MEETING OF THE EATON PLANNING BOARD
ON MAY 9, 2006
AT 7:00 P.M., IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Eaton Planning Board met in regular session in Council Chambers on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.
The roll was called ant 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, Mayor Robert Stonecash, Law Director Donnette Fisher and Projects Manager Joe Ferriell. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES:
A motion was made by Ron Coleman and seconded by Steve Deffner to approve the March 14, 2006 minutes. A motion was made by Harold Geeting and approved by Stanley Spencer to approve the April 11, 2006 minutes. The motions 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.
MR-06-02 -Minor Subdivision -Woodland Heights, Cynthia Genth -500 Hallmark Drive -Part of Out Lot 76:
Jordan: This was tabled in February and we will need a motion to un-table this matter.
Tim Lane made a motion to un-table and it was seconded by Harold Geeting. Motion passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
Now I will open this application and Brad are you representing this tonight?
Kramer: Yes Mr. Chairman. I am Brad Kramer with Kramer & Associates, 101 North Barron Street. I have with me Ms. Cynthia Genth, who owns the property and also, now a committed buyer, Mr. Jack Conley. I believe that the 14th of February when we were here last, just to refresh everyone, over here we have a low land, 8.253 acres of the Woodland Heights property for sale, to be separated from the property that fronts on Route 35 or Eaton Richmond Pike. The low lands property really isn’t necessary, it really doesn’t help the condominium, the Business Park. The idea is to sell it to an adjacent, adjoining neighbor, and combining it by deed, with the neighbors property so that it then has frontage on a City street and thereby satisfying the definition of a legal lot within the City of Eaton. Most of our discussion, I think we covered the ins and outs. Mostly it is a flood plain and there isn’t much that can be done with this property but it is beautiful and Mr. Conley has expressed interest in it and Woodland Heights is interested in selling it to Mr. Conley and I think they have even gone as far as signed some paper work to solidify that deal. Now we are just asking that this Commission approve this lot split and, it will again be combined with a piece of Conley’s property fronting on Park Avenue and satisfying the forty feet lot width requirement. We have been through this, are there any questions the Board has of me?
Jordan: I have none, does any of the other members have any? Thank you Brad. Joe, does the City have anything else?
Ferriell: Nothing else to add other than it complies with the requirements that we have.
Jordan: Any of the Board members have any comments, questions, and thoughts?
Wagner: I move for favorable approval of case MR-06-02 in that it meets the applicable standards of Chapter 1115.07 Minor Subdivisions. The motion was seconded by Harold Geeting and passed as follows:
Ayes: Coleman, Spencer, Lane, Geeting, Deffner, Wagner, Jordan (7)
Nays: None
OLD BUSINESS:
Jordan: In old business we discussed the signage in the Historic Overlay District last month, do we want to move forward with that and make a recommendation?
Wagner: Yes, I think so. I don’t know what kind of footage we are talking about. Do you have something written down anywhere?
Fisher: What you talked about last month is currently at one sq. ft. per 4 lineal feet and you talked about changing the 4 to 3 for the size of building and making the overall, upping that from 15 sq. ft. to 20 sq. ft.
Wagner: Yes. So if this person came in for a sign that met the criteria for a 20 ft. frontage building, what would their sign be?
Fisher: It would be one per three and you put it one per three so that would make it 20?
Wagner: It would make it 21, wouldn’t it?
Jordan: What do you think would be a good maximum size sign on a 20 ft. frontage?
Wagner: We just approved two signs that Jells was 20 and Just Teasing was 24. There was no designation in that sign because they were asking to be put in that square on the top of the door. There wasn’t much change in that sign but there was a little change. That 24 ft. is not obscene to look at.
Jordan: I went down and looked at both of the new ones and they didn’t look that bad and when they are against the face of the building they are not near as bold as they are if they were hanging out over the sidewalk.
Wagner: If you have one per three?
Fisher: That is what you suggested.
Ferriell: So, on a 20 ft. building that is a little over six square feet. 6.6 sq. feet.
Wagner: I think the maximum 20 is good, but I think the ordinance reads (interrupted)
Fisher: That is actually the minimum, actually whichever is less.
Wagner: Whichever is less.
Ferriell: I measured this and it is just shy of 15 sq. feet and that one there is 5.5 sq. feet, the picture.
Wagner: One per two would make it 15 almost, 14?
Spencer: That would make it a little more reasonable. Frankly, that is too small for a business sign. 15 sq. feet wouldn’t be too terribly bad.
Wagner: Jell’s if 15. I like the one for two.
Fisher: One for two? Should I make that up and bring it back as an amendment?
Wagner: As far as I am concerned, yes.
Jordan: Is that okay with everyone?
Fisher: You want the maximum at 20?
Wagner: Yes.
Jordan : I think that would work good down there.
Fisher: The projecting name plate sign, you currently have that at 12 sq. feet, do you want to modify that at all? Page 167, it may project not more than 4 feet outward from the building face.
Wagner: That would be one sq. foot per 4 lineal feet. Projecting signs are different than a wall sign?
Fisher: Projecting signs like the one that went in at Danielle’s Dance Academy, Wilson’s Hardware, they stick out.
Wagner: That is a way too large sign, as far as I am concerned. I think 12 is fine. On a twenty-foot building, that would be one per four, it would be 5 sq. foot. That is a projecting sign, not to exceed 15 sq. feet.
Fisher: The projecting nameplate sign, as far as the sign area, it is just 12 feet, whatever size they choose.
Jordan: Projecting is one to one but no more than 12 sq. feet.
Wagner: That is fine.
Jordan: You will write that up and we will present it as an amendment next meeting? Does anyone else have any old business?
NEW BUSINESS:
Jordan: Any new business?
Fisher: There are a couple of other small mistakes that we found throughout, can I include them and we will just clean it up all at once?
Jordan: Fine.
Ron Coleman made a motion to adjourn and Tim Lain seconded it. Roll was called and the meeting was adjourned.
__________________________________ __________________________________
Secretary Chairman