Planning Commission

Minutes CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 16, 2024 CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL BUILDING 190 CHURCH STREET NE The regular meeting of the Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission was called to order by Clarke Taylor, Vice-Chairman, at 6:00 P.M. Commissioners present included: Clark Taylor, Blake Allison, Bill Estes, Alma Dotson, Jamie Creekmore, Maryl Elliott, and Ben Berry Members absent included: Tricia Pennington and Tiffani Sherlin Staff present included: Robert Varnell, Planning Director, Joel Prince, Planner II/Codes Inspection Supervisor, Laura Duncan, MPO Billing Coordinator, Joe Fivas, City Manager, and Jonathan Jobe Director/Asst. City Manager Legal Counsel present included: John Kimball, Attorney for the City of Cleveland. Others present included: Tom Whitsitt of Thomas C. Whitsitt, PE, RLS, Garrett Froula of Kimley-Horn, Lynn Jones of LJ Consulting, Blake Pierce of KW Cleveland, Mike Price of MAP Engineers, Lake Mantooth of 4-Star LLC, Dan Fendley or Fendley Properties, Travis Henery of BHK, and Chuck Atchley. The minutes of the March 19, regular meeting were presented for approval. Ben Berry made a motion to approve the March 19, 2024, minutes and Blake Allison seconded the motion. A Vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-0 Absent-2 In Public Hearings, Clarke Taylor: All right, public hearings. We are opening a public hearing for anyone who would like to speak to anything that's not on the agenda. Is there anyone here who would like to speak? There's not any. Close the public hearing and move to the consent agenda. In the Consent Agenda, a. request by Riverstone Construction for approval of a preliminary plat for a proposed townhome development on property located at Shady Lane (also described as Tax Map 050G Group A Parcel 001.00) and located within the R-2 Low-Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning District. b. request by Pleasant Grove Properties for approval of a final plat for property located at McNabb Drive (also described as part of Tax Map 042P Group J Parcel 005.00) and located within the PUD 19 Zoning District. Robert Varnell: The Consent agenda tonight is relatively short. The first item is by Riverstone Construction 19.78 acres. The preliminary plat is these 30 plats will then subsequently later be subdivided down to preliminary townhome lots. You can see the proposed development here in the primary plat. I believe we've got very few comments remaining on this plat standpoint. So, we're ready to move that forward. I'm happy to answer any questions if there are any basic ones or if we need to, we can move it. The second item is Grove Properties on McNab Drive. It's part of PUD 19, which we saw the revision to last year. This is a five-lot plat, which will subsequently be broken down into townhome lots later as a part of PUD 19, these are allowable uses. We've reached a point where we don't have any other remaining staffing comments on that one as well, so both of these are in pretty good shape. Blake Allison: Move to approve pending staff comments. Jamie Creekmore: 2nd. Blake Allison made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda pending staff comments, and Jamie Creekmore seconded the motion. A vote to approve the motion was approved. Yes-6 No-0 Absent - 2 Recused-1 Old Business There was no Old Business In New Business, a. a request by Epperson Allison Homes for approval of a final plat for property located at Brooke’s Landing (also described as Tax Map 033 Parcels 119.00 and 120.00) and located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. Robert Varnell: This is about 2.87 acres and creates 12 lots using R1 standard 7500 minimum lot size for single-family detached homes. See here. I'm not sure if this is the final phase of Silver Springs, but we've got to be getting pretty close, so it will be consistent with the existing neighborhood and feel. There are a couple of engineering and stormwater comments that are, as expected, some stabilization things. Otherwise, the ordinance meets the requirements of the zoning and subdivision regulations. Happy to answer any questions, and I'm sure there's a representative of the applicant who might be here. If you've got any for them. Clarke Taylor: I'll be recused myself, so if there are any questions, happy to answer. Ben Berry: Motion approved subject to staff comments. Clarke Taylor: I got a motion approved by Ben. Jamie Creekmore: 2nd Ben Berry made a motion to approve the request by Epperson Allison Homes for approval of a final plat for property located at Brooke’s Landing (also described as Tax Map 033 Parcels 119.00 and 120.0) and located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District, pending Staff Comments. Jamie Creekmore seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0. Yes -6 No – 0 Absent - 2 Recused – 1 b. request by Palmetto Capital Group for approval of a site plan and architectural renderings for a proposed development located on Callen Lane NW (also described as Tax Map 034I Group F Parcel 009.00 and located within the PUD 13 Zoning District. Robert Varnell: As a part of that, PUD and the neighboring Interstate Gateway. The Planning Commission is required to approve both the architectural as well as landscape plan and site planning which we've included. It's about .8 acres. With the Interstate gateway requirements and the architectural requirements for the PUD, they've got to meet that threshold of brick or stone or, you know, they're a combination of what they choose to do. You can see the kind of the darker brick on the bottom. And if it's above that. This is for a Firestone Tire facility landscape plan. There is an existing comment that I would like to be specific about from our traffic engineer regarding some of the trees along the Mouse Creek frontage. I believe there's a site triangle question is yet to resolve that but, they are, I think, one or two over on the tree count. So we do have some flexibility. So that is one important facet. The other one is that meets the intent of the ordinance, but we recommend approving it contingent on the staff comments below, as well as the developer, the original developer of the site installing the required buffer as a part of PUD 13, which has been consistent through this project from the start. So that's our recommendation. I would urge you to make your motion in that form, and if you do so and you have questions on it, I know I believe there's a representative of the applicant who may be here as well. And so, if you've got any questions for me or them, either of us will be happy to answer, I'm sure. Ben Berry made the motion for approval of a site plan and architectural renderings for a proposed development located on Callen Lane NW (also described as Tax Map 034I Group F Parcel 009.00 and located within the PUD 13 Zoning District, pending staff comments, seconded by Blake Allison. The motion passed 7-0. Yes – 7 No - 0 Absent – 2 Recused - 0 c. request by Lynn Jones for consideration of a Plan of Service for about 87.5 acres, more or less, for property located at the corner of Michigan Avenue Rd and Wilkinson Rd and includes Tax Map 043 Parcel 021.00. Robert Varnell: From a plan of service standpoint, I'll speak specifically to the sewer and water. There are some existing discussions, and the utilities are mostly in place, but there are some other expenses that have to be covered. The applicants are aware of that as far as the city. Most of everything you know since we are on two sides of the road in this location, we already have coverage in that area of most of those items. Is there any question on the plan service specific? There didn't seem to be any huge sticking points on plan of service, so if you want you can go ahead and load all that and then we'll move to make a motion to approve. Ben Berry made a motion to approve the request by Lynn Jones for consideration of a Plan of Service for about 87.5 acres, more or less, for property located at the corner of Michigan Avenue Rd and Wilkerson Rd and includes Tax Map 043 Parcel 021.00, seconded by Maryl Elliott. Motion passed 6-0. Yes – 6 No – 0 Absent – 2 Recused – 1 D. request by Lynn Jones for consideration of a resolution to annex about 87.5 acres, more or less, for property located at the corner of Michigan Avenue Rd and Wilkinson Rd. and includes Tax Map 043 Parcel 021.00.  Bill Estes made a motion to approve the request Lynn Jones for consideration of resolution to the annex about 87.5 acres, more or less, for property located at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Wilkerson Rd and includes Tax Map 043 Parcel 021.00, seconded by Ben Berry. The Motion Passed 6 – 0. Yes – 6 No – 0 Absent – 2 Recused – 1 e. request by Lynn Jones for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 87.5 acres, more or less, for property located at the corner of Michigan Avenue Rd. and Wilkinson Rd. from unincorporated County to PUD 51 and includes Tax Map 043 Parcel 021.00. Robert Varnell: So, I'm going to talk about the PUD. The applicant originally came and discussed with the city the proposed annexation request and light industrial zoning due to some existing development in the area as well as known infrastructure question marks, I recommended we might look at the PUD so that we could address some of those items through zoning in a more efficient way, than possibly any other way we can, so our PUD language allows any type of development, whether it's residential or commercial development, we just have to be specific within that PUD about what types of uses would go within that property. So, going through that and looking at the existing infrastructure, we frame the PUD to include some infrastructure upgrades along Michigan Ave. as well as Wilkinson Rd. Bill Estes: What does that include? Does it include a turn lane? Robert Varnell: So what those are? I can that along Michigan Ave. it would be curb, sidewalk, and making sure that the width. So, if we need a 60-foot right away, then whatever that existing width is now half of it comes from the side and so it moves over a little bit, you've got your sidewalk and curb so. And then as you approach Wilkinson Rd. it's a deceleration lane into Wilkinson Road. And then once on Wilkinson Rd. it would not require any curb, but actually, a broader shoulder for the larger-sized vehicles to make those turning radiuses more comfortable. So it's a 12-foot lane each way and then a three-foot shoulder on each side. So, it would be improving both sides of the road through there. And then that goes as far as the last entrance point to the development. So, if that makes sense, we're not going to extend further, but up to that point where the trucks will be traveling based on the proposal, we will want those improvements for that distance. We also included language pertaining to buffering between existing residential uses, one being to the South which is in the unincorporated county. And another across the road to the north. But it does have some landscape, street, Yard, and buffering requirements for both those sides of the property and then to the rear, which would be the east of the property up the hill. There are some existing residential houses and those would have the same buffer requirements that we included along that southern boundary, so it also included a street, yard and landscape Street Yard along that Michigan Ave. frontage. So, you kind of dress up what you're seeing from the road. Jamie Creekmore: Robert the entrance to that development in particular, where they're talking about doing industrial, that would all be all 4% correct. Ben Berry: Yes. Robert Varnell: It would, it's we wanted it all off Wilkinson you get the trucks off Michigan Ave. At which point they're improving the Wilkinson Rd. section to 2 lane each way. Cross-section with the shoulders so they can make those turns. That's the way. Jamie Creekmore: So two lanes or a middle turn lane. Robert Varnell: It has language that a left turn may be required, but we didn't know, we don't know how that looks, but yeah, that is part of the way that intersection. Ben Berry: Works. Now the front parcel could access off of Michigan Ave. directly, though. Robert Varnell: Their access is coming off of Wilkinson Rd. On the West side of the Creek as proposed. Ben Berry: So Michigan Ave. may be utilized to access the front portion of the property with a single access point? Robert Varnell: With a single license point and part of that land 5.8 acres at the corner of Wilkinson Rd. And Michigan Ave. the applicant is proposing to donate to the city for future municipal purposes, which we would then determine what that is, whether a park or some other kind of facility. Bill Estes: I Apologize for being a visual learner and a visual guy. Can you? Yeah. Robert Varnell: Sorry I am. Bill Estes: Thanks. Can you walk through that again? Robert Varnell: For me, well, you've got Michigan Ave. here. Wilkinson Road going this way. This is a Creek with an existing buffer of about 30 feet on each side. This is not part of the property. This is an existing residential development here so. Ben Berry: Is that R4? Bill Estes: Or is that in the county? Robert Varnell: This I believe. This is anything opportunity, but this is R4 right here or similar in the county, yeah? Bill Estes: OK, similar to R4 OK. Robert Varnell: So your improvements would be here. This is where the deceleration lane would go to access Wilkinson Rd. to get the trucks off Michigan Ave. as they make that turn on, the improvements would be up to some point in this area where the truck traffic could potentially stop depending on how this lays buffer along this edge, protecting these people. And then along this frontage of the road where we have a residential development to the north. So does that make sense? So the new PUD I don't remember what it was, 41 42 somewhere in there is right here. It's about 350 residential houses, the total proposed not built yet. Jamie Creekmore: And all of that is exiting onto Wilkerson? Robert Varnell: It is it, that neighborhood has a total of 3 access points that go up the hill. Bill Estes: Talk about what kind of buffers you put in on this PUD. Since we have county and then we have an R PUD, roughly residential. Robert Varnell: Residential PUDS, so it's existing, it's a mix of utilizing and trying to preserve existing tree canopy while still having a 50-foot buffer right in there. It is especially as you climb access east going up the hill on the Southern property line, there's a fairly significant canopy that can be preserved. That would reduce the amount of new trees that would have to be planted where you can't do it. It has to be that 50 feet with the fence and then on the northern property line, which kind of borders Wilkinson Rd. and would be visible from the city neighborhood you've got. On a kind of a 10-foot St. yard with I believe one tree per 35 feet and things like that we don't have any of that language anywhere in our code would be separate so, And that is in addition to the landscape requirements that would be having to put throughout the site. Bill Estes: Is there a limit on the height? Robert Varnell: Are you talking about as planted? Bill Estes: Not trees. I'm talking about the buildings. Robert Varnell: No, that was one thing that was not included. But that is definitely something that could be, I think it's difficult when you're talking about industrial because then we start tying the hands but there's also a limit to how big they can be built, so that's something we can certainly look at as we move forward. Bill Estes: So just two thoughts, 1 Thought is aesthetics, line of sight, particularly with the topography set. The second thought is the airport. Robert Varnell: The airport has an overlay zone itself which will govern and just looking at it impacts any development in the city and in the county that's in that proximity period. Ben Berry: I can't remember the Wilkerson residential PUD. I have to ask this. I've asked this question like five times. I still can’t remember the answer. Where did we end up with sidewalks? Do we have a sidewalk along Wilkerson Rd? And so I noticed in this PUD that we have a sidewalk on Michigan Ave. but it omits A sidewalk along Wilkerson, but there's a residential component in the back that could get to Michigan Ave. Was there a reason to omit the sidewalk along Wilkerson? Robert Varnell: No, not necessarily. We were just expanding the right of way with the wider lanes and the shoulders to a certain point that we felt you know. And really, the applicant. You know, we've talked about the residential component. We included that language It's not shown on the existing preliminary plan to this point. So I think that would be a question that. Ben Berry: The label I guess. Robert Varnell: You know, I'm certainly not against adding it, but we don't want the curb necessarily because we're trying to widen those shoulders out. And so we're trying to figure out the infrastructure question of it. If it was across the ditch or what that would be. Clarke Taylor: Somebody in the audience want to speak? Robert Varnell: I'm sure there is a representative, the applicant who is here. Travis Henery: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, and the Commission, I'm Travis Henery. I represent Lynn Jones in this matter. As Robert indicated Mr. Jones is certainly willing to do what needs to be done to create a sufficient buffer to make sure that we protect the residential component that is near this property and with that, as Robert talked about, ensure sufficient buffer around the property, also taking steps necessary to look at the sidewalk along Michigan Ave. as I understand he may be open to extending that to Wilkerson if that's something that we, you know, that certainly the Commission feels that that needs to be added. We're open to that. And so we want to respect that and we feel like that this is you know could be a positive, not just for the owner of the property, but also for the community in the donation of the five acres for municipal purposes and we feel that just shows, you know, a good faith effort there to address any concerns that the community may have with regard to this or questions that you'll have. Ben Berry You know, looking up at this project, it's maybe more in the discussion time. I mean, to me, there's no doubt that Michigan Ave. has industrial components like you, it's all on the left side from Stuart Rd. all the way up through the airport. With one of the biggest employers directly across the street, so there's no doubt that to me Michigan Ave. has an industrial component and Wilkerson is really kind of the question mark, how much, how far does that industrial component extend down Wilkerson before it turns into more of a residential area, more residential setting? Umm. Without looking at the concept plan, you know I kind of fell on the line of you know, there's a TVA easement that bisects the site, and we have two buildings on the right-hand side of the concept plan. Then you say there's a label that's proposed residential area. You know, that extends to the east. There is the only neighbor you have in the neighborhood on the Northside, but the only existing neighborhood is where those two buildings are. There's a subdivision down there. It would show better on aerial, but I pulled it up on my phone just a minute ago. The other two buildings that are between the TV easement and the Creek, and I'm pointing like you can see. Where I'm pointing. But between the TVA easement and the Creek that is vacant land that's tied to the mobile home, so it’s vacant land has been vacant for, you know it's always been vacant. It's tied to the mobile home. There's less of an impact there to people who have lived in their homes for a long time. All that to say, it felt like from the TVA easement West was great industrial property, but from the easement east of that easement there it felt like that was a kind of natural dividing line, even with the topography of where it would transition to more of a residential setting. Was there discussion about how much industry versus residential or where that line would fall? Travis Henery: You know, I don't know if there's been an in-depth discussion about those points. Robert Varnell: So I don't know the actual acreage breakdown, but it looks like it probably is about 50/30. I'm not sure. Blake Allison: Just on the east side of the point is kind of you have a great delineation with the TVA easement that has a great distinction between residential and industrial there. If you want to draw a line between proposed residential versus industrial. In no way do I have all the answers there, but that's kind of what you're getting at since it's closer to as you go down Wilkerson it does become more residential and topography also dictates that a little bit. Travis Henery: The main aspect that is I mean it's you know just response, it's just further set back from Wilkerson. You know and so it's going to be almost it's going to I don't understand this point that it's you know we obviously have to the South residential development here and hopefully we can address those concerns with the buffer and that way but understand. Yeah. But that's the vision. Ben Berry: You're kind of sensitive to 3 components you know, one is the existing neighborhood that's been there a while. Two is the commitments that we've made on the north side and you know we've got a lot of homes that we've approved on the north side/ And with that I feel like the truck traffic itself is the biggest I guess incompatibility between the residential to the north and the industrial and trying to limit you know, where do those trucks, how far back on Wilkerson did, do we have regular truck traffic? And if you eliminate those two buildings, if you eliminate the industrial part on the east side you know, then you can really have nearly all that industrial development. Access near the Creek and you know most, you know, I would say 75% of the homes that we've approved on the Northside wouldn't have trucks drive by them, ever. They wouldn't see the truck unless they left their home and get to Michigan Ave. It’s just a thought that I'm thinking out loud. Travis Henery: Absolutely. I think that the main for this building to the East and obviously we've got you know the access here to this point. So, the trucks are not going to go beyond that point. So, they're never going to get, they're never going to get past that easement. And we're not going down here and so you're virtually at that easement as far as truck traffic at that point. Blake Allison: Is that entrance also? Capturing the center proposed building as well that would go to the Eastmost building. Travis Henery: This right this building here, yeah. Blake Allison: To the West a little bit. Is that the center? I'm having a hard time seeing if it would use the same. It would be the back building. So you're going to have an exit, you know? Travis Henery: There's another entrance here and so they'll come in there and then at the end of that building just past the east. Blake Allison: To your point, you're talking about, I don't know the exact scale there, but trucks going 600 feet this way versus 600, that's about the same. Robert Varnell: That's about nothing. It's 1200 feet to the park. I'm sorry about 2000 feet to the power lines. It's been a hot minute since I did that, and I've done some things since then so. Travis Henery: The only other thing that I would just you know point out is that Lynn has a track record of development, I think you know he’s developed over 1,000,000 square feet of industrial development and he's always done it in a way that's both functional but also aesthetically pleasing and so I think that's why it was very important to him to show his commitment to donate 5 acres of this for you know for a park or municipal purposes. Just to show his commitment and a good faith effort here to address the concerns. Clarke Taylor: Is there anyone who would like to speak against it? Lake Mantooth: I'm Lake Mantooth with Four-Star LLC. It's the development north of this property. I want to clear up a few things for y'all. Throughout here is the TVA power line also. It's 161,000. It's got a 150-foot Ridgeway, 75 Feet from the center each way. This right here is a 69,000 Volt TVA line that crosses the property this way. It’s 100 feet, 50 feet from the center wire each way. So that's the two TVA. It's got a 60-foot buffer instead of a 30-foot buffer on each side of the Creek. Along this road, right here on the other, on my side, I gave the city 10 feet of property. Whenever I did that PUD to expand the road at some point if they saw it necessary. So that's already in place. We don't have a problem with it. And actually, in the city, we don't have a problem with it being residential, but we don't want it industrial. You know if he wants to go to residential you know I'm all for it, but we don't want to see industrial in this area. At the intersection, when you come out on Michigan Avenue Rd. I don't know. I've driven trucks. I don't know how you going to get out of there without an accident because it takes too long to get a big truck out and the cars are right on top of you sometimes because it's kind of blind down there, you can't see. Yeah, we've got 325 lots. We're spending lots of money, you know, to make this a nice development. We've already got 64 lots finished and closed. They've got 25 houses up in those 64 lots already and they push me every day when they go down to the next phase. So I hope y'all would give some consideration to this property. Clarke Taylor: Rob, what’s the future land use? I think someone’s pointing out is medium-density residential, but I wasn’t sure. Robert Varnell: The future land use map that was adopted in 12/13 shows this is kind of a residential mid-level type density. One thing I've noted over the past seven years, this body hasn't necessarily leaned on that, land use plan. Through discussions with my superiors, we're planning an update to that because if you don't use something then you need to probably look at why and so we're doing a more in-depth comprehensive plan coming up, but the existing one while you know for instance on Paul Huff Parkway land use shows it as residential, but we obviously know that that's not reality. So, I did look at that, but it's not something that I've necessarily followed because it hadn't been followed up to this point over the past years. Clarke Taylor: There's a reason it's there, so we probably ought to start following. You know, I'm saying technically future land use. Robert Varnell: Well, and absolutely, and improving getting one that we can actually use and build upon I think is important. Bill Estes: The east side of Michigan Ave. not being residential, so to everything is on the West side. Robert Varnell: But I don't know that we're over it or necessarily. Bill Estes: You approved it. You say you recommend approval. How did you get there? How did you land there? Robert Varnell: On this, well, the property owner has a specific use in mind. We have a tool or a vehicle to add infrastructure improvements that are critical in the area. I think that there's an existing industry of a very intense type directly across the street. How can I not? Bill Estes: OK, I'll give my opinion. So how can you not all the time? Zoning and planning commissions draw lines. Robert Varnell: But if it was a residential component, I wouldn't have a problem with that for the same exact reasons. Bill Estes: Let's go back up. You said, how can you say no? I'm sure this will help me on future discussions. Robert Varnell: In other words, it's not tied to. It's like I look at the existing area, a residential complex that could certainly work with an industrial component. Bill Estes: It passes the eye test. Robert Varnell: Because they're all there and the houses that are built or under construction now came after the industry. So we look at that and we go, OK, this isn't the worst thing that could happen. And if we can add buffers and add infrastructure improvement, it's a benefit. In other words, we do recommend approval, but that's because we do have those other caveats in place. If somebody else bought it and they came with the residential component. I think you could find a similar PUD, but for a different specific use. Blake Allison: Similar PUD, but a different you mean it would be a residential PUD but Robert Varnell: Without the buffering, but with some infrastructure improvements. Clarke Taylor: Is residential that probably goes into maybe where we need another zoning district. Why would you need a PUD? Bill Estes: Well, yeah. Everybody wants the PUD. Robert Varnell: That's a whole difference. Clarke Taylor: Michigan Ave. was industrial here. We do because here you have no other option. We need another zoning district, not of the puts the government. People don't want to involve all of the. Robert Varnell: So my only other point into that is Michigan Avenue had industrial uses since I was a baby. And they've been there. That's my look at that. Bill Estes: On which side of the street? North of Peach Orchard Robert Varnell: I mean, I don't know necessarily which side of the street matters. It's when you talk about zoning, is it right next to it the right of way doesn't exist. Bill Estes: It’s just one man's opinion to you going forward. Yeah, lines do matter. Lines do exist for reasons to me. Last month, you said just the opposite at Blythe Oldfield 18th or 20th and King Edward. That fits in the zone and everything's across the street doesn't make sense to rezone that, and now the city is saying exactly the opposite here. I'm asking how? I mean if you answer me and say the buffers, I'm good. Robert Varnell: How many times have I said each submittal is judged independently? Ben Berry: I agree with most of the staff recommendations on this, you know, I think industrial development is harder to do. Residential there's less opportunity citywide. There's less land that is suitable. It's more controversial to get something that's not already entitled to get it entitled as we can see here. And so, when we have a site that is when you drive to this site, you are passing even if you started Stewart Rd. you're passing warehouses, you're passing the old Duracell. You go up, you've got gas stations, warehouses, the Perry Stone building. Or is it Perry Stone? Whatever ministries building it still looks industrial. Here you got the one across here. Then you have even gone beyond what you've got. Was it Renfro? There are a couple of warehouses there. And then you're at the airport, which is the most industrial use of all. So, I feel like this site is prime for kind of a mixture of both worlds. I think where I'm falling on this is the industrial along Michigan Ave. and in the middle of this the flat land you know getting some mass to make the project worthwhile. I think it's good for the community. I think it's appropriate. I would leave off everything east of the TVA and say that's that TVA easement. We're going to keep industrial next to Michigan Ave. and it's as close to Michigan Ave. as possible. And then have that TBA easement be the residential portion and as part of that, to me, it would suggest moving the access point as close to Michigan Ave. as possible, keeping trucks out of the backyards of those 300-something homes that we've approved. I think that's where I'm falling on this is kind of that mixture of the two. Bill Estes: So, Robert I, 100% agree everything gets on its own merits. I'm just trying to figure out how city staff gets on the other side of the road. I mean, what? What is it that? It just seems like a big stretch. I'm not and I'm not been. I agree with you, I think there's a middle way here. If we're going to go across the street. I think you have to protect even those that are in the county, right? Even the properties in the county. I'm just trying to figure out how you guys negotiate PUDS. Those negotiations don't come to us and it's, not necessarily in our packet how you landed there, so I'm just asking particularly about aesthetics. I see crossing the road as a big deal to vote for that, you got to help me. Robert Varnell: That I guess I didn't necessarily look at it from the angle you are about one side of the road versus the other. I'm looking at a corridor of mixed-use existing from 1970 to or whatever. There are warehouses all the way down to one of the biggest employers, Whirlpool. On that paper, they are all on both sides of the road. Not as much on the east. so when I look at it, the residential components have married to the industrial components already as we've grown so I didn't view it as something drastically different from any decision that was made out there over the past 30 years. I don't know that we've had a request for industrial on the, you know, east side of Michigan Avenue. I don't know that maybe we did, but there's existing in certain places, it didn't seem as far-fetched to me when we're talking about 87.5 acres. I'm not saying I don't get your point. I'm just saying my perspective was already set up a long time ago. Blake Allison: Robert, if I may, just looking at this piece of property and I understand your point. What's across Michigan Ave. what's the industry there, the name change and it escapes me. Robert Varnell: Yeah, you're going to make me look bad… No, it's changed from that. It changed Formulated Solutions. Blake Allison: I don't think to your point, Robert, that it's within a stone's throw from that, I understand the line of delineation. It's a hard line. I get that as a developer, and I know there's developer development north of that that has homes right across the street. I think there's a piece that that's industrial and there's a piece that that is residential. It just depends on how far you draw the line going away from Michigan Ave. I can fully see why we are looking at some industrial right there you can close your eyes and point you're going to point at something that's industrial over there. I understand it's going to become a little bit of a mixed bag going down Michigan Ave. But it has been. Robert Varnell: That is, that is perspective that we kind of looked at. It's like it could flow either way. The existing road has done so already. So, it wasn't necessarily looking at one side of the road versus the But I get that point. Blake Allison: I'd be hesitant to put houses that would have an entrance onto Michigan Ave. right across from the wrong name, Doctor Scholl's, so I understand that portion being industrial. How far east you go with Industrial is a discussion and then the PUD that there's some leniency one way or the other. I know topography is going to play a role in what's cost-effective, prohibitive, or whatever else. If I'm right, the farther East you go. Robert Varnell: Well, this is the Ridge. And once you go to the Ridge where you're at Chatta Valley it's kind of a different animal altogether. Blake Allison: Numbers work on development, but that's true. That's my $0.02 on it. I'm OK with the portion right round and different. I'm OK with the portion of that industrial, but I would like instead of the proposed residential, I'd like to see that for sure, residential and the proposed section that is not going to turn into an industrial, the proposed would be yes, this is residential. We're not saying, oh, it might be residential, it is residential. Robert Varnell: Well and with the approval of the PUD on the other side of Wilkinson Rd. there was some right of way given but there were no infrastructure improvements included with it. This actually widens the lanes and makes it instead of being a skinny or narrower road with no shoulders. This would be 212-foot lanes with shoulders. Issue the improvements at Michigan Ave. I know there are some slated for that intersection and this will tie in with that whole thing. I don't know if it's a great change or what it is that's needed, but that's certainly part of what happens here. Jamie Creekmore: And you're talking about a grade change on Wilkerson. Robert Varnell: On the road itself and how it connects with Michigan Ave. Jamie Creekmore: I still don't know that that solves the problem with how you see from the south. Robert Varnell: So, traffic on Michigan Ave. coming at you? Yes. Large studies are going on in Michigan Ave. itself. Some of those elevations can be worked out. Some of those always remain. You know, where some other places in town where they exist for certain. I'm not sure I can answer it exactly to the point, but I do think. As we progress, we're working on ideas for Michigan Ave. that will change the dynamic of the road itself. As it was stated we got some right of way from the development North of this one would also be doing the same thing. We start getting to the point where we have to spend less money on right of way and we could spend more money on the actual road. That we can eventually get it as an urban cross-section as opposed to a rural cross-section, which I think would help. Blake Allison: I think it's more than help it would depend on I don't know the truck count. Whatever. I'm not in the weeds on it. Robert Varnell: We don't know the truck channel or if it was a residential component you know is it another 395 lots and then all of a sudden we've got almost 800 lots. Right there so I'm not sure that would be question stands about what. Blake Allison: So late to the Northgate 10 feet and I'm I might have missed it, did the applicant give an additional on the South side of this property? Robert Varnell: I'm waiting on a survey to show the exact right of way, but it's going to be dependent on what that width is to get to 60 feet. Blake Allison: If it's to get to 6 to make, make sure we're 260 feet. So I would like to see if there's any way that turns if we're having 380, some lots come off the north side onto Wilkerson. If you're coming, if we need the turning lane. With that, just to not have cars queued up behind. Robert Varnell: Surprised that wasn't included in the previous file. I'm not sure. Blake Allison: I really think if we're pushing for this much, industrial. Right there again, I said my view on it that there has to be if we're doing this much industrial that there has to be some sort of turn lane so our cars aren't queuing up behind 18 Wheelers causing on Wilkinson which already has topography. Robert Varnell: On, Wilkinson. Blake Allison: Yeah topography. Because you're to the point where you're stopped and you're at the crest of a hill getting hammered right, I'd have to walk it again. I apologize, but if the applicant is open to enough donation of right away for a diesel or it is there is a required deceleration lane coming off of Michigan Ave. and I think adding a left turn could be where we're at. Robert Varnell: Yeah, just making sure that's written in stone. Maybe that helps that low. It's still with 395 homes, plus the additional development of any kind. Here we're going to have some. Blake Allison: Queuing a left-hand turn lane and putting the proposed future residential as future residential, those are my 2. Clarke Taylor: Chuck, do you want to speak? Travis Henery: Wll put to your to that point. We're committed to whatever we need to do to get the width on Wilkerson to where it needs to be, and also we’re committed to removing the proposed from future residential and commit that will be residential and not industrial. So yeah, yeah. We just want to commit to that on the record, yeah. Blake Allison: It may be semantics, but thank you. Clarke Taylor: Chuck you. Chuck Atchley: Chuck Atchley, living on Wilkinson Rd. for over 25 years now. You all have bounced around some of the ideas I've already, you know, judged, Dennis notes. Lynn, I've been friends for many years, don't have a problem building houses, apartments, whatever they want to build. Personally, I don't think it's an industrial zone. I think there are a lot of other places in Cleveland, TN could be industrial that would fit much better. Talking about the residential, there's some people at the top. I guess it's the Far East side that's in the county, they've just it's they've loaded it off. I don't know the people, but there's two new homes up there. One of them is for sale, 680 something thousand. I don't think they built that house up there to be able to want to be next to industrial Nor, have to come down, Wilkinson Rd and fight with 18 Wheelers to get out. Now all those points about getting out on Wilkinson Rd. There's not been an answer yet that that's going to be suitable. I mean, something's got to happen there to even address the traffic that's going to come from the North, let alone 18-wheelers at the intersection. Correct. I know you got deceleration. Blake Allison: Are you talking to the intersection? Chuck Taylor: That gets you on to Wilkinson, but it doesn't get you off. Going back to the West and then having to turn and go South, there's a pole that sits right at that intersection. That is a blind spot. Which is infrastructure and I understand how infrastructure works. I know there's a study out there. I was at the airport when the study started and I won't be alive when that study is implemented. And I know how things work like that younger people will be. But that's the reality of it. And the reality is today that we're doing a subdivision on that north side of 300 plus lots. And I would assume everybody's got two cars, 600 will just call it 500 cars that are going to be added to coming out there. And then we're going to mix that with what's on the South side ever. How many if he could if he just made it all residential ever? How many lots he gets there, that's fine. But even that mix with 18 Wheelers doesn't work. It's just not the place for industrial use and I would ask for that, that you just take that industrial component out of it and the rest of it, you know, make it residential. Ben Berry: All right. Anything else? Does it change the discussion? If I could keep talking about driveways on the Wilkerson driveways, on the Wilkerson truck traffic there. I mean, does it change it if we separate the truck traffic off of Wilkerson and put it as a separate driveway onto Michigan Ave. across from Formulated Solutions and just keep them separate? Robert Varnell: One of the components of that plan that we did do was minimizing the curb cuts but adding one for however many feet. That is, I don't think it's detrimental. It was a coordinated access point for all of the industrial aspects. I don't necessarily think that's a bad move. We just mentally one of the things I do is look at and try to minimize the cuts on some of the busier sections, but I don't think that moves the needle that much. We'd have to shift some of the turn lines in infrastructure back towards that and move away from Wilkinson for some of the truck specific requirements that this included. Ben Berry: Yeah, I could see you have all these homes, and you get behind two tractor trailers waiting to turn left on every now and they're all going to turn left. Like making no mistake about that, they're going to turn left. And how long it takes. And I could see. Robert Varnell: Likely going to Walker Valley High School here. Not that. Ben Berry: But I want to make engineering decisions up here, you know after a 30- minute discussion either. Robert Varnell: I think if this there's a recommendation that comes out of this that. Those are I mean. It sounds like there's a little bit more work that can be done. Ben Berry: I guess I could make a motion to see where it falls, where we can see if we want to table it for another month. Like we need to give direction. I don't want to just put this back without, you know, some sort of direction. And I don't know that my opinion is the majority I don't know. So, take the study. All right. So I'll make a motion to approve with the following conditions and we'll see if it needs to come back here, if it can go directly on. The industrial components are limited to the West side of the 100-foot TV easement. And that the east side of the 200-foot TVA easement would be the residential component. That a sidewalk is required along Wilkerson. And that they look at focusing truck traffic. The advantages and disadvantages of focusing truck traffic on their separate driveway directly onto Michigan Ave. as opposed to Wilkerson. Bill Estes: Can I speak about that third one? If you get a second? Blake Allison: I'll do a second just to open discussion. Maryl Elliott: How long would it take to get a study about letting that traffic go on Michigan Ave. Robert Varnell: Several months I would think. Clarke Taylor: Traffic study, probably. Robert Varnell: Traffic impact study. Clarke Taylor: Two months. Unknown: Couple months, two or three. Bill Estes: Ben, as I'm looking at that. The 5 1/2 acres they're talking about donating to the city. They come out there to formulate it. There's no way that you could put that. Warehouse unit up with the TVA easements where they sit, you couldn't get one of the front ends facing Michigan Ave. because. Robert Varnell: Not given the site-specific. Bill Estes: If they're going to get, if they're going to give the city what's in the bottom left, you know, now they can take that back and they can redraw it. Robert Varnell: The corner lot for the city, yes. Bill Estes: So they don't own the bottom part. OK, so I saw that owned by three other people on the map, I was looking on, so there's no room you put the driveway up there. Blake Allison: The driveways you're looking at about 40 feet for a driveway. If you look scale-wise, you have a 75-foot off-the-center easement they're making. Bill Estes: Oh boy, that's wrong. Blake Allison: Yeah, you'd have to shove it around. Maryl Elliott: Is there a possibility that people that own that bottom left corner would be interested in selling it? Robert Varnell: I don't know. Maryl Elliott: Wouldn't that solve the problem about the road? Yeah. I mean, what are they going to sit there? They're not going to put a house there already. Robert Varnell: There's existing there. Maryl Elliott: Now oh, there is a home there. Robert Varnell: 3. Clarke Taylor: I believe, yeah. Ben Berry: Do you think the biggest concern is the truck traffic or is there other daunting, because if it's just truck traffic, we could give direction to have them explore other access options and table this till next month. Robert Varnell: Which you did in your motion. Correct? Ben Berry: I tried to so yeah. Bill Estes: Speaking of truck traffic, I drive down Tasso and Urbane. It's not prohibitive. With a bunch of townhomes to the east side. I mean truck traffic is not prohibitive. Ben Berry: And I don't think my motion required that access. I just looked at it. Bill Estes: So, what I'm saying to you is the truck traffic isn't a bother for me, because you're asking. If we vote no, Mr. Kimball may have to ask you if we vote no, then we can come back and say. Robert Varnell: This is a recommending body, so you're recommending a no vote to the Council. Bill Estes: Ben’s motion didn't recognize no. Robert Varnell: Well, you would have to do a substitute motion. I don't want to do that, because once you get through a vote and everybody's voted and it's gone one way or the other, that's it. Does that make sense? Yeah. Clarke Taylor: All right, so we got a motion from Ben second by Blake. Bill Estes: Can I speak to the record real quick? I'm going to revisit this before it makes it to Council should this pass. If you could add that to the record. Thank you. Ben Berry made a motion to approve a request by Lynn Jones for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 87.5 acres, more or less, for property located at the corner of Michigan Avenue Road and Wilkinson Rd from unincorporated County to PUD 51 and includes Tax Map 043 Parcel 021.00, with the following stipulations, the industrial components is limited to the West side fo the 100 ft TVA easement and the east side of the 200 Ft TVA easement would be residential component. That a sidewalk is required on Wilkerson and that they look at the advantages and disadvantages of focusing truck traffic on their private separate driveway directly onto Michigan Ave as opposed to Wilkerson, seconded by Blake Allison. The motion failed 3-3. Yes – 3 No – 3, Absent – 2, Recused - 1 Blake Allison: Motion fails. What does that mean? We need to table this, it sounds like, I mean it’s Robert Varnell: So that would be one option unless somebody else has a different version they didn’t get. Blake Allison: Maryl, still bringing up that study. Maryl Elliott: Well, isn't the main objection to the people that are opposed to it. The truck traffic on Wilkinson and that the main objection? Blake Allison: I think it's more than just truck traffic to them. I think it's more of the fact that it's industrial, period, which is if you're that means you're just wholly opposed to the plan completely and that's not a rework. You're wholly opposed to the fact that there's no industry there is, is my understanding to a lot of the opposition. The traffic study, I feel like we pretty much know what the traffic's going to be on that. If you turn this into residential, you're going to have 403 hundred-something homes. There are traffic implications with that, too, and there are infrastructure improvements needed for that Wilkinson intersection. With that too. I don't think that relieves us of any traffic issues. It's just the fact that, hey, this is across the street from an industry. They're asking for industry, and we've also approved a subdivision to the north that has residential. At that time this could have been zoned industrial, it could have been zoned residential and the county it was not in. Clarke Taylor: So, you know when we sit on this, would it be easier to and I know some people, no matter what, are going to be against. But this is something that was brought before the county. So everybody's aware that there were people before this was brought up to the city. It always feels like and then some people say no more people won't get you to sit down with people on both sides to come together because one vote is just no industrial. But it's clear it's some areas look like it does so Lynn would have you know. But I think to meet it's like either yes or all. You know I know that then what he was trying to come up with some of, but. we're going to end up probably, you know, going back when this could have been done leading up to now potentially to come to the best resolution. It's not spending time dragging this on to be so. I mean that's just my fault. Bill Estes: Well, Clark, my experience, I always appreciate it. How Cleveland on the whole has done give and take in the past. I think that's with Janice and Joe. It's been a back and forth and I can hold my nose on this. Look at it a little more, right? Clarke Taylor: So, you said, what are you saying? Bill Estes: I'm just saying, I know I don't think our staff has worked with has shown in the past that, yeah, let's find a middle ground. Let's go. I even think my 18 months on here, I've learned a ton this body has tried to thread the needle. Sometimes you know how to help both sides, protect citizens, protect the community, and help businesses and I've always appreciated that on this following that that's kind of where I'm landing. Clarke Taylor: That’s what I was just saying. Bill Estes: I think we've done that we can find a way through this, Robert. I would add just now time over here. Real clear buffering. Would even make this more palatable to me, and I don't know what that would look like. Ben Berry: It was robust, all very robust. Robert Varnell: Language in the PUD is probably more robust than anything I’ve done. Blake Allison: And to be clear, I know we talked. I'm sorry. Robert Varnell: So 60-foot minimum buffer to be planted along the southern and eastern property boundaries to shield existing residential neighborhoods and housing we've offered shall include a minimum of 50% of the existing tree canopy. It was TVA preserved with the addition of evergreens, and trees, and then on the road front, it's not as. Ben Berry: It's the most stringent buffer we would have ever approved. Bill Estes: On the South, yes, I see that, but on the Wilkinson side. Robert Varnell: It’s not as robust Bill Estes: That's what that's yeah to the South. I was looking at a Google map, and it's not as most recent, right? And I'm trying to look at where the residents are, where the problems are. Again, it's not the trucks for me. Blake Allison: Ben’s motion if I state it correctly, eliminates 1/4 of that industrial use or recommends elimination of 1/4 of that residential use as a give-take right to the to the east of the TVA line, established it alone, yeah recommendation. It's not law, right? It's a recommendation. So, trying to find a middle ground here. Lake Mantooth: It's been brought up here about the land use plan. When I go look at a piece of property, I look and see what the land use is in that area before I try to buy it. I look at this property that I bought across the road. It was all residential. The whole area there was residential. There's one small commercial building on the right-hand side, about 1/2 mile down. There’s a residential property to the South, there's residential property down to the north, and this one's in the center. That's what it is. But I'll look at the land use plan, whatever the land use plan calls for. That's where I go to invest my money. You know, I got probably $15 million invested in this project, you know. And like I said, I don't have a problem, with anex. I don't have a problem. You know, being residential but I don't. I don't feel like I would feel so good investing $15 million and giving the city in infrastructure and stuff, and then the tax rolls humorously beat from now on, if I'd known it's going to be Warehouse has been there and I chose to buy than It so be it. But I looked at the plan and the plan called for that right there to be residential. I know we're planning slowly, but they're working on trying to get started. I'm updating it. And maybe that'll help some. I don't know, but right now the land use planning calls for all that to be a residential area. Blake Allison: And I understand your school of thought there. Lake Mantooth: Well, from the Michigan Avenue Rd. down to the TVA, a line where you're called drawing the line there we've got 100 and 200 and 48 houses. From there to there and then we're going on up the hill too. But we've got, I mean, we don't have that many just down the TVA line. Blake Allison: And I fully understand, we've seen your plan approved your plan and fully understand your line of thought there. To understand what coming from. Right there where? The corner of Michigan Ave. and Wilkerson. You could throw a rock and hit an enormous industrial spot there, yeah, so Lake Mantooth: Then after you, it changed hands three or four times. But everything is industrial on the left-hand side of the road. Don't leave the airport. The right-hand side shows the left-hand side on the on land use plan it shows being industrial on the left it doesn't show it to be on the right. If we don't have some kind of guideline to go by, how are we going to do this in the future? Ben Berry: It's fair, but this is not no fault of your own or our own. It's a plan that hasn't been updated. So, I wouldn't want our City to be held to it. You know, because they haven't kept it up. And I think that there's realization for that both from the county and the City side that we need to figure out, figure that part out but things are so different from when that was approved in 2013 that I wouldn't want to be handcuffed to decisions based on a plan that's long past its expiration date. Lake Mantooth: Well, then what are you going to use as a guideline? Ben Berry: And that's fair. I get that. And I'm glad they're updating it. Lake Mantooth: You have to have some kind of guideline. You got to draw the line somewhere. Robert Varnell: Conversation in one direction or another where John was saying OK we had a motion that was even deadlocked, so we had no action. So either Unknown: You don't have any actions for Robert to take this to the City Council. It basically is disapproved, OK, because it wasn't the staff's recommendation. Robert Varnell: So I just wanted to be clear that you guys understand where we are with what you're doing. Ben Berry: we need to make a decision. We can't sit here and talk about this, and not make a decision. That would be highly disappointing. Robert Varnell: No. We either need to stop talking about it or move on. Ben Berry: If somebody wants to make a motion to deny, then so be it. Or if they want to, you know, first to suggest to table it. Clarke Taylor: I've got a motion to deny by Jamie. Alma Dotson: 2nd. Clarke Taylor: Second by Alma and Laura, call the roll. Jamie Creekmore made a motion to deny the request by Lynn Jones for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 87.5 acres, more or less, for property located at the corner of Michigan Avenue Rd and Wilkinson Rd. from unincorporated county to PUD 51 and includes Tax Map 043 Parcel 021.00, seconded by Alma Dotson. The motion failed 3-3. Yes – 3 No – 3 Absent -2 Recused - 1 Ben Berry: All right, I'll make a motion to table this until because I guess that doesn't pass either, right? So we'll make a motion to table this until next month. Maybe there could be a better plan that shows the buffering a little bit more clearly and maybe. Bill Estes: On the north side, it's just. Ben Berry: Relook at access. If there are some cross-sections. Bill Estes: And then the back. Clarke Taylor: We got a motion on the table by Ben Second by Maryl. Robert Varnell: You're tabling it. Are you giving specific directions to staff on, you mentioned buffering, but you didn't make the motion. So, I'm making clear what the motion is because I want to know this thing can linger on and on. Is that the direction from the one that made the motion that we look at buffering? Blake Allison: I know we're opening discussion on a motion, but buffering on the Northside was a sticking point. Also access points and then a delineation of if we are meeting in the middle on something here where is the line that works for that? Applicant and that works for Giving a little bit of grace to where we're at on the north side. Unknown: I also want to see what this gentleman is saying in terms of the projected population growth for families. I know you're talking industry, but I'm all about families and I want to see what you have projected there. And I mean I'm all for growth, but I don't want to put people at risk so tell me what, what also in your study, what's going to be there, what's going to be there, what's going to be in all these other different sections of these? Blake Allison: With that being said, Robert, I second his motion. Robert Varnell: So you seconded his motion, made we're both trying to make sure we know what's happening because everybody's talking. Ben Berry: Amend my motion. Robert Varnell: And then we have to go back and listen to this. I just want to make sure. Ben Berry: How clear? By clarifying my motion, I'll make a motion to table until next month with the direction to look at the buffering. Look at the overall plan. Maybe pull in where the neighborhood is so we can see it relative to these buildings. Look at the access points and look at the line between where's the residential. Where's the industrial? And that's it. Ben Berry made a motion to table the request by Lynn Jones for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 87.5 acres, more or less, for property located at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Wilkinson Rd from unincorporated County to PUD 51 and includes Tax Map 043 Parcel 021.00, with the direction to look at the buffering, look at the overall plan, maybe pull in where the neighborhood is so we can see it relative to these buildings, look at the access points and look at the line between where’s the residential and where’s the industrial, seconded by Blake Allison. The motion Passed 6-0. Yes – 6, No – 0 Absent -2 Recused - 1 f. request by Hank Wilson for consideration of a Plan of Service for about 1.00 acre, more or less, of property located at Perimeter Drive and includes Tax Map 065E Group F Parcel 014.01. Robert Varnell: The plan of service itself is straightforward. All the utilities are right there, electric water, sewer. So if you want to vote on that part, then just roll along. Yeah, just roll along because I think you know unless you have specific questions about any component. Ben Berry made the motion to approve the request by Hank Wilson for consideration of a Plan of Service for about 1.00 acre, more or less, of property located at Perimeter Drive and includes Tax Map 065E Group F Parcel 014.01, seconded by Bill Estes. The Motion was Approved 7-0. Yes – 7 No – 0 Absent – 2 Recused – 0 g. request by Hank Wilson for consideration of a resolution to annex about 1.00 acre, more or less, of property located at Perimeter Drive and includes Tax Map 065E Group F Parcel 014.01. Ben Berry made a motion to approve the request by Hank Wilson for consideration of a resolution to annex about 1.00 acre, more or less, of property located at Perimeter Drive and includes Tax Map 065E Group F Parcel 014.01, seconded by Bill Estes. The Motion passed 7-0. Yes – 7 No – 0 Absent – 2 Recused – 0 h. request by Hank Wilson for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 1.00 acre, more or less, of property located at Perimeter Drive from County C-2 to CH Highway Commercial and includes Tax Map 065E Group F Parcel 014.01. Ben Berry made a motion to approve a request by Hank Wilson for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 1.00 acre, more or less, of property located at Perimeter Drive from County C-2 to CH Highway Commercial and includes Tax Map 065E Group F Parcel 014.01, seconded by Jamie Creekmore. The motion passed 7-0. Yes – 7 No – 0 Absent – 2 Recused - 0 i. A request by Daniel Fendley for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 1.19 acres, more or less, of property located at the corner of Dalton Pike and 20th Street from Highway Commercial to R-2 Low-Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning District and includes a portion of Tax Map 057M Group B Parcel 018.00. Robert Varnell: Yeah. So this is one of my favorite little things. One of these lots that's split in half R2 and CH in previous entities going to show you the piece 20th St. SE Dalton Pike right on the curve. You may be familiar with it once you kind of see it. There's a gas station here and some whatnot. The back of the parcel is R2 surrounded by residential development. The front was zoned CH. I assume when they just did a blanket zoning years ago, the applicant who is here if you have specific questions for him, is requesting to zone the entire parcel R2 for residential development. When I look at this, all access required off 20th Street is the way to go. We wouldn't want a commercial entity putting the driveway in that curve if we could help it, which could happen right now. In a sense, because this is a curve right here and we've got a type right away. So it actually lends itself more from my view from a staff perspective to residential long-term use. Bill Estes: No access to Dalton Pike, right Robert Varnell: No access to Dalton Pike and the applicant's original plan as mentioned to me was all access to all driveways off 20th so but I think that's something that we would hold to. Bill Estes made a motion to approve the request by Daniel Fendley for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 1.19 acres, more or less, of property located at the corner of Dalton Pike and 20th Street from Highway Commercial to R-2 Low-Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning District and includes a portion of Tax Map 057M Group B Parcel 018.00, pending no driveway access on Dalton Pike, seconded by Blake Allison. The motion passed 7-0. Yes – 7 No – 0 Absent – 2 Recused – 0 j. request by Mike Watson for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 1.01 acres, more or less, of property located at Fredrick Street from CH Highway Commercial to R-3 High-Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning District and includes Tax Map 041K Group F Parcel 003.00. Robert Varnell: This is an existing one, I'm going to switch over to the aerial. You can see it there. I think it's Horizon Square 2. South of this property is surrounded by commercial zoning, but I'm not sure that any of it is zoned correctly. There's a house on this piece of property as well as a kind of small office building. The applicant wants to make some structural changes to the advancing buildings and turn them into apartments, I believe. Four and four R3 zoning and land itself. So, there is the density, and there are our three next to it. So, we can see the transition there got Cleveland Utilities yard across the street, but there's already an existing residence on this property. That will be a residential use. Ben Berry made a motion to approve the request by Mike Watson for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 1.01 acres, more or less, of property located at Fredrick Street from CH Highway Commercial to R-3 High Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning District and includes Tax Map 041K Group F Parcel 003.00, seconded by Blake Allison. The motion passed 7-0. Yes – 7 No – 0 Absent – 2 Recused – 0 k. request by Scott Taylor for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 4.93 acres, more or less, of property located at Frontage Road from County C-1 to CH Highway Commercial Zoning District and includes Tax Map 014 Parcel 051.00. Robert Varnell: As part of the annexation by referendum process, once annexed, we come back and zone officially. Now that it's in the city on the applicants, the original request was for highly commercial and staff recommends approval. Bill Estes: How did the staff land on OK and this for services? Robert Varnell: How did we land on it okaying it for services? Bill Estes: Recommending. Robert Varnell: The discussions on the annexation aspects and plan of service were several meetings ago, but we did land on the fact that CU services are in the area, so that part was easy on the other components are built upon an annexation plan from 2012 and I don't believe that this will be the last parcel we will see in this. Clarke Taylor: Why don't we have a petition for annexation? Like to me, I think I was against annexing this in the city, but I'm for Yeah, mostly what I see have you know, it's not contingent. And I understand like we've talked about why cities have you need to be annexed. But now, of course, this is when will it be contingent on the city. Most of the places I see, you know, annexation is a tie to it, but until especially a deed restriction going forward, because I understand nobody would ever annex, it ties you to it that parcel will be annexed into the city once it becomes contingent with the city limits. That keeps me from just tying, you know, tunnel and sewer and ever, but also keeps us from bringing fire and police and on the whole line up just for. Robert Varnell: Our state law is a little bit different than a lot when it comes to how you can annex. And the roles we can utilize don't exist in Tennessee State law. Clarke Taylor: The petition for anything. Robert Varnell: Not the way you're describing it to where they're going to be annexed once they're contingent and that might be 40 years. We don't have a legal way to do that. I think it also takes a really good city-county relationship in regard to growth. Clarke Taylor: Right. Robert Varnell: The fire and police comments were part of that plan of service that we voted on back in December, I believe. Their comments weren't that they couldn't serve it, it was just the time length. It would take two serve. But the zoning is a different animal because it's now officially, as of April 10th in the city. Blake Allison: Would we make the recommendation you deny the annexation? Correct, the Planning Commission did, and then the City Council approved the annexation and. Clarke Taylor: Yes. Blake Allison: So now that it is annexed, the only thing up on the table right now is what zone? Robert Varnell: Yes, We must zone it, yeah. Blake Allison: Just so we're serving it regardless of what zone it's. Bill Estes: Services where needed depending on what we allow. Blake Allison: Right. But on a CA, they're asking for CH. So we kind of know what they're looking for. Robert Varnell: This is consistent with the C1 and the county. Clarke Taylor: I guess zoning seems straightforward. Ben Berry made a motion to approve the request by Scott Taylor for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 9.93 acres, more or less, of property located at Frontage Road from county C-1 to CH Highway Commercial Zoning District and includes Tax Map 014 Parcel 051.00, seconded by Blake Allison. Motion passed 6-0. Yes – 6 N0 – 0 Absent – 2 Recused - 1 l. request by Lynn Jones for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 5.58 acres, more or less, of property located at South Lee Hwy from County FAR to R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District and includes Tax Map 056 Parcel 092.00. Robert Varnell: Another annexation by referendum down required zoning. Applicant requested R1 at the time of the annexation request. Staff recommends approval of R1. This is the one on S Lee Highway, just South of the existing city line. Ben Berry made the motion to approve the request by Lynn Jones for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 5.8 acres, more or less, of property located at South Lee Hwy from county FAR to R-w1 Single Family Residential Zoning District and includes Tax Map 056 Parcel 092.00, seconded by Bill Estes. The motion passed 7-0. Yes – 7 No – 0 Absent – 2 Recused - 0 m. request by Jerry Suits for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 113.42 acres, more or less, of property located at Dry Valley Road from County FAR to RA Residential Agricultural Zoning District and includes Tax Map 028 Parcel 048.00. Robert Varnell: Another annexation by referendum, the RA zone was the request, and staff recommends. Ben Berry made a motion to approve the request by Jerry Suits for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 113.42 acres, more or less, of property located at Dry Valley Road from County FAR to RA Residential Agricultural Zoning District and includes Tax Map 028 Parcel 048.00, seconded by Maryl Elliot. The motion passed 7-0. Yes – 7 No – 0 Absent – 2 Recused – 0 n. request by multiple owners for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 160.15 acres, more or less, of property located at Dry Valley Road from County FAR to RA Residential Agricultural Zoning District and includes Tax Map 028 Parcel 048.03. Robert Varnell: Another annexation by referendum, the RA zone was the request, and staff recommends. Ben Berry made a motion to approve the request by multiple owners for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 160.5 acres, more or less, of property located at Dry Valley Road from County FAR to RA Residential Agricultural Zoning District and includes Tax Map Parcel 048.03, seconded by Blake Allison. The motion passed 7-0. Yes – 7 No – 0 Absent – 2 Recused - 0 o. request by Millers Landing Series of Riverstone for consideration of an ordinance to amend PUD 41 to increase the number of single family  detached lots from 117 to 123 which is located at Minnis Road and includes Tax 058 Parcel 24.00 Robert Varnell: There's a change here. I could make a joke about the engineer keeps messing up, but I won't do that. But no, and in all actuality, the previous access was off Old Power Line here. Can't access it because of the TVA fee. This is not an easement. It's an actual lot, and I think there's some issue there. So what happens is they crossed. The stream where the cul-de-sac used to be and continues on. It does end up adding six lots of single-family detached residential developments to the neighborhood. You know, the staff sees the issue there and doesn't have a problem with the extra 6 lots. I don't think that changes the dynamic out there that considerably. So from a zoning standpoint, our recommendation is to approve based on the updated pipeline motion. Blake Allison made a motion to approve the request by Millers Landing Series of Riverstone for consideration of an ordinance to amend PUD 41 to increase the number of single-family detached lots from 117-123 which is located at Minnis Road and includes Tax 058 Parcel 24.00, seconded by Bill Estes. The motion passed 6-0. Yes – 6 No – 0 Absent – 2 Recused - 1 p. request by the City of Cleveland to amend multiple sections of Article 7 Final Plat Requirements and Article 8.04 Requirements for Townhouse Subdivisions in the Cleveland TN Subdivision regulations concerning the platting approval process and requirements for administrative review as well as the process for submitting plats. Robert Varnell: At the City Council meeting where we were discussing it, I believe their request and I and Bill can probably clarify exactly what they are looking for direction regarding the extent to which staff will have it and the parameters to which I will bring it back. Does that so in essence, if it changes at all from the preliminary plat and we're talking about anything over 5 lots that five-lot caveat is what state law says so that. Or is there a number you want to land on 10 for whatever it is that says we don't mind going up from 2:00, but we don't think it should be more than this? They want to know what y'all think. We take it back to them with these guidelines the parameters, and they'll make their decision based on the kind of where you land, I guess, and how they feel about that as well. Jamie Creekmore: Like to stay off of a percentage and make it pretty clear cut as to lots and then speak to that? Ben Berry: So this is about into two parts, right? We've got this in just focusing on the state law. So I was at the City Council meeting and thought about the comments. Alright, so the first part is we have these developments that come through with a preliminary plat. They show us what they're going to build on the preliminary plat, we review it and make comments, changes, whatever, but we approve a preliminary plat that has a set number of lots of road. All of the things that they're going to build it and what this would say is. We have a final plan after they build it, they're supposed to build it according to what we approved and so on the final plat, whenever it comes through, as long as it matches, we consent agenda and we approve it without really any discussion. So what this will do is if it's a small subdivision, 25 lots or less. You received preliminary plat approval, and you built it according to preliminary plat. They don't have to wait on our calendar, they can just submit it to Robert. Bill Estes: The Key is no changes, that’s it. That’s the key. Robert Varnell: And is 25 the number or? Bill Estes: It is the maximum the state law allows. Robert Varnell: Right, that is the maximum. Ben Berry: It’s the max and if you build it according to what we’ve already approved, I don’t think this public process adds any value there. So then the second thing is. The things that we don't see so like behind the scenes, are Robert gets a bunch of plats where you have two lots on an existing road with all the existing infrastructure and you know it meets all the requirements. It's a minor subdivision and staff-level approval it has and that's this be part of the staff report. No more than five lots. If the development did not require preliminary plan approval, it means it has no infrastructure, no new roads, and no public improvements. It's just a track. The land that you're cutting in half or dividing it. And how many lots can you create with no public infrastructure? Coming to us, state law allows 5. What that would do is that you that means you can take. I think the five is a good number. Robert Varnell: It's the most it's the most you're going to see without an extension of utility or a road is really the you're not going to see more than five that. Bill Estes: The item, we just looked at went from 1:17 to 1:23. Changing it was pushing it. Robert Varnell: If it was a plat but then I'll be bringing a plat back because the preliminary plat is going to change, yeah. If it was just five lots on an existing road then I according to state law could then just staff approve it. I wouldn't do a staff report and bring it to y'all. Anything above that needs to come here. Jamie Creekmore: With no infrastructure? Which is rare. If you find it like that. So I don't have a problem with that. Ben Berry: The discussion I don't know what the discussion was on that though. Bill Estes: It was about townhomes. Jamie Creekmore: Well, there's a piece of it, though, that's. Ben Berry: The catalyst. But that's not the only reason to expedite this. In fact, we had one just this week and it was on the project if we can we go back to that other plan on Minis Road just as an example. We needed to create on an existing road and had a preliminary plat approval. Robert Varnell: Didn't get submitted in time to meet the Planning Commission and on accident. Ben Berry: And it's going to be delayed 7 weeks. Four, no, it's four weeks. In the worst case, it's seven. Because if you, if you missed the deadline, then it's. Its best-case scenario is 4 weeks or three weeks. The best-case scenario is 3 weeks. Robert Varnell: The deadline for May’s meeting would be next Tuesday if that's what he's saying. So if you submit it on Wednesday, you've missed the deadline. Jamie Creekmore: If you miss a file, yeah. Ben Berry: And I have to delay you between 3 to 7 weeks depending on when you submit. Unknown: So how many classes are up there? How many? Not those, not those, but the other ones. So, what I'm seeing is, are you looking at the entity or is or does that now become a separate entity versus that whole thing, that whole building project? Robert Varnell: So this is this is all zoning related, but when we do a townhome development, I get a plot that's 1 2 3 4. OK. And then each of these gets re-platted into four individual lots, one more time. So, I bring it to you. Clarke Taylor: When they're done. Robert Varnell: Four. And then each of these, I bring back the four, and so I do a staff report and that's the small stuff that definitely can be cleaned. Bill Estes: It's so that was trying to say townhomes. If we recommend to the City Council, hey, townhomes, just leave it with staff. Fine. I remember it was me asking for townhomes to be looked at separately then. We were using the word subdivisions. These aren't townhome lots until I subdivide them to 1800 square feet. So, when it's 1 2 3 4, that's just, that's just normal plotting. That's why the distinction is difficult between your two because. Robert Varnell: Does that make sense? Bill Estes: Yeah, we were playing a game of semantics and having two different conversations at the Robert Varnell: As it happens, yeah. Clarke Taylor: I've got a motion from Jamie. Ben Berry: I will say there was guidance here too and actually the ports, yeah of tightening it. Bill Estes: Let's speak to it. Yeah. OK. We had a memo in our packet that Robert wrote for internal guidance that was not part of the motion. And it was sent back here to make it part of the discussion so that we're all on the same page, and that's what's on the next page. You keep going and I've got an edit. Clarke Taylor: Yeah. So. Oh, I didn't you see that? Ben Berry: Well, yeah, so there's the other part we saw last time with the 25 and the five and voted to approve it. So this guidance is new. Robert Varnell: For you guys. Ben Berry: For us, yeah, I got. Robert Varnell: I'm not married to this guy. That's it's just me trying to do is express what level of commitment. And you're not giving it to me personally. Ben Berry: If it matches the big picture if it matches or it's less intensive, then it can stay staff approval. If it's more, it's automatically coming back. So my edits were along the lines of you're giving it to the city. Ben Berry: You know, as it says, minor changes in lot or unit count result in an increase or decrease of less than 5%. I would just say that's 1B. Robert Varnell: Are we talking about things over 5 lots or what in general? Ben Berry: Just this guidance of changes, I think this is probably in relationship to class. Bill Estes: It will be less than 5 and 25. Ben Berry” So, this is to be the 5-6 to 25. Well, this is the section, so the 25. Sorry, going back to the 25 is the threshold. If you have a preliminary plat approved, the five is the one that you don't have to have it approved. Robert Varnell: And that's what you're talking about is the primary. Ben Berry: Right. So, here is the planning director #1. Yeah, I think if you increase the unit count, it comes back. If you decrease it. It doesn't, so I would mark out increasing. I would say no, just resulting in a decrease in the dwelling units. So, if you take two lots and make them one and then kind of the same with the number 2? In item B, modifications to the patterns of streets, connections, and then there's a caveat like this that decreases connectivity. Bill Estes: So, talking about then, you've got what we don't have. You've got what came from. Robert Varnell: It should be in your packet. Ben Berry: OK. Yeah. So that item B, if you increase the count it comes back, it doesn't qualify. If you decrease, it can still be staff approval. So I'll take out the increase. On going to #2 the major revisions that require approval by the Planning Commission. I would on item BI would remove the caveat. If you modify the street's internal external connections to the project area, if you modify the streets it as to come back I would remove the caveat that says that decreased connectivity or significantly altered patterns because all that subject everything after that I think is too subjective. If you change the streets, it's got to come back. And then I would eliminate item G. Any change that significantly alters layout by constant more than 10%. It's very undefined, right? It's 10% of the land area, but that could be a big deal. You know 10% of the lot count, that's a lot of lots if you got 200 lot subdivision. So I think that. Robert Varnell: And then per request by or by request, that last thing that even if nothing's changed, if they want it brought back here, they can request it. Or if I feel like I need you guys to look at it, then I can just do it. Jamie Creekmore: So that's discretionary for yourself if you'd like it, say, hey, I really think this needs to go, OK? Bill Estes: I was very keen on that gives him gives tools he needs. Blake Allison: Yeah, as long as we take away this subjective nature of the 10% and the 5% any increase in lot a as a developer putting yourself in developer shoes, I'm happy to come back to the Planning Commission if I get two more lots. Right, right. That's fine—one more lot. But if I shift the offline 10 feet, I'm not trying. Ben Berry: I am making a motion. All right? I'm making a motion to approve with following changes. I don't know how to denote this, but under I'll call it 1B. Minor changes in lot or unit count result in and then strike and increase. So we'll move that, just resulting in a decrease of less than 5% of the total number of dwelling units. So no strike the increase in. Also item number 2B, leaving modification to the patterns of streets or Street connections, internal and external to the project area, and then strike everything after that. And then eliminate item G in its entirety. Jamie Creekmore: I should retract mine? Clarke Taylor: Retract yours. Then make him second it. That's correct. All right, Ben made the motion. Jamie is going to 2nd. Ben Berry made a motion to amend the multiple sections of Article 7 Final Plat Requirements and Article 8.04 Requirements for townhouse Subdivision in the Cleveland TN Subdivision regulations concerning the platting approval process and requirements for administrative review as well as the process for submitting plats pending the removal of increase in B and eliminating item G, seconded by Jamie Creekmore. The motion passed 7-0. Yes – 7 No – 0 Absent – 2 Recused – 0 q. request by the city of Cleveland for consideration of an ordinance to amend title 14, Chapter 2, Section 3.13 to create regulations for telecommunication facilities located within the public Right–of–Way. Robert Varnell: About six years ago, maybe 5, the state legislature from the state of Tennessee passed a law that gave cell companies the ability to build small cell data towers within the public Right of Way. OK, which would resemble a telephone pole. It can be wood under no guidance. It can be wood, metal, or whatever they want. It can almost look like whatever they want because the state legislature said they can do it. And unless the city has guidance to steer that we cannot be in conflict with what the state allows then. They can go on and do it now. There's a lot of caveats within this ordinance that you guys just got. And that's on me, but, so if you're not prepared to move forward with it, I understand that. But this is something that needs critical attention that I didn't realize we didn't have until Bill Estes: So to my colleagues, I'd rather act on this today and then amend it later. Robert Varnell: It's more just guidance because I can't conflict with what one state law says, and it says any right of way. Jamie Creekmore: So if we get this in, this gives us some sort of form of protection. Then we can build the client as we plug it. Robert Varnell: The only thing this does is keep it off greenways and behind residential houses, when not next to a road in what may be an unopened alley. Bill Estes: Can you explain the picture to us? Robert Varnell: The picture is something I included which is a current application we have to put one up right now, which is when I found out I had not as much room as I needed to steer that type of. We need that we need the infrastructure we do. What do these do or provide data for everybody's cell phones? Bill Estes: Where's the application for physical location? Robert Varnell: There's 8 applications that were submitted in one bundle. They are throughout the Keith St. corridor. Including in front of, I don't have the exact address in my head, but it's in front of life care centers, corporate offices, and Southern Heritage corporate offices on up the road. The ordinance output place restricts them to a distance of 1000 feet. It requires Co- location and several other caveats. So. Jamie Creekmore: I was going to ask if we approve or whatever is decided here, how does that affect? It makes me a little bit hesitant from a utility standpoint to see this and not know exactly how it affects us because I know in the past we've dealt with code violations and attachments to poles. Robert Varnell: I think what was stated here at the beginning is. Are we 100% good? Are there things within this document that might need to be amended? Yes. But I do think if we get a pack of eight at once if I get 40 tomorrow. We're going to want that in place More than we're not even as a utility, I think. They'll be they'll there is ample time until this thing is finally approved for discussion to take place, but I'm sure the city feels that that's our right of way. It's our requirement to protect it. Bill Estes: Not that it matters who's the applicant who's in this business. Robert Varnell: All of them, but the applicant is a third-party contractor hired by Verizon Wireless. Bill Estes: And the reason I ask that is because of AT&T problems with high speed and controlling the state legislature through lobbyists. And so this stuff comes from the state, so it opens it up for all of them, not just for us. Robert Varnell: And this ordinance, as written, exists in the city within our geographical area that was written by myself and I know it's legal based on the law five years ago. Blake Allison: Move to approve. Ben Berry: Second Bill Estes: If it needs to be tighter, please come back. Robert Varnell: You can guarantee. Blake Allison made a motion to approve the request by the city of Cleveland for consideration of an ordinance to amend Title 14 Chapter 2, section 2.13 to create regulations for telecommunication facilities located within the public Right–of–Way, seconded by Ben Berry. The motion passed 7 – 0. Yes – 7 No – 0 Absent – 2 Recused – 0 Chairman’s Report: No Report Director’s Report: No Report Adjourn 7:49 P.M.