MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING BOARD
ON MARCH 14, 2006
AT 7:00 P.M., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Eaton Planning Board met in regular session in Council Chambers on Tuesday,
March 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 Mayor Robert Stonecash, Law Director Donnette Fisher and Project Manager for the City of Eaton, Joe Ferriell. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
The minutes of the February 14, 2006, will be approved at the April 2006 Planning Board meeting.
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.
Jordan: Anybody that did not sign in tonight, we would like you to sign in before you leave, if you would please. Also on the agenda we have item #6, the Minor Subdivision, has been pulled at the owners’ request at this time. The old business that was tabled last month will not be heard tonight either. We will just be dealing with items #4 and #5.
PRCD-06-01 -Planned Residential Conservation Development Application -Paul DePalma -Park Avenue:
Jordan: The primary objective of the Planned Residential Conservation Overlay District, PRCD, is to promote the health and safety of the community through the application of flexible land development techniques in the arrangement and construction of dwelling units and roads. Such flexibility is intended to maximize the conservation of open space while accepting development and retaining for the property owner the development rights that are permitted under the existing conventional zoning. I now open the Public Hearing. Mr. DePalma are you representing this tonight?
DePalma: I will represent myself, and also Brad Kramer, and also Douglas Kramer.
Jordan: If you would step to the podium and tell us what you would like to do.
DePalma: My name is Paul DePalma, I live at 1080 West Alex-Bell Road, Dayton, Ohio 45459. I am here on behalf of my PRCD application for Subdivision of the property on Park Avenue. I want to talk about the details, I have my engineering folks here that will help me do that. I just want to give you a little history of my involvement with this property and I also want to warn you that I am not a real good public speaker so if my voice gets a little shaky, please bear with me.
I purchased this property about 11 years ago. I was approached almost 12 years ago by a local realtor regarding this property. I had already developed the Greenbriar Nursing Center. It had been open for about 3 years at that time. I was told that this property was being sold out of an estate or was going to be sold from an estate and that it had been a property that was to be an additional addition of the Parkview Homes by Mr. Hawley. I spent a considerable amount of time looking at whether or not the property was indeed under water or not, and engaged Kramer & Associates, here locally, to do that. Also I took a look at the plans that had been proposed earlier by Mr. Hawley. Based on that investigation and having a survey done and some preliminary information done on flood plain work, that I should go ahead and purchase the property. After purchasing the property, I worked with Kramer & Associates to develop a plan similar to that which had been proposed by Mr. Hawley some time ago. We have a plot plan proposal that he prepared some years ago, almost a lifetime ago, for this property. Submitting the application almost a year after purchasing this property and coming to the first meeting where I got to meet all my neighbors, which I hadn’t anticipated. I was really quite shocked that there would be such resistance to the development of this project since I had been told that this property could have been and should have been developed for residential development. Shortly after the first meeting I withdrew my application for the rezoning of the property to rethink what could be done with this property and also licking my wounds and trying to figure out why I ever bought this property. Six years later, I was approached by Andrew Conley, a local developer, and he indicated that he had an interest in purchasing this property from me. I hadn’t done anything with this property other than to farm it. He indicated that he wanted to develop housing on this property. Indirectly, through his realtor, I indicated that he was certainly welcome to try to rezone it if he wanted to, but I warned him that there would be strong resistance if he proposed to develop anything similar to that which I had proposed to develop six years earlier. The net results was that he got turned down. I don’t know if it was by this authority or not, I didn’t attend any meetings, I tried to keep my distance from it. I really had other things to occupy my focus at the time. It is now three years later since he was denied the application for the rezoning of that property. I tried to take into consideration of this property, the comments that were made the first time I proposed to develop homes on this property and also the comments that were made during Mr. Conley’s application process. In doing so, I think I have come up with a plan that is very low density, very low traffic, low impact on the property. Initially, a year ago I came to Kramer & Associates with the idea of doing this, proposing this style of development. I had asked whether or not there was a Planned Unit Development for residential for this community. I was told no, but that the zoning code was in the process of flux and there might be something similar to that in the new zoning code. The reason I was interested in doing a Planned Unit Development was that I wanted to assure anyone in the community and my neighbors that if I was going to propose something of this style that my feet, or anyone that I sell the property to, feet, would be held to the fire with this style of development. When the new code came out, the PRCD section of the code was suggested to me that would be fairly close to a Planned Unit Development Residential style of zoning that might exist and that might accomplish the same things as a PUD residential. I resolved then to submit an application under this new process for this particular project. That is how we come here tonight.
I am available to answer questions. Brad and Doug are also available to answer any questions that anyone might have.
Kramer B.: I am Brad Kramer of Kramer & Associates.
Jordan: Brad, if I could for a minute. It was my error, but I am also going to have MJ-06-01 also opened at the same time. They relate to each other and with the new UDO we can listen to both applications at the same time so it won’t be redundant in doing it twice. Feel free to address both of them. Both applications are now open as Public Hearings.
Kramer B.: Along with that, Mr. Chairman, we noticed there is a combined application process and our purpose in bringing both of these before you is that a lot of the same issues are going to be covered one way or the other. We welcome questions or concerns from anyone regarding the PRCD, Planned Residential Conservation District or on the Subdivision as well.
As Mr. DePalma stated earlier, the earlier attempts at development of this property, it really goes back to Mr. Hawley in the late 50’s and early 60’s, where he had a couple of proposed layouts for Parkview Homes. The result of Parkview Homes now is the homes built right along Park Avenue that we see today, there are two sections. There is the lower section, which is most of the homes and then Section 2 is just the very northern most home. These lower homes are known as Parkview Homes Section 1 and this north tract is Parkview Homes Section 2. The earlier proposal was for residential from the existing agricultural zoning district to a residential category. In fact I think the attempt in 1997 started off as a ‘R-1B’ request and may have gone to ‘R-1A,’ I am not sure it even got that far before it was withdrawn. In 2003, if I read the minutes correctly, it was another request for residential zoning, which left it wide open to a number of development plans. Once you rezone it, it is a rezoning and you can go in there and develop it as dense as that zoning will allow. What we have now, we have a new Unified Development Ordinance for the City of Eaton and as Paul stated, this was a blessing. He was looking for a way to address this committee, the City and address the neighbors concerns from the earlier meetings with a type of process that would insure a commitment to whatever development standards he would bring forth. This Planned Residential Conservation District fits neatly within this plan and vice versa. As stated in my application for the PRCD, the City’s Comprehensive Plan describes this particular area as part of the Seven Mile Corridor planning area. The plan recommends specifically the northeast side of this Seven Mile Corridor to be developed for future use as Suburban Residential. You wonder what Suburban Residential means, the plan further describes this, Suburban Residential, as representing “newer, platted, residential neighborhoods that are intended to be on the periphery of Urban Residential Development and in some instances the periphery of all development within the City. It is comprised primarily of single-family dwellings and residential accessory uses on individual tracts, with a density between three and four dwelling units per acre.” The Meadows Subdivision seems to meet the goals of this particular definition in the City’s Comprehensive Development Plan. Specifically, in the Planned Residential Conservation District. A large part of what we are planning here is addressing the concerns, it is a beautiful corridor, it is part of the Seven Mile Corridor and it is a very attractive drive up Park Avenue. Part of this plan is to leave alone a restrictive open space, is how the PRCD District describes it. We are reserving 33% of this property for restrictive open space. Having large lots and the large area of restrictive open space, while at the same time within the definition of a development, it allows something to happen with this gentleman’s property, but also protects to a large extent, the concerns of the neighborhood. Another major portion of this conservation open space and this whole PRCD plan is the development of a nice set of covenants and restrictions with development standards. Standards set forth in the covenants and restrictions that will help to control the quality, not just the size, but the quality of the homes and driveways and structures within the development. We have provided to this Board, a draft set of these covenants and restrictions and it is our initial attempt, we went through it pretty carefully, it is our initial attempt to try and set forth some development standards to bring forth a level of comfort to this Board and to the City Council and to the surrounding neighborhood, to help insure that this will be as part of this process, a nice development.
With that I will wrap up my part of the presentation and I again offer to answer any questions or comments from Mr. Chairman on behalf of the Board or from anyone else.
Jordan: Do any of the Board members have any questions?
Spencer: Were any of the covenants sent out to the neighbors?
Kramer B.: No, the covenants and restrictions were not sent out to the neighbors at this time.
Spencer: So, they are not aware of this?
Kramer B.: That is right. They were invited to receive the application so in a roundabout way we said to come in and look at what we applied for. We don’t have any problems with any of the copies going out to the public.
Spencer: I think a lot of the questions that they may have will be answered.
Jordan: Would anyone else like to address this issue? If so, please step forward and state your name and address for the record.
Hicks: I might as well start. Bill Hicks, 1101 Park Avenue. First of all, there is approximately 150 homes inside of the City limits of Eaton for sale right now. There are several open lots at Rolling Hills Estates, also Whisper Way, and I talked to Harry Frizzell’s daughter and she said that they have several acres, a lot more than what is involved here, to be developed and they are already working on it, plus that is in the corporation. Harry and Marilyn own ground across from the old bowling alley, they are going to develop later. This is all flat open ground that looks to me like it would be a lot better to utilize this space before we talk about building houses in a hole. If you stand up there where we live and look out, it really doesn’t look that bad, but you go down in there and look up and you will see just how deep that is. I got pictures here that was taken Sunday morning, after the rains that we had, if anybody would care to look at them you are welcome to, of that area. One place it says here that Mr. DePalma should have the opportunity to enjoy a minor return on his investment, which I agree with that, but when I retired from Dana Corporation 10 years ago, the stock was $58.00 a share, three weeks ago, they filed bankruptcy and now it is 66 cents a share. I would like to have a minor return on my investment to, but it doesn’t look like it will happen. Me and all the other people that I talked to, up and down the street, are dead set against anything going back there and like the picture shows, there is water down there, there is problems and it only would get worse as far as I can tell. Thank you.
Wagner: Can I see the pictures?
Hicks: Yes.
Wagner: What time were these taken?
Hicks: They were taken at 9:00 a.m. Sunday morning. There is one where across the street it shows a City truck turning around in the water and about two hours later that whole paved area was under water.
Wagner: This is the park area, right?
Hicks: Yes sir. This here is where Mr. DePalma is talking about and some of the other pictures, I took one of the river so you can see how rapidly it is flowing at that time.
Spencer: This is from Lexington Road looking south on the west end.
Hicks: Yes.
Spencer: This is the creek back in here?
Hicks: Yes. This goes through into his.
Wagner: This is on the south side of the road?
Hicks: Yes and the one picture there where it shows in the cornfield, that is Mr. DePalma’s property. Is there any questions I can answer for anybody?
Miller: My name is Gale Miller and I live at 1328 Park Avenue, right across the street from that north outlet. That there has been dead space for about 50 years. If you come up with the grandfather law, that right-of-way should go back to the property owners there that join it, plus Vera Walters and our sewer drain goes down to that right-of-way. Nobody ever comes up with anything like that. If you want to get down a little more particular, where the street comes around there, it is in that curve and that is a bad place to pull out and if you go over there and look where Miss Hiestand’s stake is, out on Park Avenue, they got four feet on the blacktop and the rest is over east on us. If they bring the street back that away it is going to make that curve more.
Jordan: You are talking about the north end of the development?
Miller: The north end of the development, where that….
Jordan: Where it is showing Lot #9?
Miller: Right, Lot #9.
Jordan: Brad, if I understand this correctly, that is just going to be a private drive to this lot, not a public street?
Kramer B.: That is correct. That is not a public right-of-way now so there are no reversion issues, it is just private property. It has the potential for being just one single driveway, not a street. The other potential is somewhere along Lexington Road, that particular lot would have frontage on two streets.
Miller: If they come up that hill to Park Avenue, you can’t see nothing coming either way.
Jordan: I just wanted to make clear that it is just a driveway, like your driveway or anyone else’s driveway on Park Avenue, it is not a road, just a driveway.
Miller: There has been a driveway there for 50 some years. I think our house is 55 years old, Bob Hawley built it and he built Vera Walters on the corner too. At that particular time, zoning wasn’t here. That is when they run the sewer lines across down behind those, down that right-of-way. The sewer line down there is behind all of these houses. None of your maps show that.
Daniels: I didn’t get sworn in, I can’t talk.
Wagner: The sewer line you are talking about, which sewer line are you talking about, sir?
Miller: Our regular sewer line.
Wagner: Your private line or the City line?
Miller: It is our private line. Bob Hawley put that in when he build the two houses, built his and built his sister’s house. Down between the two houses and comes across the street there.
Wagner: Can you tell me what lots those are?
Miller: 17-
Wagner: 1735 and 56?
Miller: No, 1738 and 1737.
Spencer: Is there a sewer line anyplace back there now?
Wagner: Yes.
Miller: The sewer line comes in behind all of those houses.
Wagner: The sanitary sewer start at Vancrest and goes all of the way through that property, all the way down to the Water Works Park, down Park Avenue and to Main Street.
Miller: That should not be opened up for any kind of drive.
Wagner: Who owns that property now? You do?
Miller: I would say you come in with the grandfather law and it belongs to the two property owners over there.
Wagner: I am not an attorney, I can’t answer that question, I don’t know. I just know that Mr. DePalma owns the property now.
Daniels: Jackie Daniels, I live at 1321 Park Avenue.
Jordan: You need to be sworn in.
(Daniels is sworn in.)
Daniels: I would like to speak in reference to what Mr. Hawley - I own - did own part of that property. Well, I don’t own it, the City, whoever owns that leeway between the two properties where a driveway is going to go, which Campbells before me, I mean before Miss Hiestand, and I have been taking care of it. I have for 25 years been paying to get it taken care of. Mr. DePalma has not paid to get a blade of grass mowed or a weed taken out of there, to my knowledge, because both of us have been taking care of that property. I don’t know anything about the grandfather law, but I do know the City has not done one thing to that property the whole time it has been there. When Mr. Campbell and his wife moved in, it was like 8 feet of weeds. The other thing is, the water, and I know that we have went through this all before and Mr. Kramer says they have new and wonderful ways now to drain everything away from everywhere, but if anybody goes down there and sees water stand in the field and when the creek floods, it floods the field and there is no place for it to go but to the field where you are proposing, where he is proposing, to build the houses. It is doing it right now, so unless he is going to fill it in with like 6 feet of dirt to raise it, it is still below the level of the creek and when the creek floods the field floods. That is all I have to say.
Hicks: I have one more point to make, I am sorry I didn’t do it when I was up here before, the size of these lots are going to be from approximately 2-6 acres and who in the world, unless they don’t have any comprehension, I own a mowing service so I know how much it is to mow 3-6 acres. How many people are going to want that size of lawn, they can’t have horses, I read all of the restrictions that is involved here, where are they going to find anyone who wants to take care of that much of a yard? Unless they want to hire me and that would be expensive.
Jordan: Mr. Ott did you want to speak?
Fisher: This is an official proceeding and we are tape recording it, so if you could keep side conversations to a minimum please.
Ott: John Ott, 1001 Park Avenue, Eaton, Ohio. Okay, the first and most obvious reason we are opposed to this is that everyone in this room except about 4 people that I know of is against it. We all bought these properties and we were told, possibly erroneously, that it could never be developed-you have all heard this story before. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to attend some meetings where the elected City Officials were going over the PB final draft. On page 54, 1107.07 paragraph (b), it is a Floodplain Overlay District and it states, “The Floodplain Overlay District is composed of lands that are subject to periodic flooding. It is intended to preserve the existing floodplains, so as to allow the waterways a place to overflow at high water levels and thus assist in protecting other areas not now subject to flooding. In this District, only those uses that are temporary or seasonal in nature or that would not be extensively damaged by flooding are permitted.” So I would ask that you go over that and maybe I am not understanding it right, but it looks like this field fits in that Overlay District. I understand that it is not all floodplain, also I understand that every time we see the map it seems like the floodplain changes. Who has the final say on where the floodplain is? There are several points in this final draft that I have, I guess my hope is that if you go over it carefully and see what it says about this field that we are trying, they are trying to develop.
As far as the Planned Residential Conservation Development that Mr. DePalma wants, he is going to provide a .331-acre park. Now .331 acres isn’t a very big park, but who is in charge of taking care of that? Is this a City park or whose is it? I was told, I wasn’t told, I heard at a meeting the other day that we have plenty of City Parks now and it takes a lot of money to take care of them and I really don’t know what you would do with a .331 acre park.
The other question that I have, on these rules and covenants, I got them, I got a copy of those, who enforces all of this stuff and who watches that it is enforced? Does the City do that, do the neighbors do that, does the developer do that? That is a big question that I have on that. Who would take care of all of that and what happens if there is only one or two lots sold, to the rest of the field, who is going to take care of that, the developer? Who monitors all of the stuff, that is our question. Chances are they are not going to be all sold at once if this happens. I could go on talking here for a long time but there are other people here who want to express concerns so once again it is down to drainage and neighbors and people in the City of Eaton. We could get lots of names if we have to or want to, that would be opposed to this. One of the big things is that we are still an agricultural community so what is wrong with a field in town? That is about all I have for now.
Jordan: Anyone else at this time?
Hawley: Good evening, my name is Rick Hawley and I reside at 1209 Park Avenue. I am an adjoining property owner to the field in question. My wife and I recently purchased that home in December. Believe you me if I would have known this was all going to happen, we would have stayed away from it. Being there a short time and seeing what has happened this weekend, I can confirm what many of my neighbors are saying about it being in a floodplain. If you use your common sense you do not need to have a floodplain map to see that that thing sits in a hole next to a creek and it is going to flood. Nothing has changed since this whole subdivision was built back in the 1950’s. One of the reasons that attracted us to the home was the view over the field, back into the woods. We have seen deer and all kinds of wildlife there. I as a property owner am concerned what this subdivision will do to the value of my home. I have to seriously ask myself a question, who is going to spend $200,000 dollars plus, in a subdivision where their backyard is going to be in a floodplain. Who wants to take that chance? What happens when-and I say when, not if-a tree falls and blocks that creek? Put yourself in these perspective people’s shoes, what would you do? Would you buy, do you want to mow 2 acres, 6 acres? It makes no sense to me why that field should be a subdivision. Mr. DePalma has done a nice job with Greenbriar, I complement him on that, but I think this is wrong. Nothing has really changed in all the times this thing has been heard. I think you can see by the outpour of neighborhood support and you are going to hear from many other people, that the neighbors are against this project. Thank You.
One other point. Floodplains, I recently had a conversation with an appraiser in regard to this matter and I ask him about the Floodplain issue. He pointed out a very interesting fact to me, which was when Camden and New Paris both flooded about 10 years ago, FEMA came in and redrew the floodplain maps and widened them. I think that if that ever happens we might very well see the same thing with this tract. Now I am done.
Jordan: Before anyone else talks, I was wondering Brad, there has been a lot of comments about the water and the floodplain. Could you point out on the maps where the floodplain lies and where your development is going to be.
Kramer B.: It was interesting that they caught on to a change in the flood map, the FEMA flood maps show an area up here along the hillside, they have reasonable accuracy, but also reasonable inaccuracy. The FEMA flood maps are the official map used by the insurance industry to determine flood insurance rates, should you have a structure constructed within a floodplain or a certain degree of flood risk with a structure.
Those flood maps were created in, the effective date is 1981, the flood map motorization program, as stated, is currently under way and we now have updated maps in the urban areas of most of Ohio, including Brookville is the latest one. We don’t have a map of Eaton. What Mr. DePalma has done, he has hired us to do the same thing that we would do for FEMA. FEMA doesn’t come out and send all of their surveyors out and determine new floodplains. They do a little of that, but a large part of the FEMA flood map updating has to do with local instances where a particular property is brought into question and a land surveyor, an engineer, comes out and does a hydraulic & hydrology study, a H&H study, to determine how much water is going to try and pass through a creek bed or the creek valley, the entire valley, all the way from the top of the bank on one side and through the creek to the top of the bank on the other. That is all taken into consideration.We like to use the 100-year flood, for certain rainfall amounts, the amount of rain that comes down in a certain time, how much water will pass through and how much land is going to be inundated by that. We have done a large part of that a few years ago on this particular project. At one point we had one of these preliminary plans showed a dry area, an area that wasn’t flooding, but I added this little bump to this map because it was actually included in the FEMA map, so I think it is important from an insurance standpoint to show that. We can prove that it is not within the 100-year flood zone but because it is currently on the FEMA map I added it back to the map. That is the only change.
Daniels: I live at the very end of the field, at the north end of it, I have been there since 1981 and two times the water has come clear up to my property line.
Kramer B.: There is a lot of water on the surface of this field, there is a lot of water on Rolling Hills Subdivision on the other side of town along Rocky Run. When Frizzell’s purchased what is now Meadowbrook, there is a lot of water out there as well. Storm drainage is a huge concern. Much more now than it ever was in the couple of versions that were planned a couple of years ago. See how these lots were all planned to be right down there along the creek? These lots by today’s standards would be in jeopardy from an insurance standpoint and from a damage standpoint. That is why that now, since these were drawn up, they didn’t have all the flood maps available at the time Hawley originally planned all these lots. What has happened since then is that we have a great resource in the FEMA flood maps and this flood zone depicted on this map is a combination of our study-it is greater than what is shown on the FEMA map-a combination of our study along with the FEMA information. I have the FEMA floodway map so that was part of the process depicted in the application process here was to show the floodway.
That is a good question. What we did is we took this restricted open space and we restricted all development from a certain straight line which largely confirms to, and is greater, and outside of the 100-year flood zone. You can’t build a shed back there in this proposed development in an area that is going to be subject to the 100-year flood. Now, what about all of this water we see that is running down there after a heavy rain? These photos say a lot. Just like with Meadowbrook and Rolling Hills and every development that anybody has done in recent times in this City, we have to produce a drainage plan, we have to produce a storm water pollution prevention plan, we can’t allow a bunch of silt to run down in the creek anymore like we used to during construction or after. We have to control, properly avoid this surface-flooding situation. We are talking about two different types of flooding. We are talking about the instant flooding that comes across the top of the land, and that is what happens to your shoes when you are standing out there after a rain, and the other type of flooding that we talk about is this 100-year flood where this potential of being underneath the water during these storm events. The restricted open space and as well as the floodplain, which by the way is what the floodplain overlay district is based upon. We are staying out of it and then some. This field does one of these. It is not flat and then goes up. We have the contours from an actual topographic survey. Those can be verified with the County GSI. It shows that the field actually, from the floodplain, rises up to the bottom of the hill where the house are build now. Your house is built on this rise and it drops down and then there is quite a ways before it gets to the actual floodplain. We have restricted the ability to build in the floodplain with this proposal and we are also required by the City, and this new UDO is tougher than ever at making sure that we have properly prepared a set of drainage plans, and we will avoid these surface runoff issues.
Unknown: Who did your hydrology study?
Kramer B.: We conducted this hydrology study 1997 or ‘98. I think it was 1997.
Unknown: Did you go through a firm or?
Kramer B.: Through Kramer & Associates.
Kramer D.: We do a lot of this. It is required all of the time.
Kramer B.: We are one of the few around that does them and we do them. What you can do is where the flood maps are a little inaccurate and the floodplain administrator, every community that participates in the flood insurance program has an administrator, a designated person that administers these floodplains. In the County it is Marty Bresher and here in the City of Eaton it is our Special Project Manager, Joe Ferriell. Their jobs are to look at proposals in the context of the floodplain and the flood zone. If we find an area that Joe has concerns and its come up on Rocky Run and those developments, where Joe and before him Doug Spitler have asked us to prepare floodplain determinations. If we find that the map is in error, we will amend it. It may go against the property owner and it may go better, it depends. We will actually submit a letter of map amendment or there is another letter of map revision that you can submit to FEMA and show improvements on the flood map.
Hawley: What happens when one of these houses gets built and the map changes and all of a sudden they were out of the floodplain and now they are in the floodplain and now that is going to trigger that they buy flood insurance to cover their mortgage loan at the bank which is about $97.00 per month per $100,000.00 value, all of a sudden you have added $200.00 more a month out of that homeowner’s budget to cover their flood insurance.
Kramer B.: That is a huge concern. What you are finding, the answer is they have to start paying flood insurance so it better be thought of very carefully at the onset. That is why we got out there, we didn’t just rely on the flood maps, we said let’s get out there and do some checking and make sure we feel comfortable with how the flood map is depected.
Gallimore: Do you have to be State licensed?
Kramer B.: You have to be licensed in the State of Ohio as a registered engineer in order to do the H&H study and licensed in the State of Ohio as a registered land surveyor to produce the measurements that are used for the H&H study.
Gallimore: Did you also do soil samples -I saw those legends on the map?
Kramer B.: This is based on the soil maps.
Jordan: I think you have covered that pretty well. Joe you have seen this floodplain map and as a City Engineer, do you feel that it is accurate?
Ferriell: Yes, we have talked about it and it is accurate. With the FEMA maps I have, like Brad indicated, they went a little further on this one.
Kramer B.: Mr. Chairman, one more thing, what you have with these updates, they study the streams that weren’t studied in the past. You will see on these flood maps a little finger of a stream that comes up and just cuts off. That was the end of their study, but there is more streams going up there. People build in those flood prone areas because they are not officially within a flood zone. The maps change and FEMA extends this study and then they are in trouble. That is why we do an H&H if it is a flood prone area. You don’t see a lot of changes where they have already done a study, it very seldom changes.
Jordan: Thanks, Brad.
Horine: I need that gentleman’s name that has been talking.
Gallimore: Terry Gallimore. 1213 Park Avenue.
Taylor: Harold Taylor, 1301 Park Avenue. To put it into perspective, it is the first house past the entranceway into the field at this time. I assume it is the same place the entrance-way will be to the subdivision and the issue I want to address is the matter of the sewer. I have firsthand experience with the sewer situation and know that I read somewhere in all of these papers that the sewer system is adequate. I want to stand here right now and tell you it is not adequate. I moved there in 1984 and in the 22 years that I have been there I have had to have the City sewer department come out four times because I had water from the sanitary sewer backed up in my basement. Each time that I do that, I have to get a plumber and pay him to come in and tell the City that my lines from the house to the sewer are clear. Four times they have done it and four times they were clear. We moved there and it was just me and my wife. We were old people and retired. My wife passed away 3 ½ years ago and there has only been one person living there. I might just as a matter of interest, Bob Hawley told me after I moved there that he lost interest in developing this area back there because he would have had to put in a much bigger sewer. The sewer comes down behind our houses on Park Avenue and there is another line that comes down, especially now that Greenbriar has been built, it comes down from the north and ties into it right in the center of what I call a side street, it is just an entrance way. Each time the City goes out there they end up in the middle of that street taking it up and breaking it loose and getting it going. The last time they were there, my brother was here but he can’t speak, he didn’t get sworn in, but he was there when we had it. Progressively, the water in the basement got deeper. The last time the girl went down and hollowed out and said okay you are clear and we had him out and he ran that thing out and said it was fine. Then one of the girls that was on the truck, the City came out and one of the girls on the truck went out in my backyard and opened up the manhole and said that, ‘Yep, you are right. It is deeper than your drains.” Therefore water takes the path of least resistance and goes into by basement. As you see this thing, if that sewer was big enough when they built the houses along Park Avenue they have continued to build and build and build and they built Greenbriar and the whole area up there and I don’t know how that ties, all of that ties into that sewer. I think I have made as much of a point that I can make other than the last time that I had this done, which was about two years ago, crossing my fingers because every couple of years it happens now, the bill for cleaning up that basement, my basement is carpeted, and the water was all over 90% of it, the bill for cleaning that up, they had to get out the water and five fans and three dehumidifiers working, running over the weekend, and the bill-came back in on Monday and shampooed and disinfected the carpet-and the bill was almost $2,200.00. I stand here and say regardless of who or what expert or whatever, I got firsthand experience that sewer system is not adequate for what is there now much less putting anymore back behind. As far as the floodplain is concerned, I seen water within 20 to 30 feet of my backyard. I don’t care what the maps say, I saw the water come there.
Gallimore: Terry Gallimore, 1213 Park Avenue. I think, as all my neighbors think, when we bought these houses we bought them as an investment. Just like you bought this ground as an investment. My concern with him buying that land, zoned agricultural as an investment, before I would have bought it think I would have gone door-to-door to see what everybody would have thought about that. You might have saved yourself some money. Also there is still the chance you could sell it as agricultural, is that right, and still make a profit. Part of each one of our investments in the neighborhood was not only the home but the world view that we get every day and enjoy during the summer, winter and fall. There are twenty-five or thirty of us that live on that street and I would hate to see that investment fall to one versus the twenty-five as far as the view. I think Council should consider that when they evaluate this situation. That is all I have to say, thank you.
Hiestand: Michelle Hiestand and I reside at 1401 Park Avenue, which I believe is referred as Section 2 on the map. I am located at the southwest corner of Park Avenue and Lexington Road next to Mrs. Daniels who has already spoken to you. I have several grave concerns and I am strongly opposed to this development. The primary complaint I have, several of them have already been mentioned, but I will mention that I also have witnessed standing water, regardless of what the maps say, standing water in that field on multiple occasions. The ground is soft and squishy in the heavy rains that just happened. Up at the higher level where I am, regardless of how far down you go so I know the water has to be an issue. I purchased my property with the understanding and knowledge that proposals like this, to this Board and to Council had already been denied twice, and the likelihood of it ever being developed was very slim, and also that there had been strong opposition to this in the past, and I felt that the likelihood of another application was probably not going to happen. So again, I am one of those property owners who think this would be a detriment to me as well as all the other adjoining properties. The wildlife in this area is thick and I enjoy it along with all my neighbors and I am strongly opposed to developing this property and destroying that. Whatever is left that he is talking about as leaving some undeveloped area would not be viewable from my property. Finally, the easement adjacent to my house, which goes between my house and the Daniels’ house, which has been tended by myself for over two years and by the Campbells prior to me and by Mrs. Daniels for many, many years, lies about 50 to 75 feet from my den windows. The thought of having my property enclosed by three roadways is certainly not something that I want to see happen. I believe it would be unfair to the property owners in that area.
Jordan: Does anyone else have any new things they would like to propose or suggest?
Smith: I am Margaret Smith, 1302 Park Avenue. I am very incensed about this, I am not a good public speaker but I have so much at stake that I have to get up and once again try to defend my property. I want to say first of all that as our petition shows, that you got today, 62 people signed, everyone between Water Works Park and Lexington Road both sides of Park, signed, we have 100% except the Manns’ place, property is vacant, I am not sure what happened there, they are gone, not in the area. Everyone is just very upset about all of this. I had even more to lose because I am directly in front of the drive with all of that traffic coming at me and it is hard to get out on that road now with the amount of traffic and the speed with which it goes, which easily hits 65 MPH, I have seen it, they use it like a straight away between Lexington Road and Debbie Drive, it is dangerous. Try to get out when Parkers are going to work or letting out. Try from six o’clock to eight o’clock and from three o’clock to four o’clock. It is very difficult and dangerous and that road is narrow and not built for the amount of traffic it has now. It is hard for me to get out onto Park, I have to go in and out three times a day. Going to work, back, to lunch, back, and back again. I am very concerned about that and I am very concerned about the back which Mr. Taylor spoke of and other people should be concerned about that too. I am the low person there. I live on the opposite side of Park and the first place when it starts backing up, it is going to go, my basement. You know that is a scare to me all the time, because once something happened to the (inaudible) down there, which Gary knows about because he came out and looked, water was in my basement. I thought why? It goes out to a little drain and meets another one coming down the hill there and crosses Park and goes on down to where we connect over there. The City came out and they said that when they had corrected the drain over in Mr. Taylor’s side, that they had just left the debris down there, parts of concrete blocks and all kinds of stuff, and so of course the water could not go on through so it went in my basement. They cleaned that out and got it straightened up. I just really resent having to defend my property all the time and have it look like it is going to be further devalued just with what people are trying to do now for their own gain. The statement was made, leaving this little strip of greenery back there for enjoyment which none of us could then see. It is beautiful now for anyone driving down Park Avenue and looking back into that field and of course I am a farm girl so I love the wildlife, love seeing the corn grow or the soybeans or whatever is there. It is just the atmosphere that we want. You talk about Bob Hawley, Bob Hawley was my uncle and I knew him very well. The reason he quit there was that it didn’t seem appropriate after a certain time. All the people along there, he knew they were happy with their view of the field and he did talk about a park area at one time. That is the reason it just stayed as an open field. He knew all these homes, both sides, enjoyed that field and they liked it and he liked it too. He still lived there until maybe 10 years ago. I forget when he passed away. His brother Thurman, uncle Thurman, was my neighbor for many years, he lived there also. So there you have people who developed and they lived there. It isn’t like someone else coming in and trying to force things on you. They lived there with us and they enjoyed it and we all enjoyed it. Those are really important issues to me. Right now the sewer line from Greenbriar and all of that comes down to the side of my property and it crosses Park and it goes on down into the field. I have several sink holes along there that I thought about asking the City about because I don’t understand and I don’t like it. I have all kinds of concerns about my property. The Greenway is also very special to me and I would like to see it kept that way, I would like to see the City, some kind of Comprehensive Plan to keep that greenway all the way down. My dream would be that there could be walkways, bikeways, horse riding, skating any kind of things along the way, just like they have at many other places. You have to go to Brookville to get on the bike trail and then you can ride all the way to Verona through the country. It is beautiful. You can go to Trootwood the other way or you can go over to Yellow Springs, they have a beautiful area like that. I just wish we could do that. The only place that I see would be appropriate for that would be the Seven Mile Creekway and continuing to Washington Jackson Road and going on through there and the whole City would benefit. The whole City could see it, the whole City could enjoy it, as they enjoy it now. As I said, you have the petition, you saw that. There are other signatures on there also. Had we had more time we could have got a lot more signatures. You have to agree that that greenway should be kept as a greenway not developed in a hole. Who would want to live down there, I cannot figure out.
I should say that Louise Bennett called me asked me to say that she agrees with the rest of us regarding the traffic, the water, the view. She is also from the farm and she loves, that was one of the reasons she purchased her home there. We all want to keep it that way so why do we have to keep defending it? It is not an appropriate place to build. There are many, many more appropriate places to build. I drove through Meadowbrook today. It is higher, its level and there is a beautiful little stream that goes through there. It is no comparison to that. It is not an appropriate place to be putting houses. It is not fair to the residents and their investments.
Hicks, Brad: I am Brad Hicks and I live at 1305 Park Avenue. First I would like to ask Mr. Kramer, are you guys the ones that have been out where they are going to put the ball diamonds or soccer fields in? How much have they raised the elevation of that area?
Kramer D.: It was evening out in there. There wasn’t any extra dirt brought in. If you remember what they did, as they went up in the north end of that where there was a hill and brought it down. Our job there was to try not to change the net area of the floodplain up there. Probably it has been raised as much as two feet down at the south end and some places where the diamonds are going to be, highest in the middle and now we are going to put soccer fields in there, or whatever. It was raised there and then we lowered it down in the north end. That is all in the floodplain, that is going to flood and store water up there.
Hicks, Brad: In the south end of that was completely under water this weekend.
Kramer D.: It is in the floodplain and that is why it is a park.
Hicks, Brad: From moving that dirt, is that not going to push more water down and out our way?
Kramer D.: No, we used all dirt from right there, we never hauled anything in.
Hicks, Brad: So, did they haul any dirt in?
Kramer D.: Oh, they might have hauled a few loads, I can’t remember.
Hicks, Brad: A few loads?
Kramer D.: It wouldn’t be over a hundred loads extra in the whole place.
Jordan: I don’t think the north end of that property has anything do with this development right now. We need to stick in this development.
Hicks, Brad: Well, if they are raising the level of dirt and the amount of dirt that has been dumped down there, it is going to push all of that water.
Kramer D.: It is restricted by the bridge, there is not going to be any more than before.
Hicks, Brad: I got some photos that I took, I would like to submit, of the area that I am speaking of and also where the proposed building site is. Also on these, I marked on the back of them approximately where there were. There has someone, from the City I assume, has put a sign up on Washington Jackson Road to the west of Park Avenue that says, “High water after heavy rains.” I believe that is a new sign. I don’t recall seeing it until maybe a year ago. Their pictures will show that there is a lot of water in the areas.
Jordan: We have listened to an hour and ten minutes worth of testimony, does anybody else wish to address this before we turn it over to the Board? John.
Ott: I have one question I asked before and I don’t know if anybody give me an answer or not. Who enforces these restrictions that he is planning? Who does that?
Jordan: Donnette, can you answer that?
Fisher: You have to have that done through the association or go as restrictions on the plat.
Kramer B.: Restricted plat, there is violation item in the covenant.
Fisher: Okay. Basically when they set it up, certain subdivisions do this and I think they have done this in Rolling Hills, there are certain restrictions that are filed with the plat. If you buy their land, the restrictions are on your deed. They are enforced by the neighbors upon each other. In some cases, and we haven’t got this far, but in some cases the City is given the right to enforce these restrictions. I don’t believe there will be a homeowners’ association. It will either be the neighbors or the City or both.
Kramer B.: The City naturally covers some of those restrictions anyway. They may be duplicated in our covenants, and in others it is an agreement when you purchase a home that you have agreed that the neighbors have a right to prosecute violations.
Kramer D.: One of the toughest things here is the floodplain issue because there are similarities between just about every parcel that we end up developing these days. Rolling Hills is similar part, of it is higher and a part is lower. Meadowbrook out to the east, we are getting ready now to develop the area that is up on the high ground so someday the area that is now developed down in the initial parts of Meadowbrook, is going to look like this would look when you are up on the top in the area, up to the northeast. There is a lot of elevation deferential and it causes water to come down. One of the things that we wanted to do, and this was a couple of years after Paul had bought the property, we wanted to verify because we were a little unsure about the floodplains for the reason that Brad told you about. We confined details here and there that we wanted to address. One of the things we do is to talk to old timers. We talked to people that have been around the area for a long time and I think I talked to Gary one time in his capacity as a waste water and water plant guy because he showed me down at the old water plant south of this property, told me about where the flood was, up to what level. We verified that and that is really close down there to the FEMA map elevation. We do that kind of verification. Another thing we did is, I talked to Lawrence Smith, I talked to him on the 25th, I have known Lawrence for years and I know he lived there a long time so on February 25 in ’97, I called Lawrence, and I thought I would need to know this some time so I wrote it down because that is the kind of thing you want to keep track of.
On another issue for just a minute. I said, “Why did Bob Hawley stop on that subdivision because we have all of those plats and things that Paul had been given when he bought the property, was it due to flooding?” He said, “No, it wasn’t anything to do with flooding. He was going to run a six inch water line through the plat and the City had said it would be okay at first, then the City later required a twelve inch water line and they said they would not pay the difference between the two.” Bob said to forget the whole plat, he would develop out on Lutheran Drive area there. That is probably where the mix up came in the sewer. An eight inch is a standard sewer size and can serve a huge area.
What did Shiny tell us years ago, the service director, there was one place that the whole City ran through an eight in the old waste water plant or something? The whole City of Eaton in the 50’s or 60’s. It is not undersized and in part of our detail engineering we will have to look into the details that Mr. Taylor has told us about and see what the problem is there.
Back to what Lawrence told me on Feb. 25, 1997, I asked him about the floodplain. Lawrence said that he had lived there thirty or thirty-five years and never saw anything but a small part of the west end flood. In 1957 and 1959 flood it was the highest he had seen. Even then there was a small area in the southwest corner and the west end of the part up next to Lexington Road. Three to five acres was all that Bob Hawley had allowed for the flood zone and the rest of it never floods. Now, people’s definitions of floods is probably different and what we are thinking about here is surface level of that 100 year flood. I can understand how what you see confuses you, but all we had to go on was an old timer that we thought had lived there a long time and looked down in there and saw the flood. Now this was before any meetings or anything. That was what we found out from him. I talked to Gary about where the flood level had been in the old water plant and I talked some more about the twelve inch water line with former service director, Shiny Copp. Then I called Lawrence back to tell him what I found out about the twelve inch line and that that in fact was true.
Wagner: It shows a proposed storm drain 27” storm to a 30” storm.
Kramer D.: That is actually already there. Bob Hawley put that in.
Wagner: It is already there?
Kramer D.: It is already there and been draining all of this area for all of this time. It goes down to 36” where it dumps out into the creek right back behind City property.
Wagner: Right.
Unknown: Doug, you said it is 1035 at the edge of the creek?
Kramer D.: Right, the top edge.
Unknown: Where is it at where the floodplain ends?
Kramer B.: The plat changes as you go down hill.
Unknown: What is the difference between where those houses are going to be built and where the floodplain is?
Kramer D.: Probably, where the floodplain is, you have to pick. There is a 35 there and this one at lot #8 would be up at about 37 on existing ground and of course you would build it out two or three feet higher than that, so maybe as much as five feet difference.
Lets pick another spot. There is a 34 running along in here, maybe three or four feet.
Kramer B.: Part of our design will be to come up with the lowest core elevations that will be a certain number of feet above the flood zone. You can’t just go build, they might be out of the flood map area but if it is a flood area and you dig a basement that fills up. We are not going to allow that, you have to have those lowest floors above potential flooding areas.
Unknown: So, are you going to bring dirt in to build the house up?
Kramer B.: You can move dirt around. When you build a basement and you have four to six feet sticking out of the ground if you put a basement in or you build up a floor pad and bring in dirt.
Kramer D.: They will be out of the floodplain.
Unknown: My concern is water running back towards my property.
Kramer D.: You will need to come back for the detailed plans and be here for that hearing because we will address all of that. I have been doing this for 31 years or something and I am always amazed at how many places that you think are flat actually have slope. East of West Alexandria is one of them, there is a ton of places around that everybody thinks is a floodplain and you go out there and actually measure it and it is three or four feet, and ask the old timers and you will get the story, like Lawrence explained to me. They all look flat to begin with and they all fool us.
Unknown: I am probably one of those properties on that side of the road with the walk out basement and I got great concerns if you are going to be raising the level of the field.
Kramer D.: We need to address that but you are in a neighborhood.
Unknown: 1305 is my address.
Kramer D.: Help me with the lot number.
Unknown: 1734.
Kramer D.: Are you on the north side of Park Avenue?
Unknown: I am the second house from where the drive is.
Kramer D.: 1754, we got it. Your elevation is 40or 41 and maybe it is a 42 and then it starts up the hill real steep behind you. That low ground there is about 40 and the creek back here is in the neighborhood of 32. You are eight or nine feet higher than the creek.
Jordan: I want to let the City Engineer give the City report on this.
Hicks: Could I make one more comment before you go on. Mr. Kramer gave great emphases on Lawrence Smith and what he told him and when we were here the first time he did the same thing. I talked to Lawrence and I bought the building I have off of Lawrence and I know him quite well and he told me the same thing and I told him that he was full of crap and that I hadn’t lived there the 28 years like he did and there has not been water in our backyard but I have seen water out in that field. That is not hearsay, talking to somebody else, that is what I have seen with my own eyes.
Jordan: We are going to take a ten minute break. You have heard everyone concerns. We are going to come back and get to what is at hand. We will go over what you people have presented, the City Engineer is going to answer the questions and the Board will ask more questions and we are going to make a decision or table the matter for tonight.
AFTER BREAK:
Jordan: I want to start this meeting again. I will give the audience 10 more minutes to respond to any questions that they have and please step up to the podium so we have you on the recording and then after that ten minutes, at quarter ‘til, I will turn it over to the City staff to give their briefing on this and for the Board members to ask any questions. Mrs. Smith I think you wanted to respond, the floor is yours.
Smith: First of all my memory is somewhat different than Lawrence Smith’s, which you might expect, and I saw water down in those fields plenty of times. We keep hearing all of this technical information like it is all a done deal. What about the feelings of all of these people on both sides of Park Avenue and our concerns, the dangerous concerns and also the concerns of wanting to keep that as a green way, as uncle Bob did, he decided to do that, the people wanted it. Does all of that not mean anything?
Jordan: Anyone else?
Marsh sworn in.
Marsh: My name is Kayla Marsh and I am the daughter of Lawrence Smith and Margaret Smith and all of the technical jargon that my mother has just referred to and the feelings confined are going hand and hand because this gentleman is using my father as an old timer as a point of reference. My father has suffered two strokes, he is not here, I am and my mother is here. I have lived there my whole life up to the time I was grown and married and I know for a fact that that field has flooded for years. I take exception for someone to be using my father’s name as a point of reference and I just don’t think this is a place to be doing that. It’s either, facts and pictures, not hearsay and you have enough with the neighbors that live there now. If you would have told me that I would have got up and spoke tonight I would never had believed you, but I am strongly incensed at what I see going on.
Ott: Point of clarification here. We are doing this number four. What is the one below it. I don’t even know what that is, on Washington Jackson Road.
Jordan: It should say Lexington. You want to correct that Becky?
Horine: Yes I will.
Jordan: Anything else? Joe you want to give the staff report, please?
Ferriell: Sure. We have spent some time on this and I spent some additional time with Brad on this. If we look at the specific requirements of Chapters 1109.06 (d)-(g) also 1109.06 (n), page 105, of the General Standards for Review, this application meets all of those. As far as accessibility, public streets are adequate to carry the traffic, we don’t see that there is a problem there, burden to the public service roads or emergency service there wouldn’t be any undue burden from that. The Comp Plan shows this in the Seven Mile Corridor Planning Area, which is recommended for open space and suburban residential. This is shown on Map 13 and Map 14 of the Comp Plan. Map 14 shows this as Suburban Residential. As far as the preliminary requirements, it meets the UDO requirements and there is adequate building space, more than adequate building space on these lots, frontage is there, storm management has been looked into and again emergency access. Unless you have any other questions, from our standpoint it meets all the preliminary things we ask for in the UDO.
Jordan: Thank you. I guess we will start with any of the Board members that have any questions or comments about this proposal.
Spencer: I have two questions. I never worked on the fire department, was never a fireman, I was wondering if and how the fire hydrants are going to be up there?
Ferriell: On the map. Are you going to show him Brad?
Spencer: I know there is one out at the entrance. I don’t know how far you stretch a fire hose. I see the one right by the entrance by lot #28 and one over here by Michelle’s house.
Kramer B.: There are two existing plugs or hydrants. One between lots 1728 and 1729 or roughly there about and the other one is up in that area to the north, that access strip that we talked about. I met with Chief Rick Crowe in February and asked him about fire hydrant spacing and the details of what he would like, that included turn radius, I think you have seen that in the application, we did a little study for-not the trucks he has now but for the trucks he would love to have. He has asked us to put two fire hydrants down in that circle drive so that he doesn’t have to extend hoses, he has a volunteer fire department and I think they only have 200 feet of hose per line, so if one truck shows up the have 200 feet and if two truck show up the have 400 feet and so on. We did address that with the Chief.
Jordan: Gary, did you have something?
Wagner: Yes I did. There seems to be underlying issues here with sentimental value and the view, we have to address the issues and one issue I think that needs to be further addressed to my satisfaction is the drainage issue, some kind of drainage plan to see exactly what is going to take place in that property as far as the final concept is concerned.
The question came up about the small park, the .331 acre park. Is that going to be managed by the City or is that going to be managed by the neighborhood?
Kramer B.: Every development under this new UDO, every residential subdivision is required to, based on population projections, in this case it will be about 30 people.
3.25 persons per residential structure times 9 you get 30 people. Then you have a factor to figure how many acres you are required to provide for park space and we are required to provide a ¼ of an acre. We have shown that within that central island. We talked to the City Manager a year ago about the possibility of having more parks in the town and as much as they would love those corridors, they are about parked out at this point and he thinks he wouldn’t want any more park space. We even talked about donating the whole back part to the City for additional park and the City is not interested in taking on more responsibility for parks at this time. Even that 1/3 of an acre may be waived by our City Manager.
Fisher: If you remember Gary, part of the new parkland requirements if the City doesn’t want to take the park they will let the developer make a payment in lieu of that.
Wagner: The other question was answered about the covenants. The sanitary sewer seems to be a major question here. Having looked at it, size is more than adequate and there seems to be some lateral issues and some flooding issues on the sanitary sewer side of the system. I think we need to have the Public Works Division take a good look at that and present us with a report as to how they feel the sanitary sewer system is today.
Fisher: These are all things, that and the drainage plans, they are all things that will be required with the Final Development Plan and it would be brought back to you.
Wagner: The other issue was the traffic. Has the police department done any study on traffic in this area?
Kramer B.: Not at our request.
Wagner: A traffic count might be good to know in that area with the building of the YMCA and the development north, we all know our north-south streets and that is a north-south street, have taken on more traffic because of that so I think we need to look at traffic here a little bit. Even though nine lots, thirty residents won’t cause a traffic issue I think it is a concern in the neighborhood.
When you review the criteria, the applicable standards, the development that they proposed this evening seems to meet all of those criteria. However at this point in time, I am not prepared to make a determination or not as to whether we approve or disapprove this tonight. I think I need to think about it a little further after hearing all of these comments and what we are seeing and I guess about the drainage, basically.
Fisher: Just a reminder, this is just a preliminary tonight. A lot of the detail engineering, we haven’t required on the preliminary because of the cost associated with that. A preliminary is like, yes, we think this is a good idea and if so then I have to do the detailed engineering on the drainage, on the sewer, on the water. They bring that back and you then review that and say, yes, this is going to work or no it isn’t.
Spencer: They bring it back to this body?
Wagner: Then there is another question. What is the procedure here? If we take no action on this application this evening, we table it and we look at it again next month as a preliminary plan, that we are talking about, if we approve the action of this application this evening, what is the next step?
Fisher: If you approve, whatever you do tonight with the preliminary, you basically make a recommendation to Council. You either approve it as submitted, you approve it with modifications or you make a recommendation that it be denied. What goes to Council is just your recommendation. Council will then review it as a Preliminary Plan. The Preliminary is just, I think you have a good idea here, we are going to approve it as an idea and come back to us with all the details. If it gets approved as a preliminary plan then they have to come back to you. You will then make a recommendation on that Final Development Plan to Council and whether or not they should approve it. It follows the same procedure being a preliminary or a final. You make a recommendation and Council makes the final decision.
Wagner: If we were to disapprove the Plan this evening then it stops here?
Fisher: Yes.
Geeting: I am concerned also with the drainage problem. I know whatever type of surface drainage or subsurface drainage in here, you are dumping it right into the flow zone which is right near by and it is going to take a specific design to get a good drainage system to work. I had a question also about the open space delineation. Was that your flood zone line or was that this dotted line that crisscrossed on the lower part of the drawing?
Kramer B.: It is that one and there is more here.
Geeting: Okay.
Fisher: One of the requirements of the Planned Residential Conservation District is when there is open space, such as that, it has to be conserved and is required by the UDO that a deed restriction be put upon that land, it cannot be developed in the future, period.
Geeting: That is a safeguard?
Fisher: That is part of the requirement, there has to be a deed restriction placed on the land and it can never be developed.
Kramer B.: There is over 23 ½ acres that is restricted, undeveloped.
Jordan: Also Brad, while we are on this subject, I noticed in our Comp Plan map is actually does show a dedicated area for a trail way that connects with the Park over here and would you be willing to show that in your plat also?
Kramer B.: Yes, I will mark that down and we will show it. There is 33 additional acres, almost entirely in the floodplain, between this property and the creek. If you add that 33 and that 12 ½, there is a big area for parks and recreations. We will see and if that shows up on this map we will include it.
Spencer: A question I had, outside of this plat that we are approving right now, you still have 33 acres off of Lexington Road and the creek and down behind there, I think Jane Young owns that, it is the old Emerson Young property. That was going to be my question, what becomes of that now? That looks to me like that is entirely in the flood plain and not to be developed. You are talking about a park type (interrupted)
Kramer B.: That whole area is not within the floodplain. It is not very big and you have to go through floodplain to get to it, so it is unlikely that any noticeable development will ever happen further to the west of this property.
Coleman: Somebody brought up the question awhile ago, it might take a year or so to sell all of these lots. When you start on one or two of them and you start building, what is going to happen to the rest of the land? Are you going to grass that down or rye grass it or something?
DePalma: It depends on what lots, but the answer would be to grass it down.
Coleman: Okay.
Kramer B.: There is still the option to just continue to use it as it is. It is grandfathered, it is still agricultural, it can be farmed in the mean time as well.
Fisher: It doesn’t change the zoning designation of the land. The land remains ‘A-1,’ the PRCD is just an overlay district and the underlying stays agricultural.
Jordan: Another question I have if we go forward with this. The Meadow Lane name, I personally think that is kind of confusing. We have a Meadowlark and a Meadowbrook on the one side of town and you put a Meadow Lane on this side of town, for emergency services that can be confusing at times. I would like to see a different name.
Kramer B.: That was bought up at the Technical Review Committee and I thought that would be a good one for this Board to address so rather, I am not surprised to hear that concern and we have already talked about it in-house and I think there are all kinds of options out there. We can address a name, nobody is stuck on that particular name.
Wagner: Can I go back to a drainage question now? Just off the top of your head what kind of plan do you see? Do you see moving a lot of dirt here, what do you see here as far as, as those pictures demonstrate there is a lot of ponding in the area right now.
Kramer D.: To answer your question in a broad way, we do major re-grading, and Brad reminded me before the meeting to tell everyone that the drainage is generally drained away to the swales on the lot lines, so everything between the lot line and where the house is and then down to the lot line on the other side and then for each individual lot, is re-graded. If that answers your question, there will be elevated areas for the houses and re-grading of those areas around the houses. Now, I would say back in this undeveloped area, probably won’t be anything done, will there back there Brad?
Kramer B.: Maybe there will be some expansion of the storm sewer system back there, but other than that there will be no development in the restricted area. We may have to get some sewer back there is this existing sewer is not enough, storm sewer.
Kramer D.: The pictures that you have seen have been up closer to the houses and I would say all of that, close to the existing houses that are there now, all of that will be graded over in some way a little bit to put lawns there. We will show that in the final plans, that why it is tough to do at this stage because if there is a go ahead then I think it makes more sense to spend the money on those detailed plans and we would have to do that before you would see it again on drainage plan.
Kramer B.: We have addressed that issue a little with Mr. Wagner. In the covenants and restrictions under drainage and detention, item 19 that we have now, how each new home is required as it is being built, to submit their plan for drainage to us or another engineer. You have to carefully conform to the approved and proper drainage plan when these lots develop.
Wagner: Have you put a price on per lot here yet?
DePalma: No. Not until I have an idea what it is going to cost to engineer the site.
Spencer: I have a couple of issues that I would like to address. One being the fact that I think as far as the people who sit here on this Board, you have to look at issues that what are people’s rights to own and have access to property and so forth and I think in our position here, I think that our job is to determine, does this meet the standards of the City? If it meets the standards of the City, then what do we look at? The next thing that we look at is what do people in the area think of this? There you start getting in to some shady areas, I have never sat on the zoning board, I have never sat on any board where you look at issues where people say, we don’t want this, we live there, we have always lived here, we don’t want this here. Which is the emotional part of this. Stop and think, there was a day when your house, somebody was saying, we don’t want that, we don’t want that here. The house on the corner that sits there or the house in between, at some point people just seem to have an aversion that when they have their place locked up that they don’t want that view to change, they don’t want these things to change and I think the average person would agree with that. I think at some point you got to think, what is fair to everybody concerned? As far as Mr. DePalma buying the property, that to me is irrelevant, that is his (inaudible) When it comes to looking at a case like this you have to say what is good for the area, what is good for the people involved. There is no question, every one of you in here are and probably should be against this because it is right there with you. My question would be to you, is it right to look at it that way? You are looking at it from your own viewpoints, which is the only one you really should. What I would urge you to do is to look at the whole concept of what is going on here. Fifty years ago this place was trying to be plotted off into 50 lots, then it went back to 30 lots, which in my view is still way too many. With this new Conservation District that we got, where it guarantees and locks up this land in the back that can never be developed, still you got your wildlife, you got your green space and so forth. What you are giving up is nine lots or nine houses, all clustered together, in this little circle here. It is not going to be extending out like houses all around. It is a planned community. In my viewpoint there is a lot of logic to that. It conserves all of that space in between and leaves that open space there where you don’t have all different designs and houses and so forth and the developer has taken great pains to preserve it that way and the covenants and the deed restrictions that will guarantee that for at least thirty years and then for ten year intervals after that. There has been a lot of planning that has gone into this. Now for each of you to say, no, wait a minute we don’t want anything there, I would ask you is that fair on your part, would be my question. You are going to say yes indeed that is my place, I bought with this in mind. I have never been to a zoning meeting where the concept was the last one in, turn out the light. I got mine, you worry about something else, I am going to protect mine here.
So, I say to you and if I were living in one of those houses I would probably be in one of those chairs out there where you are too, I would be saying the same thing, but if you look at it from a zoning standpoint, from a City zoning standpoint, I urge you to look at the whole picture and not just your own. With that in view, I am saying to you, in a way I am saying yes, this is a good use of this land, we are a Planning Board and we look at things whether this makes sense as far as Planning. You got a floodplain back here, but these homes are built outside of those. You got ponding out there, sure you do. I drove around town after all the rain we have had the last four days and I can assure you that there are places in town on flat ground that had ponding. Question is, two days later was it still there? If it was still there, you have a problem and if it went away once again it was where the drainage comes in.
The issue I do have and I do have quite an issue, it is what Mr. Taylor was saying here, if you got water and you got sewage right now backing up into people’s homes, you better look into that. If there are going to put more development in there, I would have to say you got to give me assurance when you put in these new lots that you are going to eliminate that problem and not add to it. I have a problem with the sanitary sewer backing up into the homes. It is unfair for a person like Mr. Taylor to have to spend $2,200.00 of his own money to take care of a problem that shouldn’t exist. If it a problem that can be fixed it needs to be fixed. For the protection of that one property I would say, lets look at this a little more. That’s mine.
Jordan: Joe, do you have an answer to that?
Ferriell: As far as the sanitary line being big enough, that is not a problem but there may be another issue that we are not aware of. As far as being able to handle it, that is not a problem. I talked with Andy on it and he is okay with it.
Wagner: I know years ago we cameraed that whole sewer line from where it starts, which is up by Vancrest and it goes all the way down behind Park Avenue and all the way down to the railroad track and ties back into Park Avenue down around the football field. That camera work resulted in replacing the sewer lines from the first manhole in that field, that you are talking about, all the way to the first manhole past the railroad tracks. In doing that they, we eliminated what they call cycling of a big storm sewer, we took it straight through, which eliminated a lot of issues that we were having in the 80’s and early 90’s up in that area with flooding of sanitary sewer anyway. I don’t recall a lot of sanitary sewer issues on laterals up in there in my tenure with the City. That doesn’t necessarily mean they weren’t there. I have been gone for a number of years now so I can’t really address that. My main concern is answering, it seems like to me that we can’t get these questions answered until we approve the Plan. In other words, if you want to address the drainage issue, if you want to address the sanitary issue, if we want the project to go forward, the next step, to me is to let it fall tonight, table it tonight or approve it tonight. You can get the traffic answered, you can’t get the drainage question answered, you can’t get the sanitary sewer question answered until you go to that final engineering.
Fisher: You don’t ask the developer to spend all that money until you have said to him, yes, we think this is a good idea or no, we think this is a bad idea.
Wagner: If we approve the Preliminary Plans this evening.
Fisher: Approving the Preliminary Plans does not guarantee approval of the Final.
Wagner: That is right, that is what I am trying to say.
Fisher: I think it is like making a movie, you take your idea in and they say yes, write a script. You write the script and they may say, this is terrible and we are not going to make it or they may say, this is awesome. You are not going to know until they approve that idea.
Spencer: We are, in essence, if we were to approve it we are just approving the concept of it and then they still come back.
Fisher: They have to come back with the details. If we say to the developer, yes this is a good idea, that is the point that we then ask him to spend the money to do the drainage study and the sewer study and the water study. Those things all cost a lot of money and that is the point where you ask them to do that.
Jordan: This Preliminary Plan also goes to Council first, before it even goes to the final planning stages. It has another step within the City too, another hurdle to meet if we approve this Plan tonight.
Wagner: When you look at the concept here, I agree with Stan here in that it is a good use of the property and it is really the only good use of the property and if you don’t agree with this kind of concept then the property is never going to change, it is going to be like it is. I am not sure it is fair to Mr. DePalma at this point.
Fisher: Also, now this is agricultural land and our zoning requirements only require one acre. Legally he has the right to put 35 agricultural lots out there.
Spencer: The plan says you can put four homes on an acre. They are putting one home on four acres. It is the other way around and they are talking green space.
Wagner: I don’t know if tabling is the answer at this point because we won’t get any answers, any further answers than we have tonight without somebody spending some money. I think at this point in time we either have to approve the Plan or concept and take it forward or disapprove the concept. Based on the code and the law, and what our job is to do here tonight, I would move that we give this favorable approval for application PRCD-06-01 in that it meets the applicable standards in Chapters 1115.05 PUD/PRCD page 246.
Jordan: Do you want to group your Major Subdivision at the same time, Preliminary?
Wagner: And the motion included the approval of the Preliminary Major Subdivision, MJ-06-01.
Fisher: That must say favorable recommendation.
Wagner: Favorable recommendation to Council.
Coleman: I will second that.
Jordan: Favorable recommendation for this Preliminary Plan and seconded. Call the roll please.
Ayes: Coleman
Geeting: Woops.
Jordan: Wait a minute.
Geeting: I would like to see more information in the Final Plan, if we go that far, that a flood zone be identified closer with elevations and the contours on the map and the flood zone line correlate a little bit better.
Fisher: And they are required to do that under the new UDO.
Geeting: Okay.
Jordan: Okay Becky.
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Fisher: Just for the comfort of everyone in the audience, everything, Council will hear the Preliminary and when the Final comes back those all go to Council as well. Nothing is going to happen without you being notified. They are all Public Hearings.
Jordan: When will this be heard in Council?
Fisher: April 17th.
(Doors closed)
Jordan: Any more new business?
OLD BUSINESS:
Fisher: The request for the previous Minor Subdivision, they request that that be left tabled.
For your information, you all have your new UDO, Council at their last meeting did an emergency ordinance to bring the new zoning map in accordance with the new UDO. We didn’t change the zoning of anything, what we did simply was, you know how we had ‘C-1,’ ‘C-3,’ ‘C-4’in the old code and it is now ‘C-1,’ ‘C-2,’ and ‘C-3’ we just brought those in line. ‘P-1’ went to ‘O-I,’ which you had done. It didn’t really change. We got rid of the ‘R-4’ because we had two multi-families and everything is now ‘R-3.’. We were getting a lot of commercial zoning requests.
The other thing I will point out, and Mr. Daily asked me to remind you of this, this is a fluid document, this is not set in stone. As we go through it and you find things that you are not comfortable with, and you find things that are not working, if you find things that don’t make sense, just make a note of it. We would like to keep it up like every month or so. There is a typo here, we are not sure what this means, we need to clarify that, it just isn’t working. Remember it is not set in stone, it is new and also will be a little confusing. My door is always open if you have any questions. You got a tough one right off of the bat.
Mr. Wehrley asked me to bring it to your attention that the Conditional Permit that you approved last month for the Barneys, they have still never come in to request their final inspection. Are there any instructions to staff as to what you would like us to do with that issue?
Jordan: What is the procedure?
Fisher: I would think the first thing to do would be to send them a letter and you have so many days or you are in violation of your Conditional Use Permit and it will be revoked.
Jordan: We have tiptoed around them and now it is time to do something.
Fisher: Does that work for you, I will send them a letter?
All yes.
Fisher: If they ignore the letter what we will have to do is to set it for hearing and revoke their permit.
Jordan: Okay. Anything else? I entertain a motion for adjournment.
Steve Deffner made a motion to adjourn and it was seconded by Tim Lane.
All yes, meeting adjourned.
_________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary Chairman