Planning Commission

Minutes CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 2024 CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL BUILDING 190 CHURCH STREET NE The regular meeting of the Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission was called to order by Tricia Pennington, Chairman, at 6:00 P.M. Commissioners present included: Tricia Pennington, Clark Taylor, Blake Allison, Bill Estes, Alma Dotson, Jamie Creekmore, Maryl Elliott, Tiffiani Sherlin, and Ben Berry Staff present included: Robert Varnell, Planning Director, Erica Bevis, Planner II, Laura Duncan, MPO Billing Coordinator, and Joe Fivas, City Manager Legal Counsel present included: John Kimball, Attorney for the City of Cleveland. Others present included: John Norwood of Norwood Surveying, Myra Byrd of 18th Street, Tom Cate of Cate Development, Tony Richmond of RSC, Lynn Jones of LJ Consulting, Blake Pierce of KW Cleveland, Phil Russell of 20th Street, Sally Russell of 20th Street, Marta Bullard of 18th Street, Chuck Atchley of Wilkinson Rd, Gregg Moran, Cade Baker of Lee University, Samantha Hasty of Lee University, Sarah Haynes of Lee University, Robin Posgay of Lee University, Alexandria Samuels of Lee University, Jeremy Stott of Lee University, Abbygail Stroh of Lee University, and Kimberly Blackaby of Lee University. The minutes of the April 16, 2024, regular meeting were presented for approval. Bill Estes made a motion to approve the April 16, 2024, minutes and Jamie Creekmore seconded the motion. A Vote of 8-0 passed the motion. Yes-8 No-0 Recused-1 Absent-0 In Public Hearings, Tricia Pennington: 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 4 Star LLC for approval of a final plat for property located at Wilkson Road (also described as part of Tax Map 043 Parcel 012.00) and located within the PUD 32 Zoning District. b. Request by Dustin Hawkins for approval of a final plat for property located at King Street (also described as Tax Map 065D Group F Parcels 002.0, 002.03, and part of 003.00) and located within the R-2 Low-Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning District. c. Request by Riverstone Construction for approval of a preliminary plat for a proposed development on property located at Minnis Road (also described as Tax Map 058 Parcel 024.00) and located within the PUD 48 Zoning District. d. Request by Cate Brothers Development for approval of a preliminary plat for a proposed development on property located at North Lee Highway (also described as Tax Map xx Parcel xx) and located within the PUD 48 Zoning District. Clark Taylor made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda pending staff comments, seconded by Blake Allison. The motion was passed 9-0. Yes – 9 No -0, Absent – 0 Recused - 0 Old Business There was no Old Business In New Business, a. 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. b. 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. c. 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: We did discuss this last month and then through various discussions, some advice or recommendations were given to the applicant. They've come back before you. The plan of service has not changed. I think you did vote on that last time, but because the PUD and annexation changed, I want to give each item again. I'm happy to go straight into the zoning if that's the part we want to talk about, then we'll vote on each one. An updated site plan, which was included in your packet was submitted. The site plan was drawn up, and I met with the applicant after our previous meeting. I made a few personal recommendations to try and address the Planning Commission's comments, as well as still allowing the applicant to work towards their goal. This is a kind of mixed-use PUD now. It's got some residential components shown at the very back. I believe you all had specific requests to move access off of Wilkinson, onto Michigan Ave., which they did provide one access going out to Michigan Ave. It still includes approximately 5 1/2 to 6 acres of property which will go to public use in the future, at the corner of Michigan Ave. and Wilkinson Rd. With this version, the only cars that will be utilizing Wilkinson Ave. would be part of that residential that is in the back. Yeah, it's really not concerned about the residential portion, so that may be sold. If so, that person could come back here and request to change at that time. They based it on what they want to do, but this is what they want for their plan. So, from a zoning standpoint, our staff support is consistent. We did support it because it is talking about zoning. We're talking about use. This time because we're not sending trucks on Wilkinson Rd. We're not able to ask for any infrastructure improvement on that road, so any improvements will be on Michigan Ave. alone, which they do have included in the front, but it's for a smaller portion of the property, but it is wider lanes, a deceleration lane for the trucks to get out of the way. The traffic as they turn into the site coming out of the sites wasn’t that much concern. You know, in discussions with our transportation engineer, it’s pretty consistent that no matter what kind of use you have on this 87.5 acres, you're going to have traffic coming out of the site one way or the other. It doesn’t really move the needle. I'm sure the applicant has a representative here if you'd like to ask specific questions for them. From my standpoint, our staff organization does stay the same. Blake Allison: Could we still have a 10-foot right-away dedication? Robert Varnell: We get the right of way on Wilkinson Rd. so the city would have to do. Blake Allison: And on Michigan, we got the 10-foot right. All right. You already touched on the diesel lane. My biggest sticking point, I believe last month was for access off of Michigan Ave. Did the buffering change? Robert Varnell: It expanded actually. Part of the recommendation that I had when I met with them was before the building at the top and I believe this was directly related to some of the requests that this body had. I said just add another layer in between it and any residential properties. So, you've actually got two buffers going to the north between that section and what we end up residential. So, these are talking about it is this infernal section here that's at, but the width and the land did not adjust at all. I didn't change that at all. Bill Estes: Can you explain the Class 1 shade tree to me? And Wilkinson Rd. Not just around the two help me out on that. Robert Varnell: Class 1 shade tree is a specific in our landscape ordinance will dictate, and we have certain types of trees that fall under certain categories. Class 1 Shade tree is going to be your oats. These are the types of trees that will grow and provide shade. It's a term. I don't know why they use it, but yeah, that's pretty consistent in them. So, what that requires is that those trees you know, in some instances we have tree coverage, we can preserve existing. I've asked to do that. Because an existing tree that's already 70 feet tall or whatever it may be. Bill Estes: And reading aesthetic standards that will buffer on Wilkinson Rd. It's not in our right of way. Robert Varnell: We don't necessarily call it a buffer in that place. It's a landscape streetcar. And we call those Landscapes OK. Yeah. Bill Estes: Not in our right of way where is it? Robert Varnell: It's on private property, so the edge of the right of way would be where that would begin. Bill Estes: I'm much better now. Thanks. Robert Varnell: If you all have questions for the applicant, tell me to get out. Jamie Creekmore: You mentioned something about the engineer coming out and taking a look at that. He didn't have any concerns over traffic coming from the north to the South on Michigan Ave? Robert Varnell: Because of where the driveway placement was, he said the impact wasn't there. It said if you move it closer to Wilkinson Rd. You start getting so where Wilkinson Rd. sits today there is more of an issue, but that's an existing county. So. But as you move away said that that. Problem goes away. Jamie Creekmore: And the change you're talking about moves away. That's what you're talking about. Robert Varnell: To the South, further away from Wilkinson Rd. for the access point where the trucks will come onto the road itself, yes. Bill Estes: Hey, Robert. I'm just a voice one man, but. I like the shade tree part. I haven't seen it before. Robert Varnell: It does the wording in certain ways and we're trying to always improve on it. That's what we're doing and part of what you guys want me to do is adapt some of what I've done. So that's where that comes from. Bill Estes: Thanks. Robert Varnell: There may be some people who want to speak to this as well in the crowd. Tricia Pennington: With that, is there anyone here who would like to speak to this? Please come up and state your name for the record. Chuck Atchley: Chuck Atchley I live on Wilkinson Rd. I spoke at the last meeting, you heard everything. You know, and I and look and I was really kind of amazed. That's like conceptual because it doesn't show anything as far as for me that you people that are in this business understand it. You know I struggle to find a look. At some road and I live on. In the way this thing is like. So, I really struggle with the access points and things like that because when he says it's, it's not coming out on Wilkinson. It's coming out on Michigan Ave. And so, I. Not trying to put you on spot. Robert Varnell: So, this is Michigan Ave. OK, I'm blocking everybody here, but that's Michigan Ave. That's Wilkinson Rd. OK. The yellow shaded, the concrete internal and it comes out here at this point. So, Wilkinson Rd. here there's about, I think it's like 600 feet between exchange. Chuck Atchley: OK. Robert Varnell: Yeah, I know sometimes these things are hard to read. Ben Berry: That's left, so they're accesses across from Bill Estes: It is a lot different than a month ago. Chuck Atchley: Absolutely, indeed. I don't disagree. You know, kudos to that. I still struggle with the fact that you're putting industrial in a residential site. Nothing on the developer. Whoever was developing this the way this document read is written, it's a blank document to do whatever you want to. And when I say that within guidelines with what light industrial guidelines are. I don't know what everything can fit within light industrial. I'm sure it's a plethora of things that we may like or may not, but I just don't think this site, this particular development is right for industrial. Tricia Pennington: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? OK, so can the applicant speak to any of the uses that were discussed? I think there were some. Are there potential uses that were planned? I don't know if any of those are concrete or not. Please wait till you get to the microphone and then state your name for the record. Blake Pierce: My name is Blake Pierce, and yeah, as far as the internal component where the industrial piece will be, that's going to be mostly, you know, warehouse light industrial, I mean distribution, things of that nature. The front part, the small building on the front is a proposed sports training facility that we're trying to bring to Cleveland. Actually, it's myself and I'm Lynn’s son-in-law and real estate agent. So, I'm disclosed there, but also too, I'm trying to with a partner trying to bring a business here that's going to be great for the community. As far as sports training, that's what that small from the front would be. Alma Dotson: What's on the back end? Blake Pierce: Back here this will all be just residential lots. Alma Dotson: OK. And those two right there. Blake Pierce: Right here, there will be two buildings. This will be all industrial in here and then they'll have a tree line around here. And then the backside will be residential. Pardon. Because there's already residential back here on this side. Alma Dotson: Well, so the residents come out on Wilkerson. Blake Pierce: Yes, it will. Wilkinson will come down. Yeah, this way. And then the access for this building, these buildings will come in on Michigan Ave. right here. Bill Estes: In the PUD it says possibility for residential. That's the only residential part is the only that's not set in stone. The rest of this as I read is. Robert Varnell: Fairly, there are certain uses within light industrial that were removed then within this language and light industrial in the city means that any operation must take place completely within the building. So, you, I mean you may have semi- trucks or things like that outside the ground, that's what they do. But any kind of activity in light industrial zoning anywhere in the city is supposed to be contained solely within the structure. So. Bill Estes: And the PUD, as I read it, the only wiggle room is on the residential part that's correct. And that's for Mr. Atchley. Yeah. Robert Varnell: Yes. Ben Berry: And the things that are removed to elaborate on that, I mean that cannot happen. Mini storage, vehicle repair, junkyard. You know, those are some uses that are actually taking out. So, it really kind of just leaves warehousing right, traditional warehouse with and the way this is oriented, which was my biggest concern last month, all of the truck traffic is internal to the site and there's that separates the trucks from the residential. There are buildings between the trucks and their activity and where the residential. Robert Varnell: That was another thing to face the applicant specifically chose to do was to turn all their buildings so that everything their activity was internal to it. Alma Dotson: Yeah. So, the residential is really not there yet. Robert Varnell: It's, you know, it could adjust, it could change. That's not this applicant’s wheelhouse, I guess is a way to put it, you know at this. Alma Dotson: So, what do you mean by wiggle room then? Blake Allison: It's proposed residential it doesn't exist yet. Robert Varnell: But they're not doing it right now. They're not going to be developing that right now, but it is zoned that way because that's the way I originally asked it to be shown the further you get back, you know you get closer to homes that longer as well. Ben Berry: To me, Michigan Ave. is a mixture. This section of Michigan Ave. is a mixture of industry and residential. I mean as it is, it's right across the street from industry. Robert Varnell: Yeah, we've rezoned approximately 274 acres in the city away from light industrial in the past eight years and we have zoned a total of 28 industrial acres in the city. So obviously, when I looked at where those requests were, we didn't always follow certain maps and agreements and thoughts from before we did. Ben Berry: This PUD has the developer held to a very high standard. In this PUD there are a lot of buffers. There's a donation of property that can be used or donation of right away. They've adjusted the plan significantly. I can make a motion whenever we're ready. 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 Wilkinson Rd. and includes Tax Map 043 Parcel 021.00, seconded by Blake Allison. The motion passed with a vote of 8-0. Yes – 8, No – 0, Recused – 1 Bill Estes made a motion to approve the 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, seconded by Blake Allison. The motion passed with a vote of 8-0. Yes – 8 No – 0 Recused – 1 Ben Berry made a motion to approve the motion 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. The motion passed 8-0. Yes – 8 No – 0 Recused – 1 d. Request by Lydia Nascimento for consideration of a Plan of Service for about .24 acres, more or less, for property located at Young Road and includes Tax Map 066H Group F Parcel 010.02. e. Request by Lydia Nascimento for consideration of a resolution to annex about .24 acres, more or less, for property located at Young Road and includes Tax Map 066H Group F Parcel 010.02 f. Request by Lydia Nascimento for consideration of an ordinance to zone about .24 acres, more or less for property located at Young Road from  unincorporated County to R-1 Single Family and includes Tax Map 66H Group F Parcel 010.2. Robert Varnell: So, I'll talk about this one briefly all kind of together like I did before. This is an annexation request for an existing house off Young Rd. I'll go ahead and show you the aerial we have, you know, some ongoing development. to the south. The south gate lives at that location there is a pump right in this area. And so, you've seen the plan of service and what those costs are. The applicant is aware of that. The problem is well understood. There's no other option to solve that issue so let's continue to move forward. I don't know if the applicant is here, but they may want to speak to that. From a staffing standpoint, we already service the area with police, electricity, and trash pickup. We did not receive any negative kind of thoughts or comments on that. And sewer access is available. Tricia Pennington: Is there anyone here that would like to speak to this? Clarke Taylor made a motion to approve the request by Lydia Nascimento for consideration of a Plan of Service for about .24 acres, more or less, for property located at Young Road and includes Tax Map 66H Group F Parcel 010.02, seconded by Ben Berry. The motion passed 9-0. Yes – 9 No – 0 Recused – 0 Bill Estes made a motion to approve the request by Lydia Nascimento for consideration of a resolution to annex about .24 acres, more or less, for property located at Young Road and includes Tax Map 066H Group F Parcel 010.02, seconded by Ben Berry. The motion passed 9-0. Yes – 0 No – 0 Recused – 0 Ben Berry made a motion to approve the request by Lydia Nascimento for consideration of an ordinance to zone about .24 acres, more or less, for property located at Young Road from unincorporated County to R-1 Single Family and includes Tax Map 66H Group F Parcel 010.02. The motion passed 9-0. Yes -9 No – 0 Recused – 0 g. Request by CT Properties for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 1.71 acres, more or less, of property located at 18th Street NW from R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District to R-2 Low Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning District and includes Tax Map 049C Group J Parcel 026.00 Robert Varnell: OK, this is a rezoning request by CT Properties 1108 18th St. approximately 1.71 acres zoned R1 property is deed restricted for single-family detached residential development. The applicant is looking. There are multiple avenues they can go to and within any zone, residential zone, but it mandates an open space requirement of a certain percentage. But you can get down as close to 4000 sq foot lots. Blake Allison: Need to revisit that. Robert Varnell: We do and the minimum acreage, but anyway my concern with these types of developments with 1.71 acres, is we're getting an open space that no one owns, and the city will end up mowing for eternity because it is useless. So yeah, then said, well, what about R2? I can get down to a 5000 square foot lot minimum and I said we could take that request forward if you want to. From a staff perspective, here's the property from an overview. You could say the right way, kind of. The road goes through there, but the actual right of way. It's not quite clear with the old deeds when you look at it. This is the general proposal they're looking at. It's eight lots, the smallest being. 5286 square feet averaging posted as 6 1/2. Probably I didn't do the math. That's just my guess. When we look at development citywide, the kind of questions that you guys are going to have to face that I have to look at and say, does it make sense? And go back to this map. On the right, coming in, we have some R3 that was zoned that way, you know, many years ago there's spot sporadic or three around. Knowing that this was deed restricted, staff supported the R2 request because I knew it would still be single-family detached homes, they would just. have smaller lots. They do get more. But I also realize we have a deficit in housing in this community that they are trying to fill, so these are the kind of things I jumped. R1 would require a 7500-foot lot. I think you'd lose. Probably. three, and we don't know, to be honest, how many they will get when we go through a full site review with staff, stormwater, engineering, all sorts of things. We've got to dedicate the right of way. We'll see what that shakes out at, I don't know, but this is what their request is based on. I don't know if anyone from the applicant is here representing the applicant, but I do know there are some individual individuals here who probably like to speak to this request. So, if you've got questions for me, I'm happy to stay up here. Maryl Elliot: So, if this passes, they can put eight houses there, and if it doesn't, they can put about 3? Robert Varnell: Actually, they could probably end up doing 9 or 10. Maryl Elliot: If it doesn't change. Robert Varnell: Yes, like I was saying at the beginning, the cluster development standards in the City of Cleveland. Allow you to do down to 4000 square foot lots, but you have to set aside the percentage of open space and that open space in 1.71 acres is so small and so useless, no one ever takes care of it. We end up. We have a few locations where we have constant code enforcement problems with them, so I'm trying to steer away from that. Look at those rates and fixing those, but in the meantime, we have decisions like this. Ben Berry: You go back to the zoning map? Yes. There's a perfect example of this. Right. As you come in 18th St. on the right-hand side, it's R3. But that right there, that's cluster and it the what's behind it, a little sliver of land is what they use to get down to the smaller lots so, that's basically what it would look like. It's just it's people's backyards. Robert Varnell: It will be. So, either these people will take care of it who live in these homes, or they'll say that's not mine. I won't take care of it and the city ends up having to. Ben Berry: The other thing to point out is. The next lot, beyond this, on 18th St. even though it's zoned, R1 is a duplex, so it's R2. It's practically R2 anyway. Tricia Pennington: We will take time for statements. Robert Varnell: I know there are some folks here. I talked to a lot of good folks in the area, and you know they have a nice neighborhood and that's what they're looking to continue. But I look at both sides of how this works and the lot right one way or the other. Can't be shrunk down below that 7500 square feet, no matter what. You would have to have a really good reason to deny it. Tricia Pennington: Right now, the letter of the law would allow exactly what Robert? Is saying we wouldn’t, and we don’t have any precedent to deny something. Even though it has unusable 25 foot straight behind all the houses. It needs to be revisited and we've discussed it the whole cluster of subdivision regulations need to be rewritten, but as it stands today, I think, in my opinion, the R2 is the best option since it is deed restriction restricted, you're going to have less houses doing that better product as opposed to. Robert Varnell: That is how I came to my support. Alma Dotson: What's going to be left over that you were alluding to that the city would have to manage? Robert Varnell: Well, in this case, there's nothing but because this is based on R2 standards and the R1 cluster, they would have to find some area, it would probably be some odd little spots. I don't know what they would end up showing me, but it would be something similar to what this tiny little strip is right here. Tricia Pennington: And that's the strip that the city has to typically mow? Robert Varnell: Well, we don't have to, but we end up with code enforcement. We have to mitigate it at some point, and we do this all over the city. Tricia Pennington: Often that backs up to a road, so people think it's right away. They call the city and say, hey, you need to mow this. The HOA technically owns it. But it's defined because the neighbor who was the president, moved away five years. Robert Varnell: ago we sent them a letter and he gets mad. They call us and we go through the whole thing and eventually, we end up with a lien on the property that nobody really owns. Alma Dotson: So why can't you re-draw them? Tricia Pennington: R2 fixes that for this specific one. It's a perfect storm. So, it fixes it for us, but we will have to revisit the cluster so that that won't be a problem for other properties in the future. And the cluster can be a great tool if it's used the right way. Robert Varnell: Right to policy, right. And I think acreage is a big part. Alma Dotson: The two things that I see, OK, no, I don't want the city to have to like you say, somebody. It's nobody else's property, but also two number two. I don't want to take away from that community if it's not going to be building what they say they're going to build. Tricia Pennington: Well, if it's a single-family deed restricted, they have to build single family. It's a deed restriction. Robert Varnell: And let some of them speak. If you all have questions for me after they do. Maryl Elliot: So, you're saying that if it's changed to R2, like the request it would be less invasive probably than a cluster development and the cluster development is allowed right now. Robert Varnell: Yes, they could do that today. They would come to you with a plat but there would be no zoning or anything to change. It's just a plat and to deny a plat in Tennessee, you've got to have an absolutely good reason. You can't just because I just don't like it. Tricia Pennington: OK, you had your hand raised first. Please state your name for the record. Marta Bullard: Marta Bullard for the record. I am a resident on 18th St. NW People here we all really come with concerns, multiple concerns. Our first was the rezoning from R1 to R2, and I think we've had our questions answered that those would be single-family homes. And that's what we're hoping, I mean we can't have any multiple, you know like developments. Not just because we don't want that in our neighborhood and we're all single-family homes, but the traffic is a major concern and if Robert will go back to the first screen. And this is something in development that we are really concerned about, and we want to bring forth as you all are planning this. Obviously, you know we don't want the city to have to mow if that's a big issue. I think that the owner of this property in the past paid someone directly across the street from me to keep that mowed. Directly across the street from where the mowed yard is. This area here and it's all wood. So, I mean. That would be very nice to have that developed, but I'm 1108 and I live right here. OK, right in this curve 18th Street used to end here. And then they connected it to Georgetown, and now it's 18th St. NW. So, I'm basically in this curve. Within the last year, there have been how many houses, about 55 houses put here, 18th and Georgetown. And we were shocked. But they're lovely developments. They've all been nicely done, but it's increased traffic and the traffic behind us. Behind in here, I think that goes back to Ohio St. and there are several apartment buildings back there. So, they use 18 as access. And they fly back around here and around this curve here, which my house is right there in the center. So, it's already increased traffic here. We're talking about developing this here and across the street here, which is going to increase traffic even more. There's been no widening of the roads. This here is a very deep gully. It used to wash out until the city came and put grades in about three years ago. So, all of that would wash down into this area. So, when you're talking about developing here, we're concerned about the runoff and traffic turning or how you would even turn into newly developed houses. The streets just aren't wide enough. The streets can barely contain the traffic. We have now, especially with the addition of the new homes that have been added across the street from the townhomes. That have been there for years. So plus, there was a wreck just the other day from people speeding down Georgetown because there's no light to turn into 18th St. NW. I myself was hit there from behind with a parking turn signal on. Three years ago. So, you know, there's a lot of concern here with increasing the traffic from Georgetown and we just want to come here tonight and make our wishes known and put forth that we have some concerns about adding more traffic to this entrance with no traffic signal on Georgetown and this big curve here that people barely missed. The house sometimes comes and goes, so this is a true concern with further the development further back of 18th Street is there. Anything you want to add? Phil Russell: I own property on two sides of this tract of land. So, I'm just kind of reiterating what she said about all the traffic. If you are familiar with Georgetown Rd. and Ohio Ave. 18th St. Connects Georgetown Rd. and Ohio. And 18th Street is 2/10 of a mile long. Two-tenths, not 2 miles. Two tenths on that road there are 20 residences that live on that 2/10 of a mile Rd. So that's 20 some cars probably more than that, probably twice that many cars every day that come down that road, plus traffic from other neighborhoods like what's behind the subdivision people come through Everhart subdivision, down 18th St. and it is a 1 lane Rd. If you've never been on it, it is truly a1 lane Rd. When the mailman goes up 18th St. You have to let him get by you before you can pass it. And what's happening right now is that people are coming down 18th St. And they're just literally going off into everybody's yard to get out of the way of whatever is coming at them. If it's a dump truck, if it's the garbage truck, if it's the mailman, people cannot literally pass each other on that street without getting off into somebody else's yard. So, our concern is just more houses. More congestion, more problems for the people that live over there. And those people have dealt with this well just recently with the addition of those five houses that we mentioned. That Mr. Thompson built at the corner of 18th St. and Georgetown Rd. and now he's looking at building more on this tract of land. And like she mentioned, the tract of land that you're looking at up here is literally split down the middle by 18th St. if you drive up 18th St. on the left-hand side of the road is a horrible piece of track of land that is wooded and it's has a gully for runoff water. And on the right-hand side, the flat piece of the land, but from what I understand what he's proposing. What do you even propose? He goes down there. OK, you know, he's trying to put some potentially 8 houses, I think. On those two pieces of land. Which the houses keep in my mind turns into 16 cars. You know two cars per house. So, at 16 we're people traveling up and down that one lane which is really kind of crazy. You know, it's just the people that live on that road. As I said, I own the land behind that tract of land. Directly out of this and this track the land here and this is condominiums to your apartments. It is a terrible curve. I mean, it's an edge turn, right? In the middle of the road that you can't get through unless you're going alone by yourself. And most people will come down that road, going 100 miles an hour for some. It is a speed trap, sort of. So, our concern is just more than houses. More people, more cars. So, I guess that’s all we're saying. Blake Allison: And Robert, I've driven on it. I have a decent-sized truck and he is right, it's not showing, is it technically the city road? Because we're not showing it because there's on one hand, we, yeah, you can't deny that eight houses to be built here. It's it. It checks all the boxes. Boxes on the other hand, the road is without a doubt substandard. So, if this is approved, is there any way for the applicant or the city to update the route? I don't think you can hold the applicant to it. Robert Varnell: Well, he's asking me about what the city's going to. In a sense, the right of way here will be expanded through new development. This is a unified development. This is 8 lots. So, we get an actual 40 foot right away. Through here we could probably, you know, engineering will take a look at this. There's a thorough site review and all those things, but there isn't a right of way. We do have room here to make them help us do some work. Outside of that boundary, that would be decisions by our city leaders and as you know we've got a lot of streets in this area as well as other areas of Cleveland, they're all connected. The way development used to be. Now everybody does a cul-de-sac to avoid this. What they're talking about? Activity is important for a city to be able to get through to various places in different ways. It's not a bad thing, but it does create situations like this. So how do you address it? Those are things we juggle with all over town every day. This road I'm saying isn't unique, but it does exactly as you described. Alma Dotson: But what he's saying is, and I agree, because I've been on that street with an ambulance and the cars that I have to drive and we couldn't get up, we couldn't move. OK. and I mean and what I have to do and there's a big they're big ditches, they're big ditches. So, like you saying, who's going to be responsible for widening that out? Because that's not just a put more asphalt down. Robert Varnell: The area that's impacted by the development itself would be on developer. Alma Dotson: Well, only you're going to take care of the street part can be developed. But who's going to be responsible? Bill Estes: Couple of questions for Robert. Of the different options to the first question, the different options that are available to this property. That you're. weighing which gives the least density or the least amount of homes? Robert Varnell: What we're looking at. Bill Estes: That's right, arch. OK, so to Mr. Russell and Miss Bollard, R2 is the least density. My next question Robert is. Can you expound on? What will be taken into account by the city? And the engineers and looking at this, will that street then really be 40ft? Robert Varnell: So, this is the unified development, so it has to do take lots. This isn't a single-family house, it's 8. Bill Estes: Talking about the rest of the street possibly. Robert Varnell: So, we're talking about, well, that's what we'll see once we go through site review might end up setting. Because stormwater something we've heard about is going to impact their ability to develop the entire site, so. How much water is generated on the site and coming off? They look at that. So, they're looking at how much water comes off the site today. They can't increase at all. So that's one aspect. Right away we get the 40 feet whereas elsewhere I don't know what we got probably a little bit less. They'll do sidewalks in their section. So that will set that curve edge side of the road they'll. Have to deal with the lot. They're going to look at stormwater, they're going to look at. Infrastructure is related to the road itself, but it's within this containment in this section. So outside of that. It goes back to what it is. Bill Estes: As I answered yes, so to Miss Hubbard, Mr. Russell, here's what I'm hearing from city staff. They are recommending the least amount of density and the most amount of city engagement. On making that road safer and better. That's how I'm interpreting what Robert is suggesting we vote on. And approve today. If we don't. The land can be developed outside, you know, under normal guidelines in a different manner, which would not. I don't think. Would not serve the citizens as well. As what city staff has recommended. Ben Berry: There is not a no-build option. Bill Estes: Yeah, that's right. And you're fortunate that it's deed restricted. To single-family homes. Marta Bullard: I totally agree. I see, you know, like you said, there's a shortage in the city of housing. However, we have got to accommodate not what needs to be built, but for the citizens that are already here, that are paying taxes. And I think that safe road width. And even uh. Speed humps through that part of our neighborhood would help slow this down and I would like to propose even. A stoplight on Georgetown because too many people have been hit and myself being one of them. OK, because there have been so many accidents there and you know, I just happen to be here to do my part. Like I said three years ago, and then Friday morning, I'm getting up, getting ready for work. I work at home on Fridays and boom, and I knew somebody else had been hit because of the new builds I could not look out my window and see Georgetown. But when I went outside on my porch, there was another accident there. So, we're increasing traffic on an already very busy road and I'm Speaking of Georgetown because that's how everybody gets to town that doesn't want. To go down. Key. So, we really have to think about not the building out but taking care of like the infrastructure that we already have and making what we're planning safer, and I just like that to be considered.  Tricia Pennington: Thank you, Miss Bullard. And I appreciate you taking your time to come here and share your thoughts with us. I do think like how Bill stated very well that this is our best move forward and that the site review can take a look and Robert will take that back to the city engineers on the site review. With that being said, I move to approve. Blake Allison made a motion to approve the request by CT Properties for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 1.71 acres, more or less, of property located at 18th Street NW from R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District to R-2 Low Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning District and includes Tax Map 049C Group J Parcel 026.00, seconded by Alma Dotson. The motion passed 9-0. Yes – 9 No – 0 Recused – 0 h. Request by Southeast Land Trust for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 1.15 acres, more or less, of property located at Old Tasso Rd. NE from IL Light Industrial to R2 Low Density Single and Multi-Family and includes a portion of Tax Map 050 Parcel 001.07 Robert Varnell: This is another request to R2 similar-sized acreage. This one's Old Tasso Road NE. It's just the frontage of this parcel. Don't need to see the parcel behind. It does have access to those flags that you would see the vote. As we've seen with a few previous along, this western side of Old Tasso Rd we've got some float going up the hill from that point. This is not as conducive to the industrial zoning that was. It was painted originally in the late 90s. And so, this is an instance where going the opposite direction doesn't make sense. We've rezoned the property to the south as well as the R2, you can see to the N 4035 within the past year following these same principles. This is a smaller piece that will be redeveloped. Probably my thinking would be in townhome style, so the Staff’s recommendation is for approval. Bill Estes made the motion to approve the request by Southeast Land Trust for consideration or an ordinance to zone about 1.15 acres, more or less of property located at Old Tasso Rd. NE from IL Light Industrial to R2 Low Density Single and Multi-Family and includes a portion of Tax Map 050 Parcel 001.07, seconded by Blake Allison. The motion passed 9-0. Yes – 9 No - 0 Recused - 1 i. Request by the City of Cleveland and Ron Baker for receiving and abandoning ROW along Paul Huff Parkway Extension. Item was removed from the agenda. j. Request by Mr. Bowers for consideration of a proposed plan of service for a requested annexation by referendum for about 57 acres, more or less, of property located at Interchange Drive and includes Tax Map 056 Parcel 005.00 and Tax Map 048 Parcel 082.00. Robert Varnell: This is a draft plan of service. We're still not fully completed with it. This is a requested annexation by referendum, which we did back in December. It's 57 acres. State law has specific guidelines that staff or cities must follow with these types of requests. The reason for the annexation, our referendum, is that the property falls outside of the urban growth boundary as approved by the board ten years ago. This property I'm going to go ahead and go to the aerial to give you the sense and then I'll go back. This is exit 20 and this property connects from Harris Creek back up to what will be an extension existing to Interchange Drive where Toyota is. So. In 2021, the MPO, which the City of Cleveland is the kind of the flagship of approved a bid for a transportation planning grant. The planning grant itself actually spoke specifically to this request and what that planning grant did is review the western edge of Cleveland, along Freewill Rd. All the way South to exit 20. It went outside the city boundaries, but we reviewed it. We have very limited East-West connectivity, so we need better NS connectivity to get to the main thoroughfares of our East-West travel. So, this reviewed ways to get people maybe away from Exit 27 and 25 to Exit 20 that are going South on the Interstate and things like that. We looked at a lot of things. And creating new connections without having to get on the Interstate to get to various exits or various areas. Area D right here is this section. So, you've got Freewill Rd. coming down, at which point it gets to Brymer Creek. To this point, is all new road which will be constructed as a part of this annexation request, so that connection will be made. The plan of service is based on the idea that the connection will be created through this annexation. Staff reviewed it. The infrastructure costs are low from the city standpoint on this one, the utility costs were low because it's already on the property. The fact that this falls outside the urban growth boundary is a shame because we'd much rather follow our normal process and work with the county and do this the correct way. We are all working to get that urban growth boundary fixed, but until that happens, we continue to move forward. It may end up happening if the growth boundary gets fixed before the voting date of August 1st. If so, we'll follow the normal process and we'll come back that way.  Ben Berry: This is going to help have a roadway and NS roadway connection from Hopewell and Lower River Rd. from Hopewell down Freewill Rd. You get to Harrison Pike and then all the way down to exit 20, so the whole limits of Robert Varnell: Right. Ben Berry: The city eventually, and this is a big piece of that. Robert Varnell: This is the biggest piece that doesn't exist. From exit 33 all the way to exit 20 on the western side of the Interstate, it'll be one you know you've got Eureka, Rd. Freewill Rd. Brymer Creek Rd. I think South of Harrison Pike straight into this interchange Dr. and come out at exit 20 where we're working on what kind of improvements we can do there so. Bill Estes made a motion to approve the request by Mr. Bowers for consideration of a proposed plan of service for a requested annexation by referendum for about 57 acres, more or less of property located at Interchange Drive and includes Tax Map 056 Parcel 005.00 and Tax Map 048 Parcel 082.00, seconded by Clarke Taylor. The motion passed 9-0. Yes – 9 No - 0 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 IL Light Industrial Zoning District and includes Tax Map 014 Parcel 051.00. Item was removed from the agenda. l. Request by the City of Cleveland to amend multiple areas of section 5.2 of the sign ordinance pertaining to temporary signage type and heights. Robert Varnell: I'm going to try not to get too logged down in the weeds here. This isn't that deep. It's very. There are a couple of items that we wanted to address, but I think so opening the sign ordinance we thought well, then let's make a few specific changes to various parts of it to make this thing better as a whole. The driving force is the temporary signs that business is going to have and how many they can have and how long they can have them. I don't know if you've noticed the flags and things that are out, but the driving force behind what we're trying to do is to put a level of certain criteria for them to follow that allow our enforcement staff to understand what they need to do because right now we have a section called portable signs. Well. There is no restriction on how many you can add. I mean there is but… That's why acreage and you can get quite a few and then you can have them indefinitely. So, if you can have four plus your file on file a sudden, we've got too many signs. And then they put them in the side triangle. We've got safety issues from a transportation perspective; these are all the things. We look at it so the driving force behind this is to make those as opposed to being just portable. They are temporary, which means they are going to be given a time frame that they're allowed to be out there within one calendar year. So instead of an endless row of flags or small little signs. They can have a special event on July 4th or a grand opening, and that's when they'll get to do it and a year later, they can do it. That way it controls. Ben Berry: How long can the sign be out? Robert Varnell: With this it's I believe it's 21 days. Joel wrote this and then decided to go to Florida, but I appreciate this hard work on it. No. I've read it 14,000 with, of course you asked me and I'm like let's see. This talked about political signs, that part is removed. Please don't pay attention to that. They all fall under the same criteria. Uh. Because we don't distinguish between what you're talking about, just factor size number of requirements. Ben Berry: So, this should get rid of all those flags like it CBD stores that stay out permanently or the grand opening balloons on top of? Robert Varnell: Balloons on top of roofs, things like that, yes. Ben Berry: That has been there for. Tricia Pennington: Five years. What? What about the yellow handyman signs that are stapled everywhere? Robert Varnell: Those are illegal. We don't allow any signs in our right of way as is and we're working with our partners including the utilities system. They don't really want us climbing on their poles. Tricia Pennington: Well, you can rip them down. I do. When I go walk the neighborhood at night. Robert Varnell: Just an ongoing battle, and as soon as we get one down, we call them and do this it goes back.  Tricia Pennington: That would a fine because obviously we have the name of the. Company and the phone number. Robert Varnell: Many of them are out of town and they don't care if we. They are not going to pay the fine. It's they don't require building permits, but they must comply with the ordinance. So, we're just saying we're not going to permit. All these things, but you do have our codes officers will know who's in compliance and it's not how long they get them. Things of that nature, so it can't be 4 feet in height. I'm just going through various things that he's concluded within this. So. You get a total of four currently. But it's not really indicative of how big your lawn is. This will change it to two. Real estate signs that pretty much stayed the same except for we're defining exactly what that is. Bill Estes made a motion to approve the request by the City of Cleveland to amend multiple areas of section 5.2 of the sign ordinance pertaining to temporary signage type and heights. Chairman’s Report: No Report Director’s Report: No Report Adjourn 7:06 P.M.