REGULAR MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING
ZONING AND BUILDING BOARD ON JUNE 14, 2005
AT 7:00 P.M., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Eaton Planning, Zoning and Building Board met in regular session in Council Chambers on Tuesday, June 14, 2005, at 7:00 p.m.
The roll was called and the following was found to be:
Present: Ron Coleman
Stanley Spencer
Tim Lane
Harold Geeting
Steve Deffner
Tom Jordan
Absent: Gary Wagner
Also in attendance were City Manager Dave Daily, acting City Engineer Joe Ferriell and Law Director Donnette Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the May 10, 2005 meeting were read. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Steve Deffner and Ron Coleman seconded. The motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Jordan (6)
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.
MR-05-02 – Minor Sub – Randy O’Dell – 532 N. Walnut Street:
Chairman Jordan asked Mr. O’Dell if he was here to represent this application. He did advise the Board that he was the one representing the application. It is his wish to purchase approximately 50 ft. from the N. Part Lot 742 & 743, presently owned by Maurice Duggins. As of this time there is no legal description showing the new lot lines for either lot. Donnette will contact Jake Earley, Mr. Duggins attorney, and see if he can furnish us the necessary documents needed for this application. Planning Board declined to open the Public Hearing, and this will be held over for next month.
Jordan: The applicant has applied for a variance from the City’s I-1 (Light Industrial) front yard setback regulations to be allowed to construct a new building on lot #1909,
located at 452 Franklin Street. Because this lot is located directly across the street from a residential district, a fifty-foot front yard setback is required. The applicant is requesting that the front yard setback be varied to twenty-five feet. Jack, would you like to tell us about this.
Cobb: My name is Jack Cobb and I reside at 104 Sugar Hill Drive in Eaton, Ohio. I originally intended to just remodel the old church building and use it for storage and found out that it wasn’t worth remodeling. My next option was to tear it down and put up another building and with the fifty-foot set back, I just didn’t have enough room to put up a building so I am asking for a variance of twenty-five feet on the front.
Jordan: We were noticing in our aerial photograph that part of the neighboring property’s drive way is on your property. Is there an easement or something in place there?
Cobb: No, I just noticed that also. With the building being back I think it will help him. I think his garage sits around where he might have to put another driveway in. It is going to be a little closer to his house.
Jordan: That is why I was wondering if the sketch that you provided, is it going with the lines of the aerial photo.
Cobb: Yes. That part of the building will be back from where the church is, so that will help him. He is going to have to put a new drive in.
Coleman: You say you are going to build a new building, you will take that driveway?
Fisher: The question is, is that a legal driveway. Is there an easement there for that driveway or did they just use it?
Cobb: Jake checked my title and he didn’t say anything about an easement.
Fisher: My guess it that it is not a legal driveway.
Jordan: Basically you are going to take where the church is now and just turn it.
Cobb: Yes.
Jordan: By being an odd shaped lot, you have a setback problem.
Cobb: Right. If we have to go back fifty-feet, you can see I just couldn’t put a building there. I would just have to leave everything as is.
Jordan: The old church cannot be rehabilitated?
Cobb: No. They say it is going to cost too much, I can put up a new building cheaper than I can remodel that one.
Jordan: Okay.
Geeting: Is the new building basically the same size as the church only just turned a different direction?
Cobb: I think it is a little bigger, I think. The old building is 52x36 and it has a seven-foot addition out near the front, so it is very close.
Jordan: This is Light Industrial, correct?
Cobb: Correct.
Jordan: It is going to be used as a storage facility? Do any of the Board members have any other questions for Mr. Cobb?
Spencer: It looks like the way you are going to put the proposed building in, you turned it so that you could get the maximum use out and still get your setbacks.
Cobb: Yes, it will be set back a lot further than the church is now.
Spencer: It surprised me when I drove past there, it seemed like all the houses and everything along there, nothing was set back 50 feet.
Cobb: No, they couldn’t be.
Spencer: I don’t know if they were grandfathered?
Cobb: There would be no way you could widen that street they’re without taking out all those houses.
Jordan: Staff review, Joe.
Ferriell: You pretty much touched on everything. Would you like me to still go over it?
Jordan: Not unless you have anything that we haven’t covered?
Ferriell: Just the one thing, the minimum lot size, there is no minimum lot size in ‘I-1”
as long as the dimensions are met that are set forth in the zoning code. The variance must meet conditions (1) through (6) of Chapter 1133.07 for approval. The variance would be 25 feet.
Jordan: So we are looking at a 25 foot setback that is probably not got a 50 ft. set back now on the current structure. We do have an odd shaped lot.
Deffner: You would enter the new facility, not from the driveway in the picture because the building will be sitting on that basis, so it will be from the parking lot?
Cobb: Basically, the parking lot of the current church.
Deffner: I have another question, the property north, is he going to have room to put a driveway?
Fisher: That is all one lot, the whole corner.
Deffner: Thank you.
Fisher: My guess is that, that was the church and that was the parsonage.
Geeting: On the deed it says that it is partly outside the corporation limits.
Fisher: That is probably the deed when it was originally done.
Geeting: They put a new date on it?
Fisher: They would have used the original description. That is how they trace the title back, using the original description.
Jordan: This will go to the Appeals Board and that is when we will have a Public Hearing and I assume Mr. Davis, being a neighboring property, will get a letter stating what is going on so he is not totally surprised when Jack turns his building.
Any other questions or comments?
Ron Coleman moved for favorable approval of AB-05-11, finding it meets all the conditions in Chapter 1133.07, and Tim Lane seconded it. The motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
AB-05-12 – Variance – Greg Howard – 111 Potomac Drive:
Jordan: The applicant has applied for a variance from the City’s ‘R-1B’ rear yard setback regulations to be allowed to construct a deck on the rear of his residence, located at 111 Potomac Drive. The applicant is requesting that the rear yard setback be varied from the required forty feet to thirty-one feet.
Howard: I am Greg Howard, 111 Potomac Drive. I want to build a deck on the back of my house. As far as the zoning code is concerned, I can only go 8 feet out lengthwise from the back door and I wanted to get an additional 7 feet for a maximum of 15 feet in length.
Jordan: Is this going to be a raised deck?
Howard: It is going to be a raised deck. I am going to lag it into the frame of the house, through the brick, so it will be floor level off of the ground.
Spencer: I looked at the back of your house. Where are you going to put it, right out by your back door?
Howard: The sliding door is right there, as soon as you open the sliding doors, the deck will be right there.
Spencer: Pretty much centered?
Howard: Yes sir. If you are interested, we have some pictures.
Geeting: You purchased the property with the house there? You didn’t build it yourself?
Howard: I purchased it with the house.
Jordan: Joe, what is staff’s recommendations?
Ferriell: Planning Board makes recommendation to the Appeals Board on variances following Chapter 1133.07, the Comprehensive Development Plan. The zoning district is ‘R-1’ and the applicant is requesting a variance on the rear setback of 40 foot changed to 31 foot leaving the request variance of 9 ft.
Staff also notes that under the new code this set back would be in conformance. The new code setback for rear deck would be 5 foot from the rear property line using the new section 1113.05 (f) (B).
This variance must meet conditions (1) through (6) of Chapter 1133.07, pages 43-44.
Jordan: Do any of the Board members have any comments on this?
Once again we are look at something that if the new code were in effect we wouldn’t be here.
Fisher: In the new code you are allowed to build within 5 ft. of the property line. If you approve this variance, it will be a temporary non-conforming use and once the new code goes in affect then this would not be needed.
Jordan: In case you don’t understand we are working on a new zoning code and have been for two years, but it is another six months away. It is the Board’s decision.
Stanley Spencer made a motion for favorable approval of AB-05-12, finding that based on the standards of Chapter 1133.07, in addition to the new regulations, this meets the six standards shown in here. The motion was seconded by Steve Deffner and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Jordan (6)
Nays: None
AB-05-13 – Variance – Lackner Sign Co. for Eaton National Bank – 1697 N. Barron Street:
Jordan: The applicant has applied for a variance from the City’s ‘C-1’ sign regulations to be allowed a total sign area of 91.77 sq. ft., rather than the 40.5 sq. ft. total area allowed under the current zoning code, for its branch located at 1697 North Barron Street. The applicant was granted a variance to the City’s sign regulations in July 2003, and currently has 74 sq. ft. of signage, as allowed by the previous variance. This request is for an additional 17.77 sq. ft. of total sign area (for a total variance of 51.27 sq. ft.)
Who is representing this application tonight?
Fritts: My name is Bob Fritts and I am with Lackner Sign Company, 6067 Schumacker Park Drive, in West Chester, Ohio.
Deffner: Mr. Chairman, I need to abstain from this case.
Fritts: What we would like to do is to take, the existing code allows for 32 sq. ft. of sign on two elevations of the building, and because of the growth of the north end of the town, we would like to increase the square footage and put it all on one elevation of the building, which would be the north end. There is currently a six-inch letter on two elevations, north and south, and it actually doesn’t sit quite like that. If you would pass this down, it shows a shot from North Barron to show how tiny the letters are that exist now, they are six-inch letters. This application is to put a fourteen-inch letter there, so it amounts to roughly thirty-two square feet of signs, all on one, as well as an Eaton National Bank logo above the night deposit. That logo is well known around town here, this bank has been in this town for a long time and that circular logo is something that they felt would help with recognition of that area. There was a time when that end of town had not much beyond that gas station and the K-Mart store, but with the influx of all the new shopping and lighted signs, the bank feels like they need a little more visibility there from North Barron Street and this would give them that. We are in the position to eliminate one whole side of signs that are there now and put it all on one elevation.
Jordan: Joe, what is staff review on this?
Ferriell: The Planning Board makes a recommendation to the Appeals Board on variances following Chapter 1133.07, the Comprehensive Development Plan. The zoning district here is ‘C-1.’
The signs there total, Eaton National and Trust Co. is 28.37 sq. ft.; the pole sign is 28 sq. ft., the north side would be 40 square feet and the logo above the night deposit would be 3.4 sq, feet with the total being 91.77 sq. ft. The allowable was 40.5 sq. feet.
Previous variance has been granted to allow the north side with signage currently at 74 sq. feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to increase the existing square footage to 91.77 sq. feet making a variance of 51.27 sq. ft.
Staff also notes that under the new code the variance would be 9.77 sq. ft. This variance must also meet the general requirements of Chapter 1169.06 (a) and (b) (1) (A&B) page 138.
Spencer: The question is, you refer to the north in relation to ……?
Frits: If you stand on Barron Street and look at that building, it sits like this, it is at a funny angle. The north one would be the one facing Wal-Mart, the one closest to the intersection where the light is, pointing toward Bob Evans, if that helps.
Spencer: On the other side of the building, on the other side there is something that says Eaton National Bank to.
Fisher: On the actual, physical wall side of the building, that is the north side. What they are talking about here is to take it off from this side that faces the car wash and putting it all on the side that faces Barron Street.
Spencer: The one that exists now, the one I would call the true North side along Washington-Jackson Road, if you stood at K-Mart and looked over, there is also a sign there.
Fritts: There is a lighted box sign there.
Spencer: Is that included in this?
Fisher: Yes.
Fritts: I know you are in the midst of rewriting the code and did I understand that we were way over based on existing code, but only a little bit over based on the new code when that happens?
Jordan: Basically, yes.
Coleman: What size letters did you say this was going to be?
Fritts: Fourteen inch.
Coleman: What size are the Marathon letters on the marquee?
Fritts: I have never measured those. I suspect they are bigger than that.
Coleman: It looks like the same size you have now, are the same size that are on the pump, right now, which are not very big letters.
Another thing that gets me, you say more traffic needs to see. With more traffic, I don’t think they are going to be looking over that way and if you look over there, you are going to see the trees that are in the way of the sign. I can see you need a bigger sign, but I just wanted to put that comment in that you said about the traffic.
Fritts: Well its…….
Coleman: A bank, we all know if we are customers of the bank, we know where the bank is at.
Fritts: I understand that. In the sign business it is all about visibility from the street and the more traffic there is the more people are vying for attention.
Coleman: We are trying to eliminate the signage and you guys are always wanting more.
Fritts: We feel like this is being done in a tastefull manner and we are certainly willing to omit one whole viewpoint of it to do that.
Jordan: Did the other bank across the street and Bob Evans, did their signage meet the new code without a variance?
Fisher: We didn’t have any numbers in place in the new code when we did Bob Evans.
Fifth Third is on a corner lot and it would be a whole different issue. Under the new code they would be over 9.77 for the wall signs. The number at the top, under the current one, that includes the one out front.
Jordan: According to Bob’s calculations the pole sign is 28sq. ft. If we treat this as a corner lot, what would your signage be, they have two frontages.
Fisher: I think a corner lot allows you to put two different signs on both sides and the old code only allowed for one. On this one, the one on the north side facing K-Mart and the one facing Barron Street, would both be allowed under the new code and the old code you had to have one or the other, which was the variance we gave them back in July 2003.
Coleman: Tell me something, if you are going to allow this and you are going by these six conditions, how do you get around two?
Fisher: I can’t tell you that, Ron. You have to decide how these standards are going to apply.
Coleman: Well, you are going to be the one arguing about it.
Fisher: You have to decide how those standards are applied.
Jordan: Ron, if you want to apply that standard all you have to do is to look across the street at Bob Evans.
Fisher: Do you want me to pull those and see what we did?
Jordan: Yes.
Fritts: This was one of the more confusing projects that I have had, just because of the fact that it is attached to Marathon and I wasn’t around for some of the other things. We did not do the pole sign, we did not do the sign that is on the other end of the building with the hours and things like that on it. I have had to educate myself and it was like a month ago when we started this project.
Coleman: It is hid back in there behind that service station.
Fisher: Fifth Third, it wasn’t an issue they were in their allowable sign area.
Jordan: I thought Fifth Third was but I was sure Bob Evans was.
Fisher: Bob Evans, they were allowed 120 sq. ft. and we gave them 138 sq. ft.
Jordan: So they were allowed 18 sq. ft. above what was allowable?
Fisher: Under the old code. We gave them a variance for the whole area.
Spencer: Under the new one this would be 9 ft. over?
Fisher: The whole thing would be 9.77 sq. ft. difference. Pizza Hut was allowed 160 sq. ft and we gave them 168.8 sq. ft.
Daily: 8.8 over?
Fisher: Yes.
Jordan: I guess we look at this as one of those trade offs. They are taking down part of their signage and then just putting it on one side of the building.
I really have no problem with this, it is just what ever the Board feels.
Spencer: I think with the other exceptions that have been granted, I think we could find a way to give our own locally owned, hometown Bank also the same courtesy.
Ron Coleman made a favorable recommendation for AB-05-13, finding that it meets the conditions in Chapter 1133.07. Stanley Spencer seconded the motion and it passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Jordan (5)
Nays: None
Abstain: Deffner (1)
Old Business:
Daily: Just a quick comment on Mr. O’Dell. When the TRC looked at his application and found that there were errors in it and we needed additional information and clarification on his part. We contacted him and explained to him that we needed more and he made some comments about mowing the yard and this and that. He was well aware that there would be problems tonight but again, he was told that it was his right to come and approach the Board. I just wanted to let you know that we did try to work with him but he didn’t have what he needed.
Jordan: Any other old business?
New Business:
Jordan: Any new business?
Ron Coleman made a motion to adjourn the meeting and it was seconded by Harold Geeting, all ayes and meeting adjourned.
___________________________________ ___________________________________
Secretary Chairman