Planning Commission

MINUTES REGULAR MEETING CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2022 6:00PM CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL BUILDING 190 CHURCH STREET NE The regular meeting of the Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission was call to order by Clarke Taylor, Vice-Chairman at 6:00 P.M. Commissioners present included Ben Berry, Clarke Taylor, Blake Allison, Maryl Elliott, Bill Estes and Tiffani Sherlin. Commissioners absent included Tricia Pennington, Jamie Creekmore, and Alma Dotson. Staff present included Corey Divel, Senior Planner/Assistant to the City Manager, Darla Jenkins, Administrative Coordinator, Joe Fivas, City Manager, and Robert Varnell, Director of Planning. Legal Counsel present included John Kimball, Attorney for the City of Cleveland. Others present included Stan Lawson, Todd Duggan of Duggan Development, Tony Richmond of Richmond Surveying, Randy Perry of Supreme Foods, Steve Drummer of LDA Engineering, Lynn Hyland, Patty Callaway, Rob Hyland, and Mike Price of MAP Engineers. The minutes of the November 16, 2021, regular meeting was presented for approval. Ben Berry made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 16, 2021, regular meeting. Blake Allison seconded the motion. A vote of 5-0 passed the motion. Tiffani Sherlin passed on the vote. Yes-5 No-0 Passed-1 Absent-3 The minutes of the December 14, 2021, special called meeting was presented for approval. Maryl Elliott made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 14, 2021, special called meeting. Bill Estes seconded the motion. A vote of 5-0 passed the motion. Tiffani Sherlin passed on the vote. Yes-5 No-0 Passed-1 Absent-3 There was no Public Hearings. Page 1 of 12 In the Consent Agenda, a. Request by Duggan Development, LLC for preliminary site approval for the Townhomes at Parkstone Village located off Westside Dr and Norman Chapel Rd. The property comprises Tax Map 41F Group D Parcel 1.00 and contains 3.13 acres. The property is zoned PUD30 Planned Unit Development Zoning District (pg1). Corey Divel stated we need to see the sidewalks on all of these, the plats and the site plan. The mail kiosk location must be coordinated among the different sections. He also mentioned the plat needs to match the engineered drawing. The revised engineered site plan does not have the cul de sac at the end of the road. It makes it turn to the right. That is a change that needs to be reflected on the final plat. b. Request by Duggan Development, LLC for preliminary plat approval for the Townhomes at Parkstone Village located off Westside Dr and Norman Chapel Rd. The property comprises Tax Map 41F Group D Parcel 1.00 and contains 3.13 acres. The property is zoned PUD30 Planned Unit Development Zoning District (pg2). Corey Divel stated Item b and c have similar comments. c. Request by Duggan Development, LLC for final plat approval for the Townhomes at Parkstone Village located off Westside Dr and Norman Chapel Rd. The property comprises Tax Map 41F Group D Parcel 1.00 and contains 3.13 acres. The property is zoned PUD30 Planned Unit Development Zoning District (pg4). d. Request by Duggan Development, LLC for preliminary site approval for the Townhomes at Parkstone Village Phase 2 located on Westside Dr. The property comprises Tax Map 41F Group D Parcel 1.00 and contains 1.67 acres. The property is zoned PUD30 Planned Unit Development Zoning District (pg5). Corey Divel stated this item was for Phase Two (2) and they need to confirm parking on the townhome units and show sidewalks on the existing street. e. Request by Duggan Development, LLC for preliminary plat approval for the Townhomes at Parkstone Village Phase 2 located on Westside Dr. The property comprises Tax Map 41F Group D Parcel 1.00 and contains 1.67 acres. The property is zoned PUD30 Planned Unit Development Zoning District (pg6). Page 2 of 12 f. Request by Duggan Development, LLC for final plat approval for the Townhomes at Parkstone Village Phase 2 located on Westside Dr. The property comprises Tax Map 41F Group D Parcel 1.00 and contains 1.67 acres. The property is zoned PUD30 Planned Unit Development Zoning District (pg7). g. Request by Greg Calfee Builders, LLC for preliminary site approval for the Townhomes at Parkstone Village Phase 3 located on Westside Dr. The property comprises Tax Map 41F Group D Parcel 1.00 and contains 2.89 acres. The property is zoned PUD30 Planned Unit Development Zoning District (pg8). h. Request by Greg Calfee Builders, LLC for preliminary plat approval for the Townhomes at Parkstone Village Phase 3 located on Westside Dr. The property comprises Tax Map 41F Group D Parcel 1.00 and contains 2.89 acres. The property is zoned PUD30 Planned Unit Development Zoning District (pg9). i. Request by Greg Calfee Builders, LLC for final plat approval for the Townhomes at Parkstone Village Phase 3 located on Westside Dr. The property comprises Tax Map 41F Group D Parcel 1.00 and contains 2.89 acres. The property is zoned PUD30 Planned Unit Development Zoning District (pg10). Corey Divel stated on g, h, and I had similar comments. They need to show the sidewalks. There were a few comments about the drainage easements around the stormwater pond and doing it consistently with the approved site plan. j. Request by Westmore Church of God for final plat approval of Legacy Parkway Extension located on Legacy Parkway. The property comprises Tax Map 41 Parcel 5.03 and contains 2.43 acres. The property is zoned R2 Low Density Single and Multi-family Residential Zoning District (pg11). Corey Divel stated this item was just an extension of the road that’s out there now. They are extending it just beyond the existing Church of God’s new sanctuary. They do need to show the approved turn around whether it’s temporary or not. He thought when it was built was to make it a city street. In the long term, there may be some connectivity to Freewill Road. k. Request by Jonathan H. Arrants for final plat approval of Charles Place located on Charles St NE. The property comprises Tax Map 50H Group C Parcels 2.00 through 11.00 and contains 1.76 acres. The property is zoned R1 Single Family Residential Zoning District (pg12). MOVED TO NEW BUSINESS ITEM C Page 3 of 12  They are just taking some smaller lots and cutting them into a smaller number of lots. They are basically cutting the number of lots in half. l. Request for Spring Brook Community for final plat approval of lot 1 of Spring Brook Community located on APD40. The property comprises Tax Map 50A Group P Parcel 2.03. The property is zoned PUD 8 Planned Unit Development Zoning District (pg13). Corey Divel stated this is just one lot. This is in a PUD and there is some language in the PUD if it’s a little bit different. This was never shown on the original plat. m. Request by McCoy Homes for preliminary approval of Hill Crest Landing located on Pleasant Grove Trail SW. The property comprises Tax Map 56 Parcels 35.00 & 35.04 and contains 23.4 acres. The property is zoned PUD 28 Planned Unit Development Zoning District (pg14). MOVED TO NEW BUSINESS ITEM D Corey Divel stated this is a PUD on Pleasant Grove Trail. There is a provision for a mail kiosk that is in this common area. There is language in the PUD that talks about common area amenities. It does not describe what it has to be. A playground or gazebo would be sufficient. That’s not drawn anywhere Ben Berry requested this item M be moved to New Business. Maryl Elliott stated there someone who would like to speak to Item K. This item was moved to New Business. Bill Estes made a motion to approve the consent agenda subject to all staff comments. Blake Allison seconded the motion. A vote of 6-0 passed the motion. Yes-6 No-0 Absent-3 In Old Business, a. Request by Issa Development, LLC for site plan approval of a proposed restaurant on Paul Huff Parkway. The property comprises Tax Map 34I Group F Parcel 7.00 and contains 1.7 acres. The property is zoned PUD13 Planned Unit Development Zoning District (pg15). Corey Divel stated there was some comments on the drawing on the building itself. He has also had some discussions about the road frontage on Callen Lane. It has double frontage. We would prefer the HVAC units and utility areas to be screened as well. Page 4 of 12  Randy Perry with Supreme Foods stated we have revised the elevations and increased the brick on the elevations. That was something you had mentioned last time. We have sixty-three (63) percent brick and glass on one, fifty (50) percent brick or glass on two, fifty (50) percent on three and eighty-eight (88) percent of brick/glass or we have wood slats. This is in keep with the French Quarter, New Orleans style. This is more brick that what we are doing in Chattanooga. Ben Berry made a motion to approve the request subject staff comments including the requirement to screen mechanical equipment from the back. Blake Allison seconded the motion. A vote of 6-0 passed the motion. Yes-6 No-0 Absent-3 In New Business, b. Consideration of a request by Dean Custom Homes, LLC for application of infill standards at 1230 Hardwick St SE (Tax Map 57L Group F Parcel 3.00) (pg17). Corey Divel stated this is a series…. this is R2 in the vicinity and is primarily single- family homes. The application of infill standards is the actual set back. The average of the actual setbacks is three hundred (300) feet. That would allow them to build up to twenty (20) feet from the front property line. It’s consistent with what is shown through there and what is existing. There would not changing on the side setbacks. Blake Allison made a motion to approve the request and Bill Estes seconded the motion. A vote of 6-0 passed the motion. Yes-6 No-0 Absent-3 c. Consideration of a request by MAP Engineers for rezoning of approximately 69.1 acres or property (Tax Map 58 Parcels 34.00, 34.01, 4.00 & 5.00) located at Durkee Rd NE and Old Powerline Rd from IL Light Industrial Zoning District to PUD 33 Planned Unit Development Zoning District (pg20). Corey Divel stated this is broken up into two (2) areas. One area access Old Powerline Road which is single family homes. The townhomes are off Durkee Road. They do have common facilities/amenities that they share. You do have the most recent version of the PUD was handed out today. One thing worth noting is we adjusted the setback, basically like the cluster setbacks, in the single-family section to ten (10)/three (3). We need to add one sentence in there on the townhomes. They have a ten (10) foot side setback. Page 5 of 12 Mike Price of MAP Engineers stated he had a couple of questions. In Section 7 under the Development Standards, the fourth (4th) line down it says, “No two adjacent single family residential home structures shall be built with the substantially similar elevations, façade, or similar color schemes. (Reverse elevations do not count as different building elevations).” My question is what is the definition of substantially? That seems to be a little difficult to define. I have brought some elevations. What we have proposed is a twenty-six (26) foot building, single family home and a thirty (30) foot building. Each of these have different floor plans and elevations. He requested that they review these and make sure they meet their definition of substantially. There are five different floor plans and elevations. Some of these can flip. He wanted to make sure these were making the definition of what you are looking for. Blake Allison asked Corey if they had been looking at elevations as far as specific plans. He just wanted to make sure we were following the same line of thought as we had in the past. Corey Divel stated it’s essentially interpreted at the staff level in the building division. Ben Berry stated he had the same concern. Someone could look at it and say this is the same house just with different finishes. If I was a developer and building this product, I would not want that sentence in there. If this is the product and we are ok with this product, we might strike that sentence. Blake Allison stated the same. Also, just wanted to make sure we are consistent with every one else. Mike Price stated he want to make sure these plans were acceptable, and we were all in agreement and we see the same thing and interpret it the same way. Joe Fivas stated he thought the intent was….. “For single family residential units of identical elevation types must be separated by at least two different elevations on the same side of the street. This will result in at least three different elevation plans per plan” same side of the street. We are just saying you can’t have the same house right next to each other all the time. The question is across the street adjacent, do you want the same house across the street. We just don’t want to have the same elevations or façade, the same house Page 6 of 12 right across the street from each other. Adjacently we don’t want the same elevations. Blake Allison stated this is the same elevations with different lipstick on it, seven (7) times. Ben Berry stated it’s the same house. It may have different facades and color schemes. Are we ok with a neighborhood with houses that are built, and they all look similar? Blake Allison stated there are neighborhoods in town like that but not all of them have PUD ordinance with this language in it. And that’s why you are bringing it up. Joe Fivas stated he thought it would be good to have Jonathan (Jobe) and Corey (Divel) to meet with you and look at the elevations. If we all agree that meets that, then we can put it in writing what you are proposing. I think we can figure it out. And maybe if we need to change the language, tweak it to be sure. My guess is that we don’t have a different opinion, but we can figure it out. We haven’t seen those elevations. Mike Price said he would get those sent out. Mike Price stated in Section 7 under Development Standards, the second paragraph at the very end. It stated there’s one tree for each front yard and three for each townhome cluster is the way he interpreted it. That’s a problem. What we would propose…the driveways take up the space coming in. There’s not ample room to plant trees except for the twenty (20) foot separation between buildings. We would like to plant a tree at the edge or ends of each townhome unit coming through the development. Ben Berry stated he agreed with this request. Maryl Elliott asked if a traffic study had been done for this location. This will have three hundred fifteen (315) units which will have over six hundred (600) cars. Ben Berry stated in the PUD there would be a deceleration lane and a center left turn lane. Also, the development is split with two (2) different roads. Corey Divel stated it was not required. Page 7 of 12  Mike Price stated post plan has twenty-six (26) wide building. There will be a ten (10) setback on one side and three (3) foot side setback. We also have an additional foot of play. We ask for a setbacks lot set back to a minimum of forty (40) feet. Ben Berry made a motion to approve this request subject to staff comments with the Exception of changing the lot width to match the diagram on the concept plan to forty (40) foot minimum width, the same as a cluster subdivision. Changing the setbacks to ten (10) feet on one side and three (3) feet on the other for single family homes and ten (10) feet for townhomes. We will also change the tree requirements for townhomes to one (1) on each lot corner. Blake Allison seconded the motion. A vote of 6-0 passed the motion. Yes-6 No-0 Absent-3 d. Request by Jonathan H. Arrants for final plat approval of Charles Place located on Charles St NE. The property comprises Tax Map 50H Group C Parcels 2.00 through 11.00 and contains 1.76 acres. The property is zoned R1 Single Family Residential Zoning District (pg12). MOVED FROM NEW BUSINESS. Patty Callaway stated she lived at 2020 Woodchase Close. She stated she lives in front of the listed property. Her house and Lynn Hyland’s property at 2010 Woodchase Close are the lowest lots. She thought we would be voting on the stormwater protection plan tonight. She stated she had a lot to say about that and is that what we are here for? Corey Divel stated the only item for consideration was the plat for dividing the lots tonight. Patty Callaway stated she only wanted to talk about the stormwater plan. She asked when did that get decided? Corey Divel stated they would submit plans administratively to the city. Patty Callaway stated she wanted the city to hear it and wanted you all to hear it. I want it in the minutes what’s happening over there. She submitted a letter from Steve Ratterman of 2025 Woodchase Close NE and read it. Page 8 of 12 Page 9 of 12  Patty Callaway asked the planning commission not to vote on this item until this matter is resolved. Ben Berry stated we are just approving the consolidation. The thing we are doing is helping. Corey, can you just send this to Scott Caldwell or Brian Beck. They are the stormwater engineers, and they can look at this in detail. It will probably show up as one of the comments on the plat. Before the plat is approved and signed off on…. Corey Divel stated that stormwater has their comments already. Clarke Taylor stated they will probably regrade this and it will be better. Blake Allison stated anything over an acre will require a SWIPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan). This has a comment here for stormwater and we are only approving the consolidation of the lots with a comment subject to staff comments. We are only approving that must happen when they move forward. Corey (Divel) will get you in touch with the appropriate storm water folks? Unknown conversation. Ben Berry made a motion to approve the request subject to staff comments. Blake Allison seconded the motion. A vote of 6-0 passed the motion. Yes-6 No-0 Absent- 3 e. Request by McCoy Homes for preliminary approval of Hill Crest Landing located on Pleasant Grove Trail SW. The property comprises Tax Map 56 Parcels 35.00 & 35.04 and contains 23.4 acres. The property is zoned PUD 28 Planned Unit Development Zoning District (pg14). MOVED FROM NEW BUSINESS Corey Divel stated we previously discussed this earlier: Corey Divel stated this is a PUD on Pleasant Grove Trail. There is a provision for a mail kiosk that is in this common area. There is language in the PUD that talks about common area amenities. It does not describe what it has to be. A playground or gazebo would be sufficient. That’s not drawn anywhere Ben Berry requested this item M be moved to New Business. Ben Berry stated this PUD had language in it about open space. Can you read the language about amenities? Page 10 of 12 Corey Divel stated it just says community facilities including a swimming pool with a club house, playground or other community area accepted by planning commission divided by the developer once seventy-five (75) percent of the buildable lots are established under construction. So, there’s a lot of latitude in what can work. Ben Berry stated but they haven’t proposed what that would be. Corey Divel stated no. Steve Drummer of LDA Engineering stated that Corey (Divel) had mentioned on Lot sixty-one (61) where the mail kiosk would go along with a playground. Lot sixty (60) which is much larger is also designated as a community lot. One of the comments from the staff is requesting some pull off parking there and that has also been changed. It’s just not shown on this version of the plat. Lot sixty (60) is the largest on the site. There is no plan for a club house or pool but definitely for a playground. Ben Berry stated an open space, a field to throw ball is a good amenity. Seems good to me. The typical cross section of the road you have the sidewalks usually require a grass strip between the sidewalk and the curb. Steve Drummer stated that has been changed. We are now showing five (5) foot grass strip and five (5) foot sidewalk. Ben Berry stated the flagstone for the ten (10) acre parcel in the back…this has a large track in the back. Steve Drummer stated this property was blessed with two (2) gas line easements. We understand the future road coming through and we decided not to develop the back portion of the property. We are going back to the second gas line and stopping. Ben Berry stated a ten (10) acre flag stem required a fifty (50) foot stem width. Steve Drummer stated that it’s already forty (40) foot and we have already changed it. Bill Estes asked if staff had the revised plans. Steve Drummer stated that staff has my revised engineering plans. The plat…we are waiting on one (1) comment of an explanation of what they want. There was a Page 11 of 12 comment about putting a twenty (20) foot buffer around the detention pond. Really the entire lot is the detention pond. Not really sure what they were wanting there. Ben Berry stated it was talking about the easement around the detention pond. Not really a buffer just an easement. Steve Drummer stated the entire lot technically would be an easement. Ben Berry stated yes, the standard comment is a twenty (20) foot easement from the top of the bank. They don’t want the detention pond to go right up to the foundation of a house. Steve Drummer stated ok, I think they have plenty of room. Ben Berry made a motion to approve the request subject to staff comments, with lots sixty (60) and sixty-one (61) being amenities areas, open common space amenity areas, a five (5) foot grass strip between the sidewalk and the back of the curb, widen the flag stem for the ten (10) acre tract to meet the subdivision ordinance. Bill Estes seconded the motion. A vote of 6-0 passed the request. Yes-6 No-0 Absent-3 There was no Chairman’s Report. There was no Director’s Report. The meeting was adjourned at 7:02 P.M. Page 12 of 12