there was a request for zoning for ‘C-1’ on this parcel after it was annexed into the City, it was annexed in 2000. The zoning designation prior to annexation was commercial and once it was annexed into the City it became ‘R-1A.’ Zoning was denied by City Council at that time. In September of 2004, we had a request to rezone to ‘R-4’ and at that time Planning Board gave an unfavorable recommendation to Council.
We did discuss, in 2001, an access road to serve those 9 parcels up there. This was done to minimize the number of curb cuts. This stipulation was put on the two Gerstner properties, directly north of Arby’s. In addition to any other regulations, it would have to meet our zoning code for parking and buffering with further development. It would have to meet conditions (a) or (b) through (d) for favorable consideration.
Wagner: Doug, when you say special requirements under the Comprehensive Development Plan, what do you mean by that?
Spitler: Donnette will have to help me out on this. ‘Special Area’ was designated up there in that area because a lot was unknown at that time with the pending Wal-Mart Development and the surrounding developments they didn’t know what they would need for transportation such as highway widening if needed, utility expansion. If that happened then maybe commercial would be well suited, if that didn’t happen maybe not. There needed to be some things happen before it was really defined in our comp plan as to what was really happening there as there was so much to be anticipated as to what was going to really happen.
Gary: When I review this site it is obvious that the land use is changed up there, directly in relation to the Wal-Mart development and other commercial development, so my tendency is that ‘C-1’ is proper zoning for this as opposed as to what we faced last month. I would be in favor of this application.
Coleman: The only thing that I would want to know is that if we want to do that why don’t we do them all, as opposed to one at a time. Are some people going to stay in their homes and then skip a lot or two and then they would go through this ‘C-1’ change.
Fisher: The property owners along there signed a letter to Council a few months ago, stating that they wanted Council to rezone it. The City doesn’t just go in and rezone. They sent them back a very nice letter stating that if they would like to rezone you have to do this with an application and they could all be on it, and if they have any questions to call.
Daily: It was put on the agenda at the next Council meeting and I have never heard back. At that point in time all the residents had signed the letter.
Fisher: We think that is probably coming.
Daily: As Doug pointed out, the two lots to the south were residential at one time and they have gone commercial. The use is still residential but they are zoned commercial.
Jordan: You are going to see that whole area, eventually go to ‘C-1’ down through there. When we did the Comp Plan it was a complicated process in the north area of town as to what to do. That is why it went into the Special Planning Area and now two years down the road you can see where we are going.
Jordan: Tim do you have anything else to add?
Lane: I think it is a good use.
Geeting: The one thing I was wondering about, is there a lot of traffic in and out with this business? You are still on the septic and I know you got a favorable approval and no problem report but is there a lot of people coming in and out of the building?
Alvis: No, there would not be a lot of people coming in. As far as the septic and the well we will actually use less that a residence would use. You would be using a washing machine or showers or any of that.
Geeting: I think that should work pretty well.
Wagner: I move that we give favorable recommendation to Council for approval of application Z-04-07 to ‘C-1’ General Commercial based on the fact that it complies with Chapter 1135.01 in that this is a change in accordance with, or in more appropriate conformity to, any existing land use plans for the area under consideration. There has been a substantial change in area conditions and there is a legitimate requirement for additional land area for the particular zoning district. Harold Geeting seconded the motion and it passed as follows:
Ayes: Lane, Geeting, Wagner, Jordan (4)
Nays: Coleman (1)
AB-04-15 – Conditional Use – Murphy Oil USA, Inc. – 1716 N. Barron Street:
Jordan: The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to put a fueling station with a 208 foot kiosk on Lot #3308, at the corner of North Barron Street and the Wal-Mart north access drive. The zoning of this lot is ‘C-1,’ General Commercial. Who represents the request tonight?
Mendoza: Good evening Board members, my name is Erickson Mendoza with Kimley-Horn & Associates, the civil engineering consultant for Murphy Oil U.S.A. We were here before you several months ago and it was passed with conditions and then went to the Appeals Board but there were some issues with the property owner and my client, the developer, as well as the City’s concern during the Public Hearing. It was put on hold and on hold and finally the Appeals Board withdrew our application. A couple of days later I got a call and they said to proceed with it so we did. We brought up this site plan again to the client, the developer, the property owner, which is Wal-Mart, and we came up with, I think, a better site plan for you tonight. We are here tonight for a Conditional Use for the fueling station. The zoning for the site is ‘C-1,’ it is a compatible use for the surrounding properties and I would be glad to answer any questions that you have.
Wagner: One question I have is on the driveway access, off of 127, there was concern about an extra cut there.
Mendoza: That was one of the main issues before. All of the parties have come to an agreement to go ahead and remove that driveway and all of the access to the station will be from the Wal-Mart parking lot.
Wagner: This is the driveway I am looking at.
Mendoza: Yes, here is a new site plan that I brought with me tonight. They just decided to do that. This is the entrance off of 127 and that driveway has been removed.
Spitler: Your packets have the old site plan.
Jordan: Donnette, did you look at it?
Fisher: I haven’t had the time to look at it.
Wagner: The application that he presented to us this evening is the same application that we approved back in May.
Mendoza: Yes sir.
Wagner: Except this application shows that driveway gone on the drawings.
Mendoza: Yes sir.
Geeting: That is the only difference?
Mendoza: Yes sir.
Spitler: Is the parking a little different? The parking wasn’t it to the west and now it is to the south?
Mendoza: Yes, you are right. That was moved due to a building setback around that site and we wanted to get it out of the way. That is just the sign. If you have a suggestion as to where to put the parking, I would be glad to entertain it. We feel that that is a better design and is closer to the building so when people park it is a shorter distance.
Coleman: If we decide to go with the Court Order, what the Court says, where would the parking lot be?
Spitler: Murphy Oil wouldn’t be on this site.
Coleman: What did the Court Order say?
Fisher: Do you want to see a copy of the Court Order, Ron?
Coleman: I just asked a question.
Fisher: I will get you the Court Order.
Mendoza: I believe the Court Order said that if the fueling station was in the Wal-Mart parking lot, set back inside the parking lot, and we were not going with this out parcel, then a Conditional Use wouldn’t even be in question. We are going into this property that wasn’t part of the whole agreement so therefore a conditional use is needed for the fueling station.
Coleman: This is the way that quite a few of the Wal-Marts are, aren’t they? The one in Wilmington sits right in the parking lot like this.
Wagner: The one in Richmond does.
Coleman: I got gas in Wilmington and that was where it was.
Mendoza: That was built a couple of years ago. Some of the sites are designed that way but this one just had design problems. There is always a traffic concern when the fueling station is out in front of the entrance drive to Wal-Mart and there were some utilities that were going across Wal-Mart that would have had some conflicts with the gas station.
Jordan: Is this lot actually part of the Wal-Mart complex or is it owned by RG Properties?
Mendoza: It is owned by the Wal-Mart property.
Fisher: Wal-Mart owns the two out lots.
Jordan: Doug, I will leave this up to you. Do you feel comfortable without reviewing the site plan?
Spitler: We reviewed it the last time and the only thing that I think they have changed is they removed the access, which is what we requested and they moved the parking. The only thing that the Board would consider is that it does say that there is a buffer required at the side and rear. We discussed it the last time and I want to make sure the Board is clear. We didn’t require the buffer the last time. They are showing a buffer around their trash enclosure but not along the sides of the property. That is different because all of the properties are zoned ‘C-1’ now. It doesn’t specifically say, if it is beside a residential. The Board may want to consider that.
Fisher: Part of that was the Federal Court Order. As long as all of those properties went ‘C-1’ a buffer would not be required.
Spitler: I think we mentioned the last time that there are some things mentioned on there, especially the kiosk would need to go through the Building Department for the sign application. I believe that is your sign, the kiosk.
Mendoza: The signage is on the canopy, as well.
Spitler: That still needs to go through the Building Department. The review that we did tonight is not specifically for the sign.
Mendoza: Yes, this is all for Conditional Use. That is my understanding.
Spitler: Exactly.
Mendoza: All of the signs will be checked with the Building Department for code.
Jordan: Board members have any more questions or discussion?
Lane: Maybe I misheard, but why did you want to move from where it was in the Court Order up to 127?
Mendoza: That wasn’t my decision. That was strictly between Wal-Mart, the developer which is RG Properties and my client. They decided that it was better for a fueling station to be up front. They tell me to jump and I say, how high. I am on a need to know basis and I didn’t need to know that part. They just told me to get the Conditional Use approved.
Coleman: What are we going to do, in a couple of months come back to this same thing
again?
Mendoza: From what they told me is that they are moving forward with this and all of the parties are in agreement with this site plan and it’s a go.
Coleman: I still like the parking lot, myself.
Geeting: I really think the last time that we approved it with those conditions that the driveway wasn’t there.
Jordan: That was our main concern the last time, the curb cut coming out there, we wanted to limit that traffic flow onto the Wal-Mart property and that has disappeared. That was the main stumbling block.
Wagner: I have a question about the Court Order. Since the Court Order indicated that the pump station would be in the parking lot, if we approve it to go in this lot here, can something be developed in the parking lot?
Fisher: No.
Wagner: So what we are doing is we are taking a business lot and taking it away.
Fisher: The site that it was on, on the Wal-Mart site, was not a separate lot. It is moving onto a separate lot.
Jordan: Basically I am looking at it this way, if Murphy Oil stayed on the Wal-Mart parking lot, then something else can move into this commercial lot here. We are cutting down on one commercial property.
Wagner: I move for recommendation of approval of case AB-04-15 in that it meets the applicable standards of Chapter 1163.03. The specific general requirements and the specific requirements that are outlined in 1163.03 (b) (7). The motion was seconded by Harold Geeting and passed as follows:
Ayes: Geeting, Wagner, Jordan (3)
Nays: Coleman, Lane (2)
Jordan: The next item on the agenda will be AB-04-16 variance, Gary L. Miller, 228 S. Beech Street. The applicant applied for variance for the lot located at 228 S. Beech Street, zoned R-3, and Multi-Family Residential. The applicant wants to replace the existing mobile home with a new mobile home. State your name and address for the record please.
Miller: Gary Miller and I live at 8197 St. Rt. 122 South, Eaton and I am his wife Betty Lou.
Jordan: What would you like to do?
Miller G.: That trailer was real old and it is really not livable anymore and we bought a new one that is a little bigger on the main body size but still smaller than what is in there now, in overall width. We feel that it would increase the property value and make it look lots nicer.
Miller B.: I thought that when we bought it that we could always put one back in since there was one there. We just bought it for a rental property and we just wanted to make it look nicer and we have already bought this other trailer to put in there. We have had bad renters and they have trashed it and it does look real trashy down there and it is by that bridge and there is a lot of traffic that goes down there. Just trying to make it look nicer.
Jordan: Okay. Doug, do you want to go over staff review?
Spitler: Joe is putting some pictures of the site up on the wall. Planning Board makes recommendation to the Appeals Board on variances following Chapter 1133.07 and the Comprehensive Development Plan. The applicant is requesting a use variance to be allowed to use a mobile home as a single-family dwelling. Our code does not allow a use variance. They are also requesting a variance from the required 950 sq. ft. minimum floor area. Their proposed floor area is 728 sq. ft. They are also requesting a variance from the required 6 ft. side yard setback to 5 ft. setback. The zoning district is ‘R-3.’ The minimum required lot size is 7000 sq. feet and actual lot size is approximately 4900 sq. ft.; however, the building official has noted that a home meeting the required floor area and setbacks could be constructed on this lot.
The Comp Plan shows the site in the “South Side” planning area with an “Urban Residential” designation for future land use. There are no specific recommendations pertaining to the application. The variance must meet conditions (1) through (6) of Chapter 1133.07 for approval.
Jordan: Looking at the lot size, it is actually 44 x 99, is that correct Doug?
Spiller: It is but there is also a sliver that is 5 ˝ feet by 99 so if you add the two together it is actually 49 ˝ by 99.
Jordan: Basically, the same size lot as others in the older areas of the neighborhood.
Spitler: Right.
Jordan: Which have a lot of single-family dwellings on them.
Spitler: Correct.
Wagner: This residence location has always been a mobile home. I remember growing up as a kid that in that block there was always a mobile home.
Fisher: Since when?
Wagner: I have no idea.
Fisher: I believe Mrs. Miller told Becky that it was put on there about 25 years ago.
Wagner: That has been a mobile home long before that.
Miller: It was a mobile home when I was a little girl. It may have not been that mobile home, but one was there.
Fisher: Based on it being 25 years old, I went back to the oldest know code that we have in the City, maybe 64, and mobile homes were not allowed at that time. I went on what I had. If it was before 1964 it is okay and if it was after 1964 it is not a valid non-conforming use because it wasn’t lawful when it was put in.
Wagner: So even though it has been a site where a mobile home has sat for 50 years?
Fisher: To be a valid non-conforming use it has to be pre-existing, which this is, and it had to have been lawful at the time. If my land is annexed to the City and it is zoned ‘rural residential’ and I am not allowed to have horses on my land. The City annexes me in ‘residential’ I can’t argue that I have a right to keep those horses because those horses aren’t lawful under county code. It has to be lawful at the time to be a valid non-conforming use. If you have a residence, like those houses beside Arby’s, you are zoned residential and you allowed to have a home and the zoning gets changed to commercial, you can continue to use that house as a residence because it was pre existing at the time the zoning was changed and it was lawful because a residence was allowed then. That seems to be the problem here, that mobile home was un-lawful when it was put in.
Wagner: I need to go back to what statement you made. You made the indication that if the home was existing there at the time before a new code came into effect that it was allowed there by conditional use, pre existing conditions.
Fisher: It is allowed there as a non-conforming. It had to be pre-existing and lawful.
Wagner: I know that there has been a mobile home there in the 50’s. You are saying that 25 years ago they took that mobile home out and moved another one in? Does that make it.
Fisher: I would have to go back and look at what the non-conforming chapter said at that time but usually, I don’t think it has changed that much from what we have now and if you were repairing it, okay, but completely replacing it with another is what causes the problem. The reason I wrote it this way, by not growing up around here I have no memory as to what was there. The owner told us 25 years ago and I went and looked at the zoning code 25 years ago. Twenty-five years ago mobile homes were not allowed and that is why I put that on.
Wagner: If anybody here is as old as I am, that used to be owned by a family by the name of Pilcher. His mother had a dry cleaning store on, where David Shock is now building that big garage, and we played softball in Shavers lot which is now a day care center. That mobile home, a mobile home was there back in the middle to late 50’s. Do you remember Mr. Stonecash?
Miller B.: I just wanted to add that there is no fixing it up. It is really destroyed on the inside, it leaks, it is ruined, there is no repairing it.
Fisher: The only issue there is that if it was un-lawful at the time that it existed, if you look at Chapter 1165 in our current zoning code, that hasn’t really changed much. It is the intent of the Zoning Code to permit these nonconformities to continue until they are removed or discontinued, but not to encourage their continuance. If you look at 1165.04 (d) the substitution of a lawful nonconforming use with another equally or more appropriate nonconforming use shall be permitted, provided that no structural alterations are made.
Jordan: So we are back to the point that if you have a non-conforming use and you want to maintain a non-conforming use, it has to stay in the same footprint.
Fisher: Yes.
Coleman: You said that it excludes mobile homes and trailers.
Fisher: The definition of dwelling unit in our zoning code specifically excludes the use of mobile homes and trailers as dwelling units.
Coleman: If you take that out you can’t put nothing back in?
Fisher: Unless you say that is an appropriate substitution of a non-conforming use. I didn’t know how long it had been there, I went on 25 years as the best information that I had. If it has been there before the 1950’s then it may have lawful at the time.
Jordan: State your name for the records.
Johnson: My name is Mary Lou Johnson. I bought the property first. When I bought the property we asked that very question. If we replaced this trailer can we put another trailer back in. They told us, yes and that is why we bought it. They told us that at that time.
Wagner: Who told you this?
Johnson: Actually, it was a representative from the Daily Agency.
Wagner: It wasn’t a building official or a City official. Yes, they had checked into it and it was Bob Wehrley. They said there would be no problem and that is why we bought the property. That was our intentions. We actually bought it for our daughter and she made me mad so I sold it. I know that trailer has been there longer than 25 years because the people that I bought it from, they had lived there for years and then their son moved in and he had lived there for years. I remember that trailer when I was a little girl and that is longer than 25 years.
Wagner: Has the garage always been there? I don’t remember the garage,
Johnson: That I don’t know. Actually, I believe the garage was there. At one time that was a really nice trailer and it was well taken care of but when you buy something like that for a rental, anybody that has rental property knows what people will do.
Wagner: So we don’t know if this trailer is the original trailer that was there.
Fisher: If you say you remember it being there in the 50’s.
Wagner: I remember it being there in the 50’s.
Coleman: Or some trailer.
Fisher: I went on the 25 years because that is what I had. I don’t think the City had zoning before ‘64. If it was pre-existing before that initial zoning code then it is a valid non-conforming use.
Wagner: So what that means is that they could put another structure in there?
Fisher: The substitution of a lawful nonconforming use with another equally or more appropriate nonconforming use shall be permitted, provided that no structural alterations are made.
Wagner: Structural alteration, if they remove the trailer that surely is a structural alteration.
Fisher: The purpose of non-conformity is to eventually get rid of them. If you keep on allowing them to be replaced, how are you ever going to get rid of them? The thing is, as Tom brought up earlier is the issue of the footprint, that applies an issue where the only reason that the building is non- conforming is because of the setback. That is not the only reason that this is non-conforming. It is non-conforming because it is not a permitted use.
Wagner: Mr. Wehrley states here that they could build a home on that lot that would be conforming.
Fisher: If you want to table this I will do more research on it before the next meeting to see if there are any cases of that non-conforming.
Wagner: Since you based your whole opinion on 25 years.
Fisher: That is what I based my initial opinion because that is what I knew.
Jordan: I know I would be more comfortable is you did some research and wrote an opinion on it for us and then we can go from there. Do the Board members agree with that?
Everyone said yes.
Jordan: I need a motion to table the matter.
Coleman: I move that we table this until the next meeting and it was seconded by Gary Wagner and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Wagner, Jordan (5)
Nays None
Jordan: What we have done is to table this for 30 days and let our Law Director research it a little further and write an opinion and give it to this Board.
AB-04-17 – Variance – John M. Newkirk, Jr. – 915 North Cherry Street:
Jordan: The applicant has applied for a variance from the City’s ‘R-1B’ setback regulations to be allowed to add a 6 ft. front porch to the home located at 915 N. Cherry Street. The applicant is asking for a three and one-half front yard setback from the right-of-way line. Who is representing this application tonight?
Newkirk: My name is John Newkirk, I reside at 401 A Kayler Road in Eaton. This property is an investment property that I purchased and this is my stepfather Don Shiflett. He is doing most of the refurbishing work. I brought some pictures for the Board to look at. We are trying to build a six-foot porch onto the front of the property. As I understand it was a setback problem. There is a existing sidewalk to the south of the property and in our diagram, the six foot that we are proposing to bring out, it still leaves us two foot from the existing City sidewalk. We are not violating or crossing over any kind of City sidewalk that would extend if they chose to extend it.
Jordan: Doug do you have staff review?
Spitler: Planning Board makes recommendation to the Appeals Board on variances following Chapter 1133.07 and the Comprehensive Development Plan. The applicant is requesting a variance from the required front setback of 25 feet to 3 ˝ feet to construct a front porch; the existing home is approximately 9 ˝ feet from the property line so it is also in the existing setback.
The zoning district is ‘R-1B.’ In our supplementary regulations in our zoning code it states that “porches and steps may project into the front yard of a dwelling unit no further than 15 feet, and no other structural projections will be permitted.” The parcel is in the “East Side” planning area with an “Urban Residential” designation for future land use and no specific recommendations pertain to this application. The variance must meet conditions (1) through (6) of Chapter 1133.07 for approval.
Jordan: Board members, comments?
Coleman: Doug, what about a sidewalk? Is the City planning on putting a sidewalk there?
Spitler: There are no plans right now. That is the importance of the right-of-way line. That sidewalk typically goes back to the right-of-way line. As the applicant stated, granting the variance would not put that past the right-of-way line, but the issue is the setback line.
Coleman: It looks to me that if you put a sidewalk, he is going to have to take those two trees out. The he is going to have to put a wall or something in there.
Shiflett: If you look in this one picture I am about two feet within that red pin that lines up with the sidewalk. That sidewalk would be about two feet from where I have that post to the right of that. You would go right between the trees.
Coleman: Chances are they would have to take the trees out because of the root system.
Shiflett: That is probably why they never put a sidewalk in there. If you go across the street, it is right on top of the sidewalk. I would have two feet.
Coleman: There are a lot of houses up in that area where the porch is close to the sidewalk.
Shiflett: We need something on there to make it look right. We have a landing on there now, it is 42 inches. I am asking for 30 more inches so I can put a porch on.
Coleman: You want to come to the end where that 2x4 is stuck in the ground?
Shiflett: Yes. The step won’t go off of the front, they will come off of the side. There is a sidewalk that comes down the side of the house. In the future if we have to we can come off of there and step down.
Coleman: The only thing I was saying is if they would decide to put a sidewalk in there you would want to put a wall in there. It is going to be too steep of slope.
Shiflett: I understand that. That is what you have across the street.
Wagner: I was up there today and looked at it. Across the street you have two properties that have porches that extend out close to the right-of-way. I look at this application the same way we look at the application that we approved on Mechanic Street. It is exactly the same thing. Therefore, I don’t see any problem with what he is trying to do with it. Just because the house was built where it is built, it is going to infringe on the right-of-way.
Jordan: That is where it comes in that it is not a self-created problem.
Wagner: It seems to me that it complies with all the standards that are listed here. I make a motion that we approve application case # AB-04-17 in that it complies with all the active standards listed in Chapter 1133.07 under variances. The motion was seconded by Ron Coleman and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Lane, Geeting, Wagner, Jordan (5)
Nays: None
Old Business:
Jordan: Next item on the agenda is Old Business. Does anyone have any Old Business to bring before this Board?
Wagner: I know what the re-write committee has done with their meetings, what is the time frame?
Fisher: Kim e-mailed me articles 1,2,3,4. I have them done and just need to go back and do a couple of changes. I am working on setbacks with Bob and Jackie. Kim e-mailed me 5 and 7 today. He is still working on 6. We are hoping to have them out to the committee members by the beginning of next week. The next meeting is the 23rd, one final look through is what we are taking. The committee will then present it to Council and Council will send it to Planning Board. Probably not the December meeting, it will be the January meeting.
Jordan: Does it go from the Committee to Council or the Planning Board to Council?
Fisher: It is a committee appointed by Council, so that committee has to make a report to Council and then by the Zoning Code, any text amendment can be made upon recommendation of Council to the Planning Board.
Jordan: Any other Old Business? Any New Business?
New Business:
Mantle: My name is Terry Mantle and I own the property at 111 W. High Street. It is a commercial building and we would like to change it from commercial to residential and put in two efficiencies with two people in each efficiency.
Jordan: That is the old laundromat?
Mantle: Yes, it is the old laundromat and was the alternative school for a while. It has been empty for about five months now. It has been up for sale for over two years and have had no interest in it. It has been up for rent for five months and we haven’t had any takers, as a business.
Jordan: What is the rest of that block?
Fisher: That whole block, for whatever reason, is zoned ‘C-4’ central commercial. Mr. Daily and I look at this last week and I think when we go through this, all of the way down to Beech Street, all of those homes in there, they could tear any one of those homes down and put in a parking lot, they could do customer retail. I don’t know why, but that whole residential area was done as ‘C-4.’ When we re-do the map as part of the Zoning Code we would probably recommend that to be ‘R-2.’
Jordan: Okay.
Fisher: Central residential area, that whole older neighborhood. Why it was like that before, I don’t know. All of those residencies, all the way down, are ‘C-4.’
Wagner: That is clear to Barron Street.
Fisher: It goes Beech to Barrron, from High Street all the way down to Wadsworth Street.
Wagner: That is all ‘C-4?’
Fisher: Yes.
Wagner: That doesn’t make any sense.
Mantle: Where do I go from here now?
Daily: We had talked about this. We recommended that Terry come in and get a feel from Planning Board so you are saying that he should approach with rezoning of ‘R-2?’
Jordan: My personal opinion is that would be a better fit in that area would be ‘R-2.’
Daily: This came to us late and just trying to get it moving forward we suggested he come here before the Planning Board. If you wish, you should move forward with the rezoning of’R-2.’
Mantle: Okay.
Daily: I think the Board would entertain that suggestion.
Mantle: I need to come back in and talk to Bob?
Fisher: Get an application. The application deadline is the 15th for the following month.
Wagner: 327 North Barron, is that the apartment complex? I am just asking.
Spitler: 327 is that big blue house on the corner.
Wagner: His property is right behind that?
Daily: The old laundromat.
Wagner: There is a mention here about rezoning about moving ‘C-4’ to ‘R-2’ on South Beech Street.
Fisher: Maybe we would need ‘C-4’ along Barron Street itself, but from behind there back, from the alley back clear to Beech Street.
Wagner: Can we rezone property without the property owners permission?
Coleman: I thought you said we couldn’t do that up north? You said they had to come to us.
Fisher: For them to just send a letter, it wasn’t that they just wanted rezoning. They wanted rezoning and wanted us to put in their sewer and water.
Coleman: When I said why didn’t we just do all of those instead of just the one.
Fisher: They can come in and sign an application and we will walk them through the process.
Coleman: You are saying that all of those people should have to come in?
Fisher: I am saying this rezoning, that will be done, what Gary asked, is if we will redo the entire zoning map. The entire map will be redone and there will be things in many areas that will change.
Daily: He will do an application for his parcel only. It the Planning Board wants to make a recommendation to Council on rezoning all of that, they can do that.
Fisher: Actually, it is Council that would make the recommendation to Planning Board.
Coleman: I am still confused. You said those two houses down by Arby’s are rezoned commercial so I said if you are going to do the one up top, why not do all of them. You said you can’t do that unless they come in.
Fisher: I said that they had discussed that possibility and we had said to come in. Fill out an application and come in so you can talk to the Board and we never heard from them. I didn’t say we couldn’t do it, I just said we never heard from them and they didn’t follow up on it. Once they heard the City wasn’t going to provide the sewer and water they gave up on it.
Daily: I wrote them back and basically said that it was unlikely that the City would run your water and your sanitary. However, if you wish to come and request zoning you could be put on the agenda. We never heard back from them.
Jordan: I think in the past we have rezoned areas in the City that were out-of-line. We have industrial areas right in the middle of residential.
Fisher: That is like the house across from Joe Renner, it is a residential and things around are zoned commercial.
Wagner: This 111 W. High Street. Is there enough property there to meet the ‘R-2’ standards? Have you reviewed that before we go to all of this trouble with the rezoning application?
Fisher: ‘R-2’ is.
Spitler: The letter from Bob indicates, it says, based on their proposed floor plan,building code wise, it would appear that this would be possible.
Fisher: Basically, every residence that is in ‘C-4’, that is from Beech to Barron and High to Wadsworth, is a non-conforming use, every one of them, the way it is right now. ‘R-2’ doesn’t have any size requirements.
Wagner: It says minimum floor area for two-family dwelling is 700 sq. feet.
Daily: I asked Bob when he came to me on this rezoning, can you get two in there and he said yes, two efficiencies. As far as the building code, and permitting or anything, Bob has tentatively cleared that.
Fisher: ‘R-2’ two-family dwelling, minimum lot size is 8000 sq. feet.
Wagner: That is minimum lot size. It is 700 sq. feet, minimum floor area.
Jordan: This is only 500 square feet, isn’t it?
Spitler: The lot is only 50x60. That is 3000 sq. feet.
Wagner: That is why I brought it up, I wanted to make sure.
Jordan: You might want to ask Bob and see if it is going to meet minimum lot size.
Mantle: I will go back and ask him. The problem is, as a business, all of the businesses are leaving out of the residential areas and they are going out to where they can be seen on the highways and there is not an established business there so there is no draw to come back there to do business. We are just not getting any takers. If we leave the building empty then you have another empty building in Eaton and I wouldn’t think you would want any of your buildings just left empty like that. I don’t know what else we can do with it other than use it for storage or something.
Jordan: I think ‘R-2’ residential would be good but you have to be sure you can fit into our requirements before you can do it.
Mantle: I go along with that but I am also thinking that you got a building and its use has been depleted. Where would you go from there? Do you have to tear the building down?
Daily: Have you sit down and talked to Bob, at any length, about this?
Mantle: Just showed him a basic floor plan as to what we were going to try and do in there.
Daily: I questioned Bob about parking of the two units and he said that would not be an issue. I don’t know what you have discussed with Bob but maybe we need to get Bob and some other people and sit down with you from the very beginning, so you can move in this direction. This might save you some time.
Mantle: Okay.
Daily: Or if you want to just fill out the application and submit it, that is fine to.
Mantle: I can fill out the application and submit it, but my question to you is if you got a piece of property over there and it doesn’t conform, are you going to let that property go dead.
Daily: There are too many things we don’t know. Once you submit the application to us, it comes in by the 15th, shortly there after staff gets together, we sit down and look at the completeness, any problems and then we get back with you to tell you, this looks good or we are missing some things so we can get back together and have it taken care of and to Planning Board in a timely fashion. It is difficult to answer your questions now, but if you want to have a preliminary meeting with Bob and staff, we will do that. We will be back with you shortly after the 15th.
Mantle: Okay. My question is, I am just curious on any other buildings you have in the area. If you run into a problem like that and you still want that area to keep moving, can’t you alter?
Fisher: Are you asking if they are going to approve it or not?
Mantle: Is there any way to get a variance?
Daily: It depends on what it is that is presented, we don’t know. If you want to get together and have an informal meeting, just put some sketches down and we can tell you if it looks like there will be a problem or not or if you just want to submit the application, we are going to look at it anyway.
Mantle: Okay, I will call Bob in the morning and set something up and we will go from there.
Daily: I think what you wanted to hear from this Board was would they entertain a rezoning or not. Until you get that there was no reason to go forward and I think you got that.
Mantle: I thank everybody.
Jordan: Any other new business? A motion for adjournment.
Gary Wagner made a motion to adjourn and Ron Coleman seconded it. Motion passed and meeting adjourned.
____________________________________ __________________________________
Secretary Chairman