Cleveland City Council

p. 210 REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 24, 2025 3:00 P.M. MINUTE BOOK 32 BE IT REMEMBERED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE MET IN A REGULAR SESSION THIS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2025 AT 3:00 P.M. AT THEIR REGULAR MEETING PLACE IN THE CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL BUILDING. Present and presiding was Mayor Kevin Brooks. Also present were Councilwoman McKenzie, Councilmen Bill Estes, David May, Duane Goff, Ken Webb and Dan Moore. Councilman Tom Cassada was absent from the meeting. Others in attendance were City Manager Joe Fivas; Shawn McKay, Assistant City Manager/CFO; City Attorney John Kimball; Christy Brandon, Assistant City Clerk; Seth Sumner, Assistant to the City Manager; Police Chief Mark Gibson; Fire Chief Chris Bates; Kris Miller, IT Director; Tommy Myers, Assistant City Manager/Transportation and Environmental Services; Jonathan Jobe, Assistant City Manager/Development and Recreation Services; Garrett Frye with Congressman Fleischmann’s Office; Jeff Elliott with Cleveland City Schools; Teresa Mustar; Warbrit Lowery; Matthew Schaler; Ben Berry with Berry Engineers; Amy Conley-Moore; Bassam Issa and Tim Siniard with the Cleveland Daily Banner. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag, prayer by Pastor Paul Davis with Westwood Baptist Church, the following business was then entered into: WAIVE READING OF MINUTES Vice Mayor Webb moved that the City Council of the City of Cleveland waive the reading of the minutes of the Regular Session of the City Council held on January 27, 2025 and approve them as written. The motion was seconded by Councilman May; and upon roll call, the motion unanimously passed. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS Councilman Moore moved to excuse Councilman Cassada from today’s meeting. The motion was seconded by Councilman May; and upon roll call, unanimously passed. Mayor Brooks stated we have honored Amy Newman all day for her 31 years of service to the City. Mayor Emeritus Tom Rowland sent the following message: Amy, You have done a fantastic job for the city. I personally thank you. I'm sorry, due to my physical limitations I can't attend your event today. Having surgery tomorrow, but will be much improved. Thank you for all you have done from day one. Good luck and God 's blessings on your retirement. Sincerely, Mayor Emeritus Rowland. Mayor Brooks continued we've had parties and cupcakes and presentations and today a plaque, but not sure we could say enough for your thirty-one years of service. Congratulations on your retirement. You're far too young to retire. Hope you won't mind if we phone a friend. Mayor Brooks then announced another special day is Councilwoman Mackenzie 's mother, Miss Alma Akins, is 102 today. Please send your mom birthday wishes from the Council. Mr. Fivas announced tomorrow the Parker/2nd Street/1st Street 4-way stop will be implemented. Also, tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. is the grand opening of the Candy’s Creek Elementary School expansion. HEARING PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Brooks announced he is reappointing Clark Taylor, January 2027; Jamie Creekmore, January 2028; Alma Dotson, January 2028; and Dr. Tiffany Sherman, January 2028 to the Planning Commission. p. 211 REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 24, 2025 PAGE -211- MINUTE BOOK 32 Mayor Brooks stated today’s meeting is being held as a public hearing to hear public comments concerning a request by Bassam Issa for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 36 acres, more or less, for property located at APD-40 from IH Heavy Industrial Zoning District to PUD60 Planned Unit of Development and includes Tax Map 065 Parcel 001.00. Planning Commission approved 7-2. Robert Varnell stated this development is roughly a hundred units and is a mixture of townhomes and single family detached. The PUD was written to allow for forty-six-foot-wide lot width minimum. The applicant is requesting a reduction on that in the PUD to forty-two. Staff wrote the PUD designed based on the minimum requirement that we've been at up to this point, which is forty-six foot wide, which based on discussions just a few minutes ago probably dates back something like thirty years. There is some level of discussion that needs to take place on that. In the memo staff wrote, we discussed that under certain conditions reductions in lot width tend to make more sense than in others, if it's a large green field with hundreds of lots things like that, I don't really see the need. You can design away with the forty-six or the fifty-foot-wide lots in those situations where it makes. When you've got tighter development, the mixed-use development is more of a mixed-use feel with the commercial in the front and the residential components. Sometimes it's important to design correctly, and so I wanted to bring a few points up. Two weeks ago, we had a discussion just in general about lot widths and I listened to some comments that were made. I think if we're going to have a reduction at any point in our lot width the design components of the site need to be top notch. Getting denser, we got to address parking and traffic. Are we looking at just a bunch of garages? So, I wrote some things out that could help guide us if we are going to have these reductions in our present as well as in the future. Requiring rear loaded homes with use of alleys and then adding parallel on street parking. One of the things with the development we're looking at today is it has some ninety-degree angle parking that is accessible and looks like it's a part of the public street. We should require those be in separate parking lots, and if we do have on street parking it's parallel. It's easier to navigate and the sidewalk stays behind it. Requiring rear loaded homes with the use of alleys, the garages in the back, you reduce the front set back to ten or fifteen feet, pushing the structure closer to the front, and you've got more of an older town downtown feel to it all the sudden. In your garages and your resident parking, you don't even see it, but you have on street parking for guests and it's separate from the travel lanes. When we talk about fire engines, emergency services and trash trucks, trying to get through these places, that answers a lot of those questions. It's a lot cleaner and it looks a lot better. Sidewalks would be required on each side of the road, and they would connect throughout the mixed-use development and any open spaces. The use of open space when we're getting this density is much more important because our lots become so much smaller. Our yards become so much smaller. Having a usable open space that's not stormwater or wetland or steep slope to me is essential. So, we're going to have some offset. It's good to have a place for the neighborhood kids to go run around down the street. Sidewalk connectivity already there. And so those are just some of the basic guidance tools if we are going to move in a direction than our level of design needs to be that much higher on these. I don’t necessarily have issues with the reduction, but like I said, in big subdivisions with hundreds of lots, there's a way to design it and still get your numbers correct at the threshold we've already set. When we're dealing with a tighter area, I do think we could consider some options. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have on some of the stuff I've been saying. If there's, if there's any thoughts or questions for me before I know our applicant is here as well. Councilwoman McKenzie asked if this would be a new code. Mr. Varnell stated, this is within the framework of a PUD, which is to be adaptable for a specific piece of property. But it would be something where as this body long ago set precedent and said we're not going below forty-six. Well, we as staff, say that in meetings with developers, I say that to them and this is where we're at, to get everything worked out before it comes here. In this case, they said they’d like to try for forty-two, so here we are. The standard would stay at forty- six, except for certain conditions, which you would vote for or against. Councilman May stated he is unsure where forty-six came from as he thought we were at fifty. Mr. Varnell stated yes, we try to stay at fifty. Councilman May stated his is not for going less than forty-six feet. When you’re doing a PUD, some common sense needs to enter into it. His opinion, anything less than forty-six should be standard. If you get into an odd situation where you had to cut a foot, I can see working with the developer for a low percentage of the development. Councilman Goff stated it appears the layout that you are doing what you can to make the development work. It’s good overall but his concerns are not related to lot width, but parking. The neighborhood has p. 212 REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 24, 2025 PAGE -212- MINUTE BOOK 32 nice sidewalks, but a portion is missing at lot seventy-four. Mr. Varnell stated yes, it needs to be contiguous. Councilman Goff stated it also appears the lot line cross the parking spaces, which leaves half the car in public and half on private properties. His concern is liability. Parking should be all private or all public rights-of-way. Mr. Varnell stated he agrees and that is something they can clean up between readings. Councilman Goff then asked about the community area, what is the larger area. Mr. Varnell stated there is a linear park and a dog park area. Vice Mayor Webb stated he understands losing four lots is critical to the development of the subdivision but there is some property that is designated as future development. Has there been any effort to redesign to pick up the additional four lots. Mr. Varnell stated the developer of the site has a commercial office use they are angling to put there which is not part of the residential component. That is the far left by Holloway Road. Land is developable but that is the decision between the developer and decisions that come from this meeting might dictate some of those decisions. Vice Mayor Webb stated maybe there’s a lot we could do with the design to keep the lots at forty-six and still get the number of houses that are desired. Mr. Varnell stated yes, if we go smaller, we need to have a stronger design and build out that development. Councilman Estes asked if this development was considered a large or small track. Mr. Varnell replied small, anything less than 100 units is a smaller development. Councilman Estes then asked what specifics you are looking from us today, other than lot frontage. Mr. Varnell stated to be clear, if we are going to allow through our PUD process to allow forty-two lot minimum then we need specific standards to guide that. Otherwise, it becomes a question of every developer is going to want these forty-two foot wide lots. They are not appropriate everywhere, unless this body does. Mayor Brooks asked would this be the new standard, in this PUD, this is a very specialized for PUD60 not the new standard. Mr. Varnell stated no, not a new standard because we’d set specific criteria to this specific PUD. Mr. Fivas added we’ve already told fifteen to twenty developers that forty-six is our minimum. Now, they are coming back to do down, redoing their site plans. If we deviate from it, then we need very clear criteria why this is a special development, and why this development deserves a different set of criteria. Councilman Estes stated it is not codified, we are not changing building codes, or zoning, all we are doing is giving some kind of common law interpretation on how we feel today. We are giving an opinion with the vote. Do we want to give the verbal direction to go less than forty-six feet. Mr. Varnell stated he has some concerns with traffic, on street parking and emergency vehicles when we have such compacted neighborhoods. Councilman Estes asked if he was concerned with this. Mr. Varnell replied yes, as designed. It needs a higher level of design if we do it. That is the city’s position. The Planning Commission voted 7-2 in favor of forty-two. Councilman Estes stated he’d like to hear from the Planning Commission Chairman Ben Berry. Mayor Brooks asked Mr. Varnell if he had any comparison data from the surrounding areas. Mr. Varnell replied he has seen no less than forty, very specialized areas. Councilman Estes asked Planning Commission Chairman Ben Berry what else does the Council need to consider and in long term what is best for Cleveland. Mr. Berry stated Mr. Varnell’s position is very difficult, as he’s not a policymaker, he is a communicator, the first communication to the developer and he needs guidance. Guidance will help the members of the Planning Commission make their decisions. They were more concerned about parking and walkability than the lot size. It would help if we had guidelines, standard subdivisions, and what Mr. Varnell has presented helps us as a tool to effectively evaluate these PUD’s. The main problem is parking. How can we assure you don’t have cars blocking the road for emergency services. Easy way, alleyway parking. He encourages creativity but we need criteria, is this the exception to the rule or the rule. Planning Commission discussion was forty-six or forty-two. Some didn’t see the big deal in the single-family component. Some wanted to hod to forty-six. Every unit would have two vehicles with a twenty- foot driveway plus the garage. Concerns were specifically the cars blocking the sidewalks. Councilman Estes stated he was struggling with the equity part. It’s a PUD, it’s unique. Yes, Mr. Varnell needs direction, but the biggest hiccup is parking in the driveway and slots on the road. The Planning Commission spent a lot of time on this. Councilman May stated he understands developers want to make money, he wants them to but if we go to forty-two, someone else will come ask for forty and it can keep going. Councilman Estes stated hearing from everyone will be beneficial. Mayor Brooks asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the request. Cody Etling with Miller, McCoy the Civil Engineers for the project. In regard to Councilman Goff question about the sidewalk around this parking spaces, we had every intent to put a sidewalk there. I think it just missed when drafting the site plan, but we'll be more than happy to add that p. 213 REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 24, 2025 PAGE -213- MINUTE BOOK 32 there. In regard to maintenance of the parking spaces, something that we will have to discuss can be delineated within the HOA regulations of the subdivision that the HOA is responsible for the maintenance of the spaces. The property line through the parking can be tweaked. We can make all make all the parking in the right of way or move that parking into the community zones and keep the entirety of the parking on private. But then we would have to navigate the question of how these parking spaces are accessed. If we keep the parking configuration the way it is now, ninety degrees with respect to the travel way unless we create a designated parking lot somewhere, we are going to have a continuous paved apron that goes from the road to the parking space. The property line issue is something that could be more ironed out with HOA regulations, as far as maintenance is concerned. As far as rear loaded alleyways, Mr. Issa and the home builder, has a product that is twenty-eight foot wide that has a front garage, so I don't think we have a product that has a rear facing garage. That is a type of development that occurs, but that's not a product that that we're prepared to offer here. In relation to some of the other Council members have said from my client’s standpoint, density is profitability. When you're looking at a development there's nothing that would stop my client from doing twenty-foot-wide townhomes throughout this entire thing, packing it out with two times the number of developments that we have now and making more money off of it. My client wants to provide homes for people to raise kids in that have yards more yards in the townhomes and he's taking, it may not be apparent to everyone, but he is making a financial sacrifice providing single family home versus packing it out with townhomes or apartments. The community spot in the center has a mail kiosk, a pavilion for children to be dropped off and picked up from school buses. To show that we're willing to work with the City Council here on these requirements. The site plan that you all have in front of you had twenty feet between these sections of four townhomes, we can reduce that to ten feet, without having to sprinkle those buildings and make up that space in a larger community space. So, I have a site plan here where it's exactly the same as what you all have before you, but we shrunk that space between those sets of townhomes to ten instead of twenty and made the community space forty feet wider in the center. That’s something that we're open to do, to make that community space larger and provide more amenities. There's was a discussion about the loss of lots. I mentioned that we would lose four lots in Planning Commission but that didn't account for the fact that they're essentially four rows of homes. When you actually look at it through the homes, we're losing five. That's may not seem like a crazy number, but any you know on a per lot basis when you're getting paid on a per lot basis to develop that's a significant amount. In regard to future development, I think what Mr. Varnell explained is spot on. We had discussions with Mr. Varnell and Mr. Jobe about potentially using that space, but for the time being, it's kind of in a more commercial zone out along Holloway Road. We would like to keep that as a potential future commercial space instead of designating it to residential, especially since it sits right behind the gas station. Matt with the Smith Douglas Homes is here as well with some of the products that they're offering in this development. One thing that's pertinent here is that regardless of the lot with forty-two versus forty-six. If it in a theoretical sense the product would remain the twenty-eight-foot product. So, we can fit this product in this PUD, we can on the forty-two-foot width lots, keep room for the HVAC units on the side meet side building setbacks, We feel very confident about that product, and we think we have a good number. The south side of Cleveland does not have a lot of subdivisions. The north side of the county is very development heavy, as the south side isn't. Have the industrial park down there and the one thing that those businesses will need is local housing for the people that are going to work there. We want to provide is affordable housing for those to move in at a good price point, given how crazy the housing market 's been in the past five years. Matthew Shayler with Smith Douglas Homes stated he represents the home builder and the product. He handed out renderings of what the product will be in this development. I guess we'll start with parking, since that's been kind of the topic. You can see in all the twenty-four-foot plan or twenty-eight-foot detached plans, all of them have a two-car garage, two car driveways. So. that'll be kind of the main point of anywhere that would run the detached product, which of course is where we're talking about these forty-two-foot lots. Four parking spots without the road. That is our most narrow and our most affordable townhome. Even with that, we do have a one car garage included. You'll see in in that handout a development from Cartersville, Georgia we did. We've had a lot of luck with that, and it has one car driveways to that townhome. We can do that townhome with two car garage but admittedly, it doesn't look as good. What we would do here is have a model home, probably of each product, and then we would run a design center out of it. p. 214 REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 24, 2025 PAGE -214- MINUTE BOOK 32 We are extremely excited to be in Cleveland for the first time. We're going to provide an affordable house, but it's going to be completely personalized. We pre-sell as many as we can, get potential buyers in, and they get to design their own home, get to pick their finishes and do it at an affordable price. We'd be bringing these townhomes, fully personalized townhomes, which are three beds, we'd be starting those out at a base price of $267,000. With the single-family homes, we would have four different house plans with different elevations to choose from, but those would be in the high twos as well. The townhomes would be two different plans at 1,600 square feet. So, there's a good bit of size for those townhomes, and then the single-family homes we would do 1,700 square foot to 2,300 square foot. Whether there's a forty-two-foot lot or forty-six-foot lot is we would build that exactly same house. Councilwoman McKenzie asked how many single-family dwellings versus townhomes. Mr. Shayler stated forty-six to forty-six. Mr. Issa could build all townhomes here, but we’re a home building company. We want to build the homes; we want to put people in their first homes. Councilman May stated if we maintain twenty-six feet per lot, how does that change your number. Mr. Shayler stated they will stick with the exact same plans. Based on our market study, we want to use our same plans and costs but changing the lot size would probably change his number per lot, and essentially that will just get pushed down to the buyer. Mr. Bassam Issa stated he has tried everything on this property. First, he approached Publix. Initially they said they would come. Then they said no, it’s too far away from homes. They wanted to be by Walmart or that area. There is no land for that. He bought the property anyways, for Four Million Two and he is limited to what he can do. He found this product and great company and the only thing that I can have is to have this company come and do this, a great unique product being a PUD with a commercial walk ability to four or five restaurants and a coffee shop. My experience with Cleveland, I considered as equal to Chattanooga, that's why I'm still developing here. It is a great city. Great future and I know you do different things than other cities but at the end of the day I have initially have ninety-seven lots and talking with Robert, I lost five more. I can’t lose anymore. For the cost and the base, I had in it, I’ll be in trouble. I’d rather not even do it and wait for something else. He feels it is a great opportunity for all of us if we make it with what Robert and you guys want and do whatever it takes to make it a unique development. If someone else wants to do something similar it might be every few years, not widespread. This will not be a precedence where you can’t defend the fact that you can’t do it for others unless they have something similar, or uniquely different in a PUD. I do appreciate you and very impressed with the discussion that you had, and I learned from it. I hope that you will see it our way because I cannot do any more than that. It is a great company, and I will control everything they do because this is my development and want to make sure everything looks great. Mayor Brooks asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the request. No one spoke. Mayor Brooks declared the public hearing to be closed. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Brooks stated the Consent Agenda was presented to the Council during the Work Session. Councilman Estes moved to approve the following items from the Consent Agenda. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Webb; and upon roll call, unanimously passed 6-0. • Final Passage - Zoning Ordinance 2025-04 – heretofore passed on first reading February 10, 2025 and found in Minute Book 31, Page 177; Concerning a request by Dennis Botts for consideration of an ordinance to zone about .29 acres, more or less, for property located at Johnson Boulevard from FAR unincorporated county to R-2 Low Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning District and includes Tax Map 058I Group C Parcel 009.00 (Planning Commission: Approved 9-0). • Final Passage - Zoning Ordinance 2025-05 - heretofore passed on first reading February 10, 2025 and found in Minute Book 31, Page 191; Concerning a request by the Eldredges and O’Neals for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 22 acres, more or less, for property located at North Lee Hwy from FAR unincorporated county and RA Residential Agricultural to PUD62 and includes a portion of Tax Map 034 Parcel 025.02 (Planning Commission: Approved 8-0; 1 recused). p. 215 REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 24, 2025 PAGE -215- MINUTE BOOK 32 • Final Passage - Zoning Ordinance 2025-06 - heretofore passed on first reading February 10, 2025 and found in Minute Book 31, Page 196; Concerning a request by Brett Howell for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 9.6 acres, more or less, for property located at Michigan Avenue Road from IH Heavy Industrial Zoning District to PUD61 and includes Tax Map 050 Parcels 036.00 and 037.00 (Planning Commission: Approved 8-0; 1 recused). • Final Passage - Zoning Ordinance 2025-08 - heretofore passed on first reading February 10, 2025 and found in Minute Book 31, Page 200; Concerning a request by Maverick Development for consideration of an ordinance to amend PUD 40 to include a second access point on Sequoia Road (Planning Commission: Approved 8-0; 1 recused). • Final Passage - Zoning Ordinance 2025-09 - heretofore passed on first reading February 10, 2025 and found in Minute Book 31, Page 204; Concerning a request by Gary Waters for consideration of an ordinance to amend PUD 58 to include the development of apartment complexes up to 228 units in place of single family attached and single family detached units (Planning Commission: Approved 9-0). • Resolution 2025-17 – Approving an agreement with Bartlett Tree Experts for tree care services at Johnston Park. RESOLUTION 2025-17 A RESOLUTION APPROVING OF AN AGREEMENT WITH BARTLETT TREE EXPERTS FOR TREE CARE AND TREATMENT AT JOHNSTON PARK WHEREAS, the City Manager and the City’s Urban Forrester are recommending to the City Council that the City enter into an agreement with Bartlett Tree Experts to provide tree care and treatment services for trees located in Johnston Park; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the attached agreement with Bartlett Tree Experts and to authorize the Mayor to execute the attached agreement on behalf of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cleveland, Tennessee that the City Council does hereby approve of the attached agreement with Bartlett Tree Experts to provide the services as described in the attached agreement, and the City Council further authorizes the Mayor to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. This 24th day of February 2025. APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/John F. Kimball ___________________________ City Attorney Kevin Brooks, Mayor ___________________________ Shawn McKay, City Clerk • Surplus Property – Declaring equipment/vehicles as surplus property and be used for Fire Department Training and/or sold on GovDeals. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kristi Powers, Budget/Purchasing Coordinator DATE: February 24, 2025 RE: Surplus Property SUMMARY: Requesting the following assets be declared surplus property. p. 216 REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 24, 2025 PAGE -216- MINUTE BOOK 32 To be used for Fire Dept training: • 2013 Dodge Charge VIN 2C3CDXAG5DH721569 • 2006 Crown Victoria VIN 2FAHP71W06X110279 To be sold on GovDeals: • 2016 Clark C40L P455L-0618-9887 KF • 2015 JCB 8035ZTS Mini Excavator VIN JCB08035J02022804 COMMITTEE FINDINGS: None. FISCAL ANALYSIS: None. RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends approval of this item. • Motion – Approval to submit a Letter of Intent for the 2025 Project Diabetes Grant. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Cathy Andrews, Redevelopment Coordinator DATE: February 24, 2025 RE: Approval to Submit Letter of Intent for the 2025 Project Diabetes Grant SUMMARY: Approval to submit a Letter of Intent (Pre-Application) to the Tennessee Department of Health for the 2025 Project Diabetes Grant for the purpose of funding improvements to the Shepard Field Area and connecting sidewalks in the Blythe Oldfield Community. The maximum grant is $450,000 and the city will leverage funds and in-kind services to complete the project if the grant is funded. COMMITTEE FINDINGS: FISCAL ANALYSIS: $450,000 • Motion - Travel Reimbursement Update TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Joe Fivas, City Manager DATE: February 24, 2025 RE: Travel Reimbursement Update SUMMARY: The General Services Administration (GSA) sets the per diem rates for Tennessee. These rates cover lodging, meals, and incidental expenses. The City’s Administrative Travel Policy is outdated and will be revised during our budget process. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: N/A FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff’s recommendation is to approve that City employees and elected officials use the standard per diem rate and policies set by the General Services Administration (GSA) for Tennessee for lodging, meals, and incidentals expenses as of February 24, 2024. This measure will sunset when a new Travel Policy is adopted by the City Council. UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business. p. 217 REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 24, 2025 PAGE -217- MINUTE BOOK 32 REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS Councilwoman McKenzie had no report at this time. Councilman Estes recognized Two Brothers Tire and Auto Shop for their commitment to the Second District and being good neighbors. They have done everything they said they would do when opening the shop and kudos to them. Councilman May had no report at this time. Councilman Goff had no report at this time. Vice Mayor Webb had no report at this time. Councilman Moore stated since the Soccer Complex is getting more usage, he is receiving calls concerning Mouse Creek Road and looking for some type of update. Mr. Fivas stated yes, the project is two-fold. To expand the width of the road and on the MPO list for state paving. These are approved projects and, in the process, and as we go through the budget process in the next few months, we can develop a phase plan. NEW BUSINESS AND ORDINANCES The following Ordinance was then presented: a. Zoning Ordinance 2025-07 - Concerning a request by Bassam Issa for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 36 acres, more or less, for property located at APD-40 from IH Heavy Industrial Zoning District to PUD 60 and includes Tax Map 065 Parcel 001.00 (Planning Commission: Approved 7-2). Councilman Goff moved to approve Zoning Ordinance 2025-07 on first reading. The motion was seconded by Councilman Estes. Councilman Estes stated he wanted to speak why he is for this and give Mr. Varnell some direction. He is one person and thinks in a work session we should hammer specifics out not just for this PUD. We are looking at forty-six single family homes, at $225,000, you can’t find that in Cleveland. He has been paying a lot more attention in Planning Commission on the real estate market. Cons are the parking, it kind of moved him on the lot size. This is a one off and I’m bold enough to take all these one at a time, where I might not approve of this somewhere else. I believe city staff will have direction before this comes back up. I’m also bold enough to say to folks we’ve already approved forty-six and fifty, it stays that. I’m bold enough to second this motion and support it. He has been wrestling this for three months and it is important to speak up. Mr. Varnell asked for a point of clarification on the motion, the staff’s recommendation is forty-six or is the motion for forty-two? Councilman Goff stated his motion is forty-two as requested with the caveat of what they would do, regarding the parking and sidewalk around the parking, that it would be in the final reading. Mr. Issa stated what he really likes about the product in Cleveland and elsewhere is to have affordability in the homes and what I liked about this product, it is affordable. If you look at the majority of Cleveland people, based on the fact they work in factories and all that. This is a blessing to have something around the three hundred thousand, to own their own home and things like that. The other point is if I get enough, I and others, more development residential between where Walmart is and the freeway. I can convince people like Publix to come in. We can grow that area better. That was really detrimental for me when they backed out, but I was maybe stupid. I have faith that I can figure a different way to do it and make a little money, so I'm hoping that will be the case. Just to review with Mr. Fivas a yes vote would be to vote with the Planning Commission, which voted for forty-two. Mr. Fivas stated there was a lot of discussion there, the parking. Councilman Goff indicated that he was voting and made the motion to include the discussion that was had today. Mr. Fivas stated the big question is forty-two and I would suggest the Council, would have Robert work with the builder and the developer to bring back another site plan that goes to forty-two with different parking options so that we are all on the same page on what this is. We need to get on record a policy our staff can follow. Councilman May stated p. 218 REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 24, 2025 PAGE -218- MINUTE BOOK 32 we need guidelines to show why this is special at forty-two and another developer ask, and we say no. It needs to be in writing if it meets criteria. Councilman Estes asked Mr. Kimball if this passes and in two weeks the PUD ordinance would it be considered too different. Mr. Kimball stated no, it is the same PUD. He then suggested the Council direct Mr. Varnell to bring back at the next meeting, assuming it passes, an amended PUD that includes the bullet points from his memo and includes forty-two feet lot width and then it can be approved on final reading. Councilman May asked that the PUD ordinance come back revised for first reading at the next meeting with the conditions. Councilman Goff then rescinded his motion for approval. Mayor Brooks stated the Ordinance will be postponed until the March 10 meeting while Mr. Varnell works with the developer to amend the ordinance to include today’s discussion points. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Brooks announced the following: a. The next City Council meeting will be held on Monday, March 10, 2025 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Brooks adjourned the meeting at 4:22 p.m. _________________________________ _________________________________ Mayor City Clerk