MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING BOARD
ON FEBRUARY 14, 2006 AT 7:00 P.M., IN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Eaton Planning Board met in regular session in Council Chambers on Tuesday, February 14, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.
The roll was called and the following were found to be:
Present: Ron Coleman
Stanley Spencer
Tim Lane
Harold Geeting (Vice Chairman)
Steve Deffner
Gary Wagner
Tom Jordan (Chairman)
Also in attendance were City Manager Dave Daily, Law Director Donnette Fisher and Project Manager Joe Ferriell. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m..
MINUTES:
The minutes of the January 10, 2006 meeting were read. A motion to approve the minutes was made by Stanley Spencer and seconded by Gary Wagner. The motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
SWEARING IN:
All members of the audience anticipating to testify before the Board were asked to raise their right hand and be sworn in. The Secretary administered the oath or affirmation to the audience.
Z-06-01 - Zoning Amendment - Board of Education of the Eaton Community School District - 506 Aukerman Street:
Jordan: At this time, items 4 and 5 are ‘Old Business” and I’ll move them down as such. We’ll start out with item 6 and that is Z-06-01, a zoning amendment of the Board of Education of the Eaton Community School District. The applicant has applied for a zoning amendment to rezone part of Outlot 45, 8.9 acres, part of Outlot 75, 24.67 acres, and Lot 1476, 50', from ‘R-1B’ to ‘O/I’ Office/Institutional. These lots comprise East Elementary School including the driveway off of Aukerman Street and who’s representing this request tonight?
Earley: Mr. Chairman, my name is Jake Earley. I’m an attorney here in town and I represent the school on this particular issue. Basically, the school has been there since 1954 and it was constructed before the houses and the subdivision that is east of the school was constructed. The development on Aukerman Street was obviously in place and that property is presently zoned residential. Obviously, we’re non-conforming and so you might wonder, “Why are they here tonight?” Essentially, why we’re here is this nice little sign. When the remodeling was done on East Elementary that sign was erected and the building inspector notified the City that the sign did not conform to sign requirements in a residential district. So we had the alternative: We could go for a variance and hopefully get our sign, we could tear the sign down or we could file a zoning amendment to rezone the property in accordance with the Comprehensive Development Plan. So we chose...and, if it is rezoned, it will be legal. So, we chose to go with the rezoning. I’ve attached to the application all of what I figured you would need to permit you to favorably consider our request. I think we may meet all the requirements, except that Terry Miller, an adjacent property owner, has some issues that come about by virtue of the athletic complex that is on that tract. And the north end of that school property as you will recall has a stadium, a track and it is right across the road from where Terry owns. And he was kind enough to call me this morning and tell me he was going to do this. One of his concerns is the requirements for seating and parking. I looked through the sterling little book that I bought from the City and paid $25 for, that is not correct and I could not find any parking requirements in there, but Terry told me that the requirements are one space for every four stadium seats and I presume that’s in here some place. Its not? Okay, we’ll deal with what’s correct then.
Fisher: Its one space for every staff and employee and on the largest working shift plus one space for every two classrooms or one space for every four stadium seats at capacity.
Earley: Okay, it’s the four seats per capacity. I had the school perform a check on the parking spots that’s available and also got the number of stadium seats at capacity and I can tell you that the school has no plans to expand the athletic complex because if they’re going to do it, they’ll expand it out at the high school. Anyway, there are 732 stadium seats available at one space for every four seats would require183 parking spots, and as you can see from the schematics attached to the school site, there are 143 sites available. So basically what I would like to discuss with you tonight and what Terry would like to discuss with you is how this affects our request for rezoning. Dr. DeLuca was unable to be here this evening due to being at another meeting, but Dr. Curry, the Assistant Superintendent, is here and she and I have talked about this in general terms with the thought that one of the things we might propose to eliminate Terry’s problem would be to eliminate the north access to the complex. I don’t really want to tell you we can do that until Dr. DeLuca’s involved. So if we get to the point that that is something that we want to consider, then I’ll ask you to table it or postpone it until next month so Dr. DeLuca, Dr. Curry and I can talk about it and possibly meet with Mr. Miller. But that seems to be an option to me so that the parking is not on the north side of the complex where I think it affects Terry. There is a gate next to the school and there is a concrete walkway that goes toward that gate so there it is feasible that if this is a problem the board has, we can hopefully offer as a solution, access only by the south gate, or the southwest gate. If you have any questions about my presentation to you and the application, I think that since the school’s been there since 1954, it
has never been a hazard to anybody. The subdivisions have been built around it, there have never been any complaints that I have heard of except occasional complainants about the water that comes off the bus barn. Other than that, if you have any questions that either Dr. Curry or I could answer, we would be happy to do so or after you hear Terry’s concerns if there is anything we can answer, we’ll attempt to. And if you feel its worthy of your consideration further, then we would ask that it would be continued so I can get Dr. DeLuca’s input.
Jordan: Any board members have any questions right now? Terry.
Miller: I’m Terry Miller, I own 600 Lexington Avenue, I reside at that location and I have about 60 acres with about 1200' of road frontage across from the Eaton Board of Education property. Let me preface my comments by saying that, in my view, the change of zoning in and of itself is a non-event. The historical use of the facility in recent years with the stadium and the bus garage storage and the bus drivers being there in simultaneous use of the stadium and sometimes from the use of the open playing fields there are what cause the issue. So its not a situation where you count the parking spaces in and of themselves and mitigate the parking issue with a few additional spaces. It’s a situation where you have simultaneous use. I’ll cite you a few examples. There are occasions where the bus maintenance staff has to be traffic control people. They put up hazard tape to protect the area where the buses are going to be parking to try to direct people away from there attending these events in order to get the buses in and out. By my count, there’s close to 40 buses parked and stored over there. In addition, I don’t know how many active buses there are, but I’m going to guess there are some that are inactive, but I’m going to guess there are drivers that come and park there in a designated parking space for that. The issue is that as buses are coming in and out and the drivers of the buses have their personal vehicles parked there, that the situation where these events occur that’s been the cause of the problem. You have people coming from out of town that have no idea where the buses are or where they’re supposed to park, so they park along the roadways out there and there have been occasions when you couldn’t pass two oncoming vehicles there. They park on the school side, on my side, in the green area and I realize that its still technically the street right-of-way. So, the bottom line its not just the stadium use of itself, it’s the open playing field, you know, the football team practices over there, the pee-wee football uses the facility and I don’t know whether the school has sanctioned or authorized the pee-wee football, but they do use it as well as the track events and the junior varsity events. Obviously, the maintenance staff are there in the daytime and they have made an effort to be a good neighbor, they really have. I do take some exception to some of the bus drivers kicking trash out to where it blows. At any rate, those are minor issues. But my feelings are the current use even compared to the future anticipated zoning change, the situation is still the same with the parking requirements and according to the ‘Office/Institutional’ requirements, as Donnette pointed out, the property does not meet the requirement and I guess I would respectfully ask that this group request the City staff to do a study in conjunction with the school board, and I certainly would be willing to participate, to come up with what the proper amount of parking spaces are for the current and simultaneous use of those spaces and doing something to have a little better traffic flow, traffic pattern with access and proper curb cuts and access to the facility. There are some of these spaces as Jake pointed out on the south and west side of the building and I’m sure his count is right. If I would have to
tell you the number I thought, I would have to estimate, I would guess somewhere from 100 to 130 and he’s probably counted some that actually in parking spaces as the buses are moving in and out, they’re not over at the west side of the school. I’m not really sure, I think the buses use that area, too, but I think that they do. But any rate, human nature being what it is, those spaces are probably about 300' to 400' away from the stadium itself and as I say, human nature being what it is, nobody wants to walk more than 30' to do anything anymore. So obviously those spaces are vacant when there are events going on, so they park on the roadway and battle with the school buses and try to park there as well as the playing fields. And, again, I’d more than happy to work with the school, the City, to try to mitigate the issue. I’m not trying to be a bad neighbor or cause any issues, its not the zoning issue in my mind, it’s the current parking situation, lack of adequate off-street parking for the events that do occur there. I can answer any questions.
Jordan: Would anyone else like to address this issue at this time? Jake, would you like to comment on Mr. Miller.
Earley: I think this is why Dr. Curry and my thoughts are that if we eliminate the north entrance of the complex and make them enter from the southwest, then they are going to park on the southwest. They are going to park on the paved area around the school and when these events occur, the staff is, for the most part, gone and the buses are out of there, so the number of spaces that we have counted are truly projected to be adequate. There are some along the driveway that are not marked off which could be marked off. The rest of them, except for the driveway’s, are marked spots except for right in front of the school where the buses load and unload, but once the buses are out of there, the staff measured that and determined how many spaces would be available. So its our thought, without commitment at this point because I would need Dr. DeLuca’s blessing, that if we eliminated the north entrance to the complex people aren’t going to park there because they’d have to walk up the whole side of the facility in order to get to an entrance. And if we properly mark that area along the north side, “this is not an entrance, no parking,” then we are not going to interrupt the athletic fields, which the coaches are very unhappy when people park in that grass because if its soft, it ruts it and makes it difficult for the players, sometimes they could sprain an ankle or have other injuries, so the thought is keep them up where the pavement is and look at it from that side as opposed to looking at it from the north side. And, I don’t know whether that would in part solve Terry’s problem. I would think that if we don’t have parking down there because we don’t have access down there, it would go a long way to alleviate the concerns he has and the problems that he is experiencing.
Miller: I just have one comment. There are actually no curbs for the stadium on the north side, on the south side of Lexington Avenue currently. Its typically the buses have a wide range of spaces as they come in, and in all due respect to Jake’s comment that people who come in there, come in wherever they can get in. Its not fenced off, there’s no real traffic control and, unless someone is going to be there to prohibit parking there, they are going to go right down into the grass or they are going to use the bus garage ramp that is there.
Spencer: Sounds to me like we have two different issues here.
Wagner: That’s what I was thinking.
Spencer: You’ve got the zoning issue which has got something to do with the sign.
Miller: I think I acknowledged that initially.
Spencer: And then you’ve got additionally another issue with parking so its going to be difficult how you are going to keep people out of the grass area if you don’t have some kind of barrier no matter where you tell them to park, they’ll pull off the road somewhere.
Jordan: We do have two issues. Parking is an issue and this rezoning matter. They do have specifications to meet.
Fisher: Actually, its my opinion that parking is not an issue, its grand fathered, if they can come in exactly as they are, they do not have to add parking. If we went into Mr. Miller’s property and rezoned it residential and his house was too big or too small, we wouldn’t make him tear it down. I don’t think they have to add any spaces. If they chose to add onto the school or the complex at any point in the future, then they would have to meet parking requirements. But its not my opinion that changing to O/I is going to make them have to add parking places, they’re grand fathered.
Wagner: At the time the stadium went in, I’m assuming they met all the criteria.
Fisher: That’s before my...
Wagner: Do you know what year that was?
Unknown: Eighties, 20+ years ago.
Wagner: I sort of agree with Stan, we have two issues here, parking issue and the other issue that Mr. Miller’s talking about. Seems like it could be resolved between him and the school board as opposed to the zoning issue we need to address this evening.
Jordan: Very good point.
Daily: May I suggest, that whoever brought it up, it sounds like the school realizes there is a problem now that its brought to their attention. Perhaps the school, the city, Mr. Miller, Jake, whoever wanted to get together at a later date and discuss a remedy to that issue...
Miller: I’m open to do whatever. I realize we have a bifurcated situation.
Daily: You could have come here a year ago and made your statement.
Miller: In fact, I think I‘ve talked to you before about it.
Jordan: Any other board members have any comments, thoughts.
Earley: Well, we don’t have any problem talking to Terry and the City about it.
Jordan: Joe, what does the City...
Ferriell: Strictly the zoning issue, we really see no problem. As far as the dimensional requirements, they’re all met based on table 6 on page 51. As far as the setback requirements, definitely meets setbacks. There is no minimum lot size required for the I/O. It is a permitted use for the school to be in O/I, so the staff’s standpoint, we really have nothing else to add, it meets all the applicable standards.
Jordan: Okay. Anybody have anything else?
Wagner: I’ll move that we recommend to City Council favorable approval for case number Z-06-01 in that it meets the applicable standards in Chapter 1115.04 of the UDO and official zoning map amendments. The motion was seconded by Ron Coleman and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Jordan: Okay, its received favorable recommendation to City Council. Hopefully, you can work out the other issues. You’re free to go if you’d like or you can stay for the rest of the meeting.
PB-06-01 - Conditional Use - Timothy and Connie Barney - 304 Division Street:
Jordan: Next item on the agenda will be PD-06-01, conditional use, Timothy and Connie Barney, 304 Division Street. The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to put an in-law suite at the residence located at 304 Division Street, zoned ‘R-1B.’ Who’s representing this request tonight?
Barney: Tim Barney, I’m representing 304 Division Street, so I’m not sure exactly what you’re looking for from me, but I can tell you that we filed for a building permit at the end of 2004 with the understanding that this mother-in-law suite ordinance would pass shortly after 2005 and here it is after 2006 and we’re still waiting for approval. So, we filed, so this is our fourth temporary permit so we’re hoping at this point that the ordinance passes quickly so we can file for our final permit and move on.
Jordan: Basically, the ordinance has passed. Right now, you’re filing for conditional use to use this occupation legally and as such it will be non-transferable if you would sell the property, it goes away. If someone else moves in, it goes away. You’d have to come back and at this time, do the board members have any questions for Mr. Barney?
Barney: Okay, great, thank you.
Jordan: Joe, what’s staff review.
Ferriell: The in-law suite is permitted in R-1B. As far as the specific standards, it is attached to the principal structure. Maximum size of the in-law suite shall not exceed eight hundred sixteen (816) square feet. I figured this at 680, I’m not sure from the drawing he gave me, so we’re okay there. The appearance is neat, it’s on the second floor. It does not cover more than 35% of the lot. It meets the Ohio Building Code. The property owner lives on the site and its occupied by a family member, so it meets all the specific standards.
Jordan: Board, comments?
Spencer: I was looking at it to see if the square footage seems to be well under.
Ferriell: The maximum was 16, so we’re okay there.
Jordan: The only thing I was questioning was the square footage.
Ferriell: I was figuring 680, is that correct, from the drawing you gave me.
Jordan: The drawing has 910 but you figure the actual living area.
Ferriell: I took out the elevator and the stairs.
Wagner: I have one question. On the last application we have, its called R-1B. Since the ordinance is passed, what are they now, R-1?
Fisher: The R-1A and R-1B are still R-1A and R-1B.
Wagner: Are they?
Fisher: These are conditional uses, they are not permitted outright, they may be permitted.
Spencer: Ready for a motion?
Jordan: Any other board members have any question, comment?
Spencer: I’ll move that we approve this under the applicable standards of 1115.01, as it meets all those standards specified in our code. The motion was seconded by Ron Coleman and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Fisher: Mr. Barney, Mr. Wehrley asked me to remind you that you still need to schedule a final inspection.
MR-06-02 - Minor Subdivision - Woodland Heights, Cynthia Genth - 500 Hallmark Drive - Part of Out Lot 76:
Jordan: The next item on the agenda is MR-06-02, minor subdivision, Woodland Heights, Cynthia Genth, 500 Hallmark Drive, part Outlot 76. Who is representing this application tonight?
Kramer B.: I’m Brad Kramer of Kramer and Associates here to represent Woodland Heights Ltd., and Cynthia Genth, Vice President, here in the red, and what we’re asking for is a minor subdivision, a lot split. What Woodland Heights has on Route 35, as you may know, is an office and business park condominium. In 1998, phase one was developed, the Hallmark building. A few years later, phase two was developed which was Reflections Beauty Salon. And, currently, here in 2006, we working on phase three, which is the vacant portion between the Reid Hospital parking lot and the existing structures. The property that is attached to this Woodland Heights Ltd. extends northward, down into the creek bottom and all the way up to Weyerheiser property. We’ve surveyed about 8.253 acres off that and it really doesn’t have access to the Woodland Heights frontage property. Truthfully, it really doesn’t have easy access by way of a motor vehicle from any point, its up high, its pretty steep, creek banks and you do have the creek on the east side of the tract. So, what we’re asking for is to be able to split this property off, 8.253 acres, and we realize that access is the issue and the other issue is the fact that there is not a lot, by the definition of “lot” in the Unified Development Ordinance, states that there must be 40' of street frontage and by having this separated from the Woodland Heights property, we would lose that street frontage. So as part of this application, we’re asking that this board attach the condition that an adjacent land owner with adequate street frontage be required to purchase this tract to combine it with the adjoining property so it does satisfy the street frontage requirement. I don’t know if I made things clear or confusing, but if you have any questions, please feel free to ask.
UNKNOWN: Where are you going to have the street frontage?
Kramer: Well, right now the application states that we’re planning up at the Conley property on Park Avenue. However, there has been no deal made at this time and there may be others that are interested, other adjacent property owners, interested in purchasing this tract, which would also satisfy the frontage requirement, if they in fact purchased it. So, we don’t want to restrict our application to one particular property owner, but I suppose any particular property owner that would satisfy the definition, by combining the properties, would satisfy the definition of street frontage.
Jordan: Well, the way I was looking at it, if you don’t have something in writing to say that he’s going to combine with his lot that would have to do with road frontage, I don’t think we can do anything with this.
Kramer: I think we’re willing to accept the fact that if you would approve this on the condition that an owner, and I talked to Donnette a little about it, and I think Mrs. Genth talked to Joe about it, maybe could help us craft a proper motion or the proper type of language so that if this is passed that I don’t want it to kill a deal by attaching a single person to it right now, but if you could craft this properly, the deal could happen, then it could be divided and transferred as such.
Fisher: I think what Brad is asking is that most of these we see come through, a land-locked parcel with no street frontage, most of the ones we’ve seen already have a buyer. We are aware of where that land-locked parcel is going, conditioned upon the buyer attaching that to their current tract. They’re not sure, I think when they first applied, they knew that there was a buyer, and at this point, they’re not sure. You can say we’re not comfortable with it, come back when you have a buyer or you can approve it conditioned upon selling that to adjacent land owner with at least 40' of street frontage and that’s the only way you can do it. But you can do that.
Jordan: Maybe, you can, but I’m not comfortable with that. That’s like the City saying you can sell your property but just to these four people.
Kramer: But that would satisfy the definition of a lot. There is only a limited number of people, more than four, but you can see by the map that there is a limited number of people who would have the option to purchase. And, if no one’s interested, then this wouldn’t happen.
Fisher: There’s no way to split this lot without having a property owner with the street frontage buy it.
Ferriell: So, if it’s approved, under your scenario, that if there’s no buyer, the minor subdivision goes away.
Fisher: Yes, but it’s a matter of where Planning Board is comfortable with that
Ferriell: That’s what I’m saying, under that scenario.
Fisher: And, yes, we could split it off, but condition it upon an adjacent property owner buying it, unless Planning Board wants to know the buyer first.
Kramer: If I may ask Donnette’s advice, just from an application standpoint, simplicity, if this board is not comfortable with specifying that an adjacent owner would purchase this, can this be tabled until....so that’s another option we have.
Fisher: Yes.
Kramer: And, if that’s the case, are there any comments about the particular proposal, in general, does this satisfy everything?
Wagner: I’ve got a question about your map, the shaded area, is that all flood plain?
Kramer: Largely, flood plain, yeah. The area where it says Woodland Heights and 8.253 acres, yeah, that shaded area is flood plain, so there’s very little that is not in ...
Wagner: When you get towards Woodland, I know there is a big drop there because I’ve been back in that area before.
Kramer: Yeah.
Wagner: There’s not much left out of the flood plain to do anything with, is there?
Kramer: No, there really isn’t. If you look closely, the part that is out of the flood plain, there is a sanitary sewer so that restricts what is available. Its even a couple different shades. There’s a designated ‘A’ zone, there on the west side where you see, about mid-way through, a bright white and a... (Unknown- There’s very little ... This western part is ...So, we’d like to forth with this. ) I suppose in the interest of a potential purchaser, if you feel comfortable with this, but if you have a suggestion to secure a particular party then we’d at least like to know that this is something feasible and would work when a potential purchaser would be comfortable with buying it.
Kramer: Other than that, you don’t have trouble with the idea?
Spencer: No trouble with splitting the property, but we do need to know about the buyer.
Kramer: Okay.
Spencer: Any adjacent property owner like on Park Avenue?
Kramer: If they satisfy the requirements, yes.
Wagner: At this point, I’ll make a motion that we table case number MR-06-02. The motion was seconded by Harold Geeting and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
The motion was tabled.
Old Business:
Jordan: Okay, the next item on the agenda is going back down to Old Business which is AB-05-20, Preble County Board of Commissioners, Washington-Jackson Road, north side of Preble Drive. As this matter has been tabled, it will need to be un-tabled until we can discuss it. Do I have a motion to un-table it?
Steve Deffner made a motion to un-table this application and it was seconded by Ron Coleman,
motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Jordan: Okay, AB-05-20 is off the table, I’ll ask for discussion at this time. Donnette, would you like to fill us in on where we are at.
Donnette: I’ll try. Where we are at this point is the auditor’s office and the tax map department are concerned with, regardless of what our regulations say, regardless of what our subdivision regulations say, they are viewing this as a new lot, which I understand for tax purposes they have to remove this, you don’t get taxed on a roadway where the new Preble Drive roadway is coming in. The “for record purposes only” plat’s gone around and I believe the plat’s been signed by everyone...(interrupted)
Worthington: Katie Worthington, Asst. County Prosecutor, I think that’s been filed this morning.
Fisher: The church dedicated it and the Commissioners dedicated it so... The part dedicated by the church and the part dedicated by the Commissioners, tax map is going to review that as two new tracts even though technically, zoning-wise, they’re not, that’s how tax map looks at them. They have concerns that because that plat was already recorded and makes a new tract, we approve this as one tract, we’re going to wipe out the dedication of the right-of-way. What we’ve agreed to do is, I think this gets us where we want to go, it takes care of the tax map’s concerns, what they’ve done is, Katie’s prepared a deed with the 4 acre tract and the .552 acre tract, two separate tracts on the deed with a covenant that the .552 acres can only be used, its reserved for public right-of-way, containing the further restriction on the deed that the two lots can never be sold separately, so in essence they’re one lot, they’ll transfer to the CIC as one lot. They don’t have to record the plat. The plat was just for your informational purposes because of the minor subdivision. The only thing they need is the stamp on the deed, so that’s where we are.
Jordan: So, you don’t need the variance so we can dismiss it?
Fisher: You can dismiss the variance.
Jordan: Does the board understand that?
Wagner: Uh, no.
Jordan: The variance was when they were wanting to split that roadway off.
Wagner: And make a non-conforming lot, right?
Jordan: Right.
Wagner: We pulled that.
Fisher: I still view this as, Jake can jump in here if he wants, he’s the real estate guru, I view it as one tract. Two tracts on one deed going to the CIC, its just tax map for whatever reason has to have that listed as a separate tract.
Earley: If I may, I discussed this with Sean and I agree with him. Once the plat was established and filed, then you had like .552 acres established as a roadway and, if you come back and deed that back as a single parcel, you’ve re-merged it so you actually destroyed the vacation. I’m a licensed examiner by the State of Ohio, I have my own title agency, I would not approve that as the split, as the roadway in existence. My suggestion was do it part one and part two. Do the 4.552 acres if that’s what left after you take road, or is it 4 acres left?
Worthington: Yes.
Earley: Okay, then tract one would be the four acre tract and tract two would be the .552 acres and that way you don’t merge them. But if you take them and establish, you’ve established the shaded area once the plat is filed and then you come back and repeat it and use the total overall, you’ve just shoved it back into the double tract. I don’t see why they can’t do it in tract one, tract two in the same deed and you won’t merge the tracts but if you come through and they ask me now, would you issue title insurance on that and guarantee there is access, the only access I would guarantee would be the access to Washington-Jackson Road and if it had to guarantee access beyond it, I couldn’t do it, not under applicable title standards because that’s a merger. Have I made....okay. When they recorded the plat, you took that 4.552 acre tract and you divided it. You divided one for dedication purposes so you took .552 acres away from that tract and you separately established it as a parcel for road frontage. Okay, now you’ve got road frontage for a roadway and you’ve got 4 acres and that’s of record. The minute they recorded this they made it two parcels. Then, if you come back and re-do the deed and you put it back to 4.552 acres, you shoved those two tracts back together then you’re either going to go back and redo this again because you have destroyed the shaded area, you’ve destroyed the right-of-way. So my thought is do it in two parcels, 4.0 acres and .552 acres, tract one and two.
Fisher: You know that that was recorded for record purposes only, didn’t you?
Earley: Its of record though and I realize the only way the City does it is they have to adopt an ordinance accepting the dedication which they have not done because the road’s not in or a bond hasn’t been posted to put it in. So, actually you have a dedication but you don’t have really an acceptance and as far as I’m concerned, that’s immaterial. You’ve already established the tract, you’ve limited its use and you have not accepted the dedication, but its still of record. But I’m telling you I would not issue title insurance if that was necessary to get the deed back here and I presume that’s probably why it is because it takes a proposal to sell it to the hospital or someone...(interrupted)
Worthington: Actually, I think that went through today, there was a filing on selling the parcel to the hospital.
Earley: Well, I sure wouldn’t insure the hospital tract unless its got other access.
Fisher: Well, Jake, I understand what you’re saying for recording and tax map purposes, but its your opinion to get around title and tax map, this board has to approve two tracts even though the one lot doesn’t meet the necessary lot requirements?
Earley: You talking about the church lot not meeting the subdivision requirements?
Worthington: The .552 tract does not meet the requirement for lot size, so it’s a non-conforming tract.
Earley: Just denote it as an access, just to be used solely for roadway purposes.
Fisher: (inaudible)
Earley: Same thing out on Park Avenue, if you remember, there are lots and there is a space for people to access the back part of that tract and that’s the same scenario. The same thing happened with Walmart, up along Cottingim subdivision. I think there were some access routes along there, some spaces between the lots to access the property behind it. Its not unusual for that to be done.
Jordan: But, this has been six months in the making, but I think part of the problem we ran into, we wanted to do, but the Commissioners felt that if they dedicated it as a roadway, they would be forced to build the roadway and they were concerned about that, so we backed around on that.
Earley: But the City has not accepted it because the only way the City would accept it as a roadway is by ordinance. So, what they have done is design a place for the roadway and limit it solely to roadway use but you have not accepted the obligation because the only way that happens is by ordinance. So, its really a blank space available to put a road in once they either bond it or put it in and the City accepts it.
Wagner: What do we do with AB-05-20, at this point?
Fisher: We know the Preble Drive plat was recorded, its been signed. So we know we have the dedication. The issue we had before was, we didn’t have a signed plat, you didn’t have a guarantee that the .552 was going for roadway. We’ve got that guarantee now, the plat’s been recorded. So, if you wanted to do it as two tracts, on the condition that the .552 has been reserved for roadway purposes only, I think you’d be okay there and you could dismiss the variance.
Jordan: You’re saying dismiss the variance and on the MR-05-04, then we handle the tract for roadway, the two tracts...okay.
Fisher: And, you couldn’t do that when we first started because we had nothing in writing that that was going to be done together.
Spencer: What do we need to do to dismiss the variance?
Fisher: Un-table it and dismiss it. You don’t have a problem with that, do you, Katie?
Worthington: No.
UNKNOWN: It is un-tabled.
Jordan: Do we all understand that now? Do I have a motion to dismiss AB-05-20?
Wagner: So moved.
Spencer: Second.
Motion passed as follows:
Ayes Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
MR-05-04 - Minor Subdivision - Preble County Commissioners - Washington Jackson Road/Preble Drive.
Jordan: Okay, the next item is MR-0-5-04. This item is also tabled so I’ll need a motion to un-table this matter.
Lane: So moved.
Spencer: Second. Motion to un-table passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Jordan: MR-05-04 is now un-tabled, open for discussion and how do we want to proceed with this?
Wagner: If I understand correctly, if we make a motion to approve this case, the motion just has to be with the condition that...
Fisher: Well, you’re approving two splits, a four-acre tract and a .552 acre tract with the condition that the .552 acre tract will be used for roadway purposes only and it must be reserved as such on the deed.
Worthington: I provided your Council with a copy of the deed today, she’s read through it and we’ve made changes in that, so that’s ready to go.
Jordan: Okay.
Spencer: Is there some place in writing....?
Fisher: It is in writing, it contains the condition that the .552 acres would be reserved as a roadway. This will go to the CIC together.
Worthington: So, all those conditions are in the deed.
Geeting: The application states one tract.
Fisher: Well, it said one and then two and then one. We’ve gone back and forth a couple of times. You did turn that into two though? In November, it started as two and had the same number, we just (inaudible). I think you’re okay, the request they made was for two, we told them one.
Jordan: Okay, two tracts, a 4.0 and a .552.
Fisher: And, these don’t get recorded. It’s a minor sub, so all she needs is a stamp on the deed.
Jordan: And the 552 will be conditioned upon roadway use only, correct?
Fisher: Yes, and if you wanted to include that the two may not be conveyed separately...(interrupted)
Worthington: That’s in the deed.
Jordan: Joe, did you have anything else?
Ferriell: No.
Jordan: Any other board members? I’ll accept a motion.
Wagner: Does anyone have the proper document to make the motion off of?
Deffner: I’ll make an attempt. I make a motion to approve the minor subdivision, two tracts off of existing outlot 195. Both tracts are near the Washington-Jackson and Preble Drive. The first tract consists of four acres and is adjacent to the Preble County YMCA to the east. The second tract consists of .552 acres and will constitute the area needed for the future extension of Preble Drive to the north. The motion is to approve the split of those two tracts with the .552 acre tract being road access only.
Jordan: Do I have a second?
Gary Wagner seconded the motion and it passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Jordan: Thank you, Katie. That’s all the agenda items, is there any other old business? If not, any new business?
NEW BUSINESS:
Wagner: I have a question. Mr. Earley made the comment that our current UDO is not correct.
Fisher: He couldn’t find THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. They’re in there.
Wagner: Are they correct?
Fisher: Yes, he bought the very first copy before Council approved it. Council had made some changes and had not printed them and the only persons who got the updated copies were you, so what Jackie had was the one prior to that.
Wagner: I would suggest that we give Mr. Earley a personal copy.
Fisher: That’s what he got, but we told him that when we get the new bound copies back, all he has to do is trade that in.
Jordan: Anything else? I will accept a motion to adjourn.
Coleman: SO move.
Lane: Second.
Roll called and meeting adjourned.
______________________________________ ____________________________________
Secretary Chairman