Minutes-2 /13/1982

The Tiffin City Council met in regular session on Wednesday, January 14, 1982 at the Tiffin Methodist Church. Mayor Brotherton called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmen present were Stevens, Brown, Spivey, Rohret and Cox. Also present were Murray, Kammerer, Sladek, Aspelmeier, McDermott. No one spoke during community forum. Mayor Brotherton outlined his goals: 1) construct a municipal building 2) increase revenue 3) appraise utility capacities for future development and diagram and map city 4) maintain the traditional lifestyle of Tiffin residents. Motion Spivey second Rohret to approve agenda with the addition of item concerning water reconnection at 221 Main Street which was brought to the clerk's attention on January 12, 1982. Carried unanimously. Motion Rohret second Spivey to approve minutes of December 9, 1981. Carried unanimously. Resolution No. 1982-1 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF REAL PROPERTY FROM THE CITY OF TIFFIN TO RAYMOND SCHEETZ was introduced by Spivey and seconded by Rohret. Roll call vote: Stevens, aye; Brown, aye; Spivey, aye; Rohret, aye; Cox, aye. Carried unanimously. Clerk reported that Mr. Voparil still asks $23,000.00 for the property at 221 Main Street. Council consensus that the price is too high. Council discussed request by Louis Voparil to rezone lot no. 5 of the Sadler Subdivision from R-1 single family residential to R-3 multi-family residential. Mayor Brotherton read memo from Attorney Hoefer and gave background to issue. Mayor Brotherton read petition from residents which asked that lot no. 5 remain zoned R-1. Petition carried signatures of 53 residents. More than 20% of adjoining property owners within 200 feet has signed petition, therefore, four out of five councilmen must vote for approval if issue passes. Stevens: If rezone lot no. 5 would have to rezone lot no. 3. Rohret: Area is prime area to designate as R-3 because of other areas around it. Council should designate a definite area. Spivey: Would infringe on people already there if it goes to R-3. Brown: Would be good area to designate R-3 if that's what we want to do. But surrounding property owners have a legitimate request. Stevens: Economic development is the only argument. But it would take away economic value from R-1 property owners surrounding it if it goes to R-3. Rohret: Could deny other areas if this area is designated. Spivey: Can't spot zone. Stevens: Once this area if filled up, then no more R-3? Murray: Are you aware of the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation? All: Yes. Sladek: Memo from Hoefer states that location could go either way. Council does not have to provide a certain amount of R-3 zoning. There are reasons why you could deny it. Usually considered as buffer zone area between R-1 and commercial. McDermott: As stated in my memo, the change would be uniform to surrounding existing uses. Would provide a chance to establish area in city for R-3 and begin comprehensive plan. Original intent of subdividers was for multi-family use. Sewer system can accommodate R-3. Would provide reasonable return on investment. Would increase tax revenue. Mr. Voparil will not build unless it is rezoned. No one who signed petition was at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. No reasons were stated. Mr. Voparil plans to build in accordance with R-3 requirements which he is aware of, such as height, size of lot, square footage, parking, etc.