REGULAR MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING

ZONING AND BUILDING BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2004

AT 7:30 P.M., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS

The Eaton Planning, Zoning and Building Board met in regular session in Council Chambers on Tuesday, September 14, 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

Absent: None

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

MINUTES:

The minutes of the August 10, 2004 meeting were not complete and will be read at the October meeting.

SWEARING IN:

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

Z-04-06 – Public Hearing – Zoning Amendment – Robert & Francis Hileman – 1751 North Barron Street:

Jordan: The applicants have applied for a zoning amendment to rezone the property located at 1751 N. Barron Street from ‘R-1A,’ One Family Residential, to ‘R-4,’ Multi-Family Residential. The proposed use will be a two-family duplex. This is a Public Hearing and at this time I will open the Public Hearing and if there is anyone who wishes to address this application, step to the podium and state your name for the record.

Rivero: My name is Joanne Rivero and I live at 1309 Park Avenue in Eaton and I represent Mr. Hileman, he is the homeowner. Currently we have a contract to purchase for this property by Doug Selby. His wishes are to make it a two-family dwelling, so we are applying for the rezoning on behalf of that for him to complete the purchase. Mr. Hileman does not reside at that property, it is vacant and he resides in Kentucky. The reason for ‘R-4’ is because we have well and septic on the property. It is not attached to City water and the property is currently having much influence of commercial zoning behind it, beside it, and of course, across the street.

Jordan: Do any of the Board members have any questions for the representative at this time? If not I will close the Public Hearing and turn it over to the Board for discussion.

Doug do you have staff review?

Spitler: The requested zoning is ‘R-4.’ The intent of ‘R-4’ is to provide space within the City for mixed housing types at medium to high density and to allow for a limited mix of office and institutional uses. The District may serve as a transition area between residential and commercial areas of the City.

The Comprehensive Development Plan indicates a future land use designation of “Special Planning Area.” This tract is located in the “North Gateway” Planning Area and recommendations for this area are on pages 10-17 through 10-19 of the Comprehensive Plan.

As the applicant stated, there is no municipal water or sewer services for the tract and the request must meet any condition (a) through (d) of Chapter 1135.01 for favorable consideration. Just to add, the zoning to the south is ‘R-1A’ and the tract to the north is in the county and to the west, Washington Landing area is ‘R-3’ zoning.

Jordan: Board members any questions?

Wagner: Can you explain to me what the difference between ‘R-3’ and ‘R-4’ is?

Fisher: The only real difference, ‘R-3’ was intended to provide single family and other medium family density residential uses in urban areas with complete municipal services, so in ‘R-3’ you are required to have them. The district should generally be located to provide a smooth transition between lower density residential areas and more intense uses. ‘R-4’ is an even higher density residential use. I am not sure why they left out municipal services in that section, it seems to me it should be there as well. ‘R-4’ is the highest density you can get of our four residential districts. This would be apartment buildings, condominium, that type of thing.

Wagner: Does the new zoning code address the utility issue?

Fisher: Yes.

Wagner: So the new zoning code would require water and sewer for that parcel?

Fisher: I would imagine that we will require water and sewer in all districts except ‘R-1’ Single Family Residential.

Geeting: I have some difficulty with ‘R-4’ particularly on a ½ acre lot and a septic tank and well and would it be able to function properly.

Wagner: Is there any history of septic tank issues up there, do we know?

Fisher: ‘R-4’ allows any of these uses, you don’t just approve two-family, they could put single-family, two-family, three-family or multi-family dwellings.

Jordan: That is what bothers me about an ‘R-4,’ they could put a multi-family in there and there is nothing we could do to stop it, even though they say they want to do a two- family. I have to agree with Harold that I have a little issue about the well water and sewer system for a whole family.

Geeting: Sometime it is hard to get a good septic system on one acre lots rather than ½ acre.

Coleman: We have had some issues in town with the low rent districts and people coming in and paying by the week instead of the month. Once you get them in it is hard to get them out and you are stuck. I hate to start anything like this.

Atkins: If they want to put a two-family, why don’t they go with a lower density?

Fisher: I am sorry, I didn’t hear you.

Atkins: If they just want a two-family duplex, what would be the lowest density they could go to and still do that?

Fisher: They could only do that here which was part of the reason they went to ‘R-4.’ You can’t do it in the ‘R-1A,’ you can’t do it in the ‘R-1B,’ because they are only single- family, and the next one is ‘R-2,’ which is central residential and that is the area downtown. When the application first came in that is what they had applied for, ‘R-2.” We let them know that there was no way they could do ‘R-2.’ ‘R-2’ recognizes the older residential areas of the City where home have been built on small lots and where conservation of the existing housing stock should be encouraged. The ‘R-2’ is not intended to provide new moderate density developments and that was part of the reason ‘R-2’ was not applicable. You can’t apply for ‘R-3’ because it specifically states in ‘R-3’ that you have to have complete municipal services.

Coleman: Are they planning on putting two families in this house or are they going to build on?

Rivero: Two.

Coleman: In the same house?

Rivero: They are just going to split the house in the middle and have two apartments.

Coleman: It has always been a single family?

Rivero: No, it was commercial and it was changed when it was annexed.

Wagner: What was it when it was commercial?

Rivero: Mrs. Sambo had an attorney’s office in there.

Jordan: If you look at the standards that they have to be met, I can’t see where it meets any of the standards except four.

Geeting: I can’t see that either.

Wagner: The only thing I see that has changed up there is the zoning that took place across the street from them, which is the Wal-Mart project. That zoning was all changed to commercial from agricultural. The properties in the front, weren’t they all ‘R-1A’?

Fisher: They were all in the county and they came in as commercial because Wal-Mart property was already commercial and you come in as what you are next to.

Wagner: So, I am saying they would meet (c) if they would meet any of those. I am not too sure if ‘R-4’ is appropriate.

Jordan: I am not either.

Deffner: In the packet we had with all the lots, everything else on there, I assume, is ‘R-1A”?

Fisher: The two next to Arby’s are currently Commercial.

Spitler: Lot 3204 and 3205 are Commercial.

Deffner: What about 3203?

Spitler: ‘R-1A.’

Deffner: Everything north of there is ‘R-1A?’

Spitler: Yes.

Deffner: To me it doesn’t make sense to, what is north of 1751, is that outside of the City?

Rivero: Medical Building.

Spitler: That is outside of the corporation limits.

Fisher: On the Comp plan, that is part of the Special Gateway, to see how this area develops and part of the problem being that there is no water or sewer up there. Wal- Mart and the businesses that went in, we required them to run water and sewer. Any further development up there will be required to run water and sewer as well.

Jordan: We will be making a recommendation to Council?

Fisher: Yes, that is correct.

Atkins: I make a motion that we present an unfavorable recommendation for the application for the change of zoning, based on Chapter 1135.01 and the fact that it does not meet any of the requirements in (a) (b) (c) or (d) of 1135.01. Ron Coleman seconded the motion and it passed as follows:

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

Nays: None

AB-04-09 – David & Janice Shock – 300 S. Beech St.:

Jordan: This was tabled before so we need a motion to un-table this matter.

Ron Coleman made a motion to un-table the application and Steve Deffner seconded it. Roll was called and motion passed as follows:

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

Nays: None

Jordan: I see that they did go ahead and get the deed changed.

Fisher: Yes, what they did was to go ahead and get the deed changed. They had the two lots combined on one deed with a covenant that the lots cannot be sold separately. They brought that deed in and I reviewed it and it was fine. This can be dismissed.

Jordan: I will accept a motion to dismiss this matter.

Steve Deffer: So moved.

The motion was seconded by Ron Coleman and passed as follows:

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

Nays: None

OLD BUSINESS:

Jordan: Does anyone have any old business?

NEW BUSINESS;

Jordan: Does anyone have any new business?

Spitler: I have one item. I think everyone has met Joe Ferriell. He is the new Engineering Technician for the City and will be working with Becky and I and everyone. He is starting to read the Comp Plan and our codes. We were out this morning and he was asked by a resident if he was of the Ferriell’s around the area and he is. Joe is very well known in the area and will be a great help.

Jordan: Any other new business? If not, I will accept a motion to adjourn.

Wagner: So moved.

Ron Coleman seconded the motion and it was passed.

___________________________________ _________________________________

Secretary Chairman