Planning Commission

Minutes CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 15, 2024 CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL BUILDING 190 CHURCH STREET NE The regular meeting of the Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission was called to order by Trica Pennington, Chairman at 6:00 P.M. Commissioners present included: Bill Estes, Ben Berry, Blake Allison, Clark Taylor, Tricia Pennington, Alma Dotson, Jamie Creekmore, and Maryl Elliot Commissioners absent included: Tiffani Sherlin Staff present included: Robert Varnell, Planning Director, Erica Bevis, Planner II, Joel Prince, Planner II/Codes Supervisor, Jonathan Jobe, Assistant City Manager/Development and Recreation Director, Joe Fivas, City Manager, C. Seth Sumner, Assistant to the City Manager/Downtown Development and Communications, and Laura Duncan, Planning Assistant Legal Counsel present included: John Kimball, Attorney for the City of Cleveland. Others present included: Ann Marie Johnson, Trish McConnell, Wanda Beckner, Terry Beckner II, Troy Goins, Jim Richmond, Tony Richmond, Madeline Bullen, Shelby Flanigan, and Matt Shallowford The minutes of September 17, 2024, regular meeting were presented for approval. Maryl Elliot made a motion to approve the September 17, 2024, minutes and Bill Estes seconded the motion. A Vote of 6-0 passed the motion. Yes-6 No-0 Recused-2 Absent-1 In Public Hearings, There were no public hearings In the Consent Agenda, There were no items on the Consent Agenda Old Business There was no Old Business In New Business, a. request by Epperson Allison Homes LLC for consideration of approval of a final plat for 22.98 acres, more or less, of property located at 22nd Street NW (also described as Tax Map 040 023.00) and located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning Robert Varnell: As you can see, it's zoned R1. It was zoned that way quite a while ago. I believe there are some outstanding comments. I’m sure those will be cleaned up soon. Staff recommendation for this final plat is approval, if there is any questions, I’m happy to answer. Clarke Taylor made a motion to approve the final plat for 22.98 acres, more or less, of property located at 22nd Street NW (also described as Tax Map 040 023.00) pending staff comments, seconded by Bill Estes. The motion passed 7-0. Yes – 7 No – 0 Recused - 1 Absent – 1 b. request by Precision III, LLC for consideration of approval of a landscape plan for a development along Callen Lane (also described as Tax Map 034I F 014.00) and located within the PUD 13 Zoning District. Robert Varnell: This was the previously approved landscape plan. Though the landscape plan that was originally submitted, the applicant found it actually exceeded the landscape ordinance requirements, so they requested to change it to actually meet the requirements. Here you can see it. The only difference is recently we rezoned the property to the West. Which was a mix of R3 and RA to the PUD next to it, so that buffer went away because it's a PUD and the PUD. The other difference is they've added a fence. It's along the rear property line or the northern property line up against the houses along Robin Hood Drive to go with the PUD itself. I mean, With the landscape strip itself, that was something I requested an additional edge buffer for that area there so, once this develops, a lot of those open areas will be gone. As this grows up and things so you can see the buffer there and. Uh. It's pretty straightforward. Nothing else really changed with the site besides a few. And so, they also had a buffer at the bottom, which  wasn't required, but they did keep a single row of bushes and trees as opposed to the double. So, if there's any questions specific to that, I'm happy to answer them. And I don't know if anyone's here to speak on this or not. But it's. As a part of the Interstate Gateway overlay as well as the quad itself, it's required that the Planning Commission sign off on the landscape plan. Bill Estes: There was a landscape plan with the PUD initially, and now they are lessening that? Robert Varnell: So, the PUD itself didn't have a landscape plan, but when we first brought the hotel the specific property it did, it had the buffer on the western edge a few changes to the internal parking and other landscaping, but those are the changes that were different. Bill Estes: Not trees, not shrubs? Robert Varnell: Well, yes, along the Western property line. It's now rezoned. They found out it went to the PUD, and they could save money to reduce it at that location. Bill Estes: Want I mean. So next it's its own PUD. PUD goes next door, why change the plan? Robert Varnell: From our perspective, for sure they would be following the ordinance, as required under this model here, the difference is it is a PUD. So, they follow the PUD, the PUD actually says a lot of the PUDs say that the landscape plan outside of the external buffers to like art. So, for instance a PUD and the PUD. It is like an RA and an RA. You don't do a buffer. But when you've got a PUD which has a high-density commercial use like this against RA behind it, you do the buffer. So, when they could remove the one, they did because it saves them the money of putting the plants, buying the plants and putting them in. Bill Estes: What I heard you say was that we're lessening the requirement of buffers and trees and landscaping plan because some because they asked because it exceeded. Robert Varnell: It originally exceeded that their request exceeded the actual requirements as today. Bill Estes: Which I see that has no bearing on this at all because it's a PUD and that's what they agreed to and sometimes we exceed and we give them, we give in other areas. Robert Varnell: Right my recommendation is approval because it does meet the ordinance, but this Planning Commission does not have to approve it.  Bill Estes: What I feel better about is you explaining the PUD and the buffer is different. And so that makes me fine with changing it. How you got there, it gives me a real pause because I think of Target. I think of what's behind Harbor Freight. I think the problem with the fence up there, you know. Robert Varnell: Right, this will fix a big portion of that. Yeah. Yeah. Thank goodness. And some of the others are going to be fixed soon by other parties. But by definition it exceeded what the requirement is. Bill Estes: Which is perfectly fine. If they agreed to it in the PUD and we approved. Robert Varnell: It previously you know yes. And then they found that out and requested a change. Bill Estes: So, I'm hesitant to approve this without seeing more from you by what's on the other side of the PUD. Robert Varnell: It's the western edge that is a fully wooded lot right now. He's marketing it for sale. I'm sure it'll be a commercial use or an R3 type use because that's what that PUD allows. Bill Estes: When you say it's saving them, how much money is it saving them? Robert Varnell: I don't know. Bill Estes: 8? 10 trees? Is that it? Because they’re not doubled? Robert Varnell: Probably somewhere between 10 and 15, and then the two rows of bushes. Bill Estes: When we don't know what's going next door, we say it's PUD. Then you can keep your motion and go on. I'm going to vote against this. I know, we agreed to something ahead of time and it's this is about 10 trees and some shrubs. Ben Berry: I think it's about changing circumstances. I mean, so you had to develop a hotel that was against residential, so they buffered accordingly. Then that residential property owner decided he didn't want to be residential. He wanted to be commercial, so he chose to come in and get rezoned. And then this hotel is reacting to that choice so that neighboring property owner is saying, oh, you want to be commercial there's no reason for me to do all this buffering for commercial to commercial. So, it's to me it's a very reasonable reaction, very reasonable request. Bill Estes: He asked for a bunch more though than just this. He asked for a lot of things in his request and this. Robert Varnell: The only thing that got to us, the architectural, they want it. That has a first floor with the brick or stone they were hoping to reduce that amount and that did not make it. Ben Berry made a motion to approve the landscape plan for a development along Callen Lane (also described as Tax Map 034I F 014.00) The motion passed 7-1. Yes – 6 No – 1 Absent – 1 c. request by Joe Moore for consideration of an ordinance to amend PUD 44 to include townhomes in place of an apartment complex and includes Tax Map 041F Group D Parcel 006.00. Robert Varnell: This original request came through several years ago. PUD 44 currently allows a maximum of 325 units in apartment complex style development. It would have been as proposed, the apartment complex, up to four floors in height, and it had a buffer kind of where that open space is and then along the south end and it had amenities as an apartment complex would. They've requested to amend their PUD to remove the apartment component completely and do a type of development which in a sense mirrors itself to the other side of Raven. Dr. Some townhomes that kind of fit the area based on what's already there. That was the only change really, besides a few editing comments and things like that we just kind of addressed the unit count, the type of development. So, it was an apartment complex 325, this is the Max of 100 units in town home style development. They will be simple lots sold separately, so if you have any questions for me, it's a fairly straightforward request. The count goes down, but we get a type of development that's consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Bill Estes: Where's Raven Dr. on its improvements. Robert Varnell: Some of it's already been done. This PUD will require that the improvements be extended and then it gives us the right of way to further anything past their driveway. Bill Estes: They've got 2 driveways operated correct. Robert Varnell: As proposed, yes. Clarke Taylor made a motion to approve an ordinance to amend PUD 44 to include townhomes in place of an apartment complex and includes Tax Map 041 Group D Parcel 006.00, seconded by Blake Allison. The motion passed 7-0. Yes – 7 No – 0 Recused – 1 Absent – 1 d. request by Joshua Jolley for consideration of a flag stem length and width variance for 6.89 acres, more or less, of property located at Dry Valley Road (also described as Tax Map 028 048.15) and located within the RA Residential Agricultural Zoning District. Robert Varnell: This one's been it was probably one of the hardest ones for me to describe in writing, so I've talked to many of you about it. There was an annexation by referendum piece of property. It was annexed in and through that process was subdivided into five plus acre lots, which circumvents in a sense the city review process by state law. There you can see it in total right there. The lot that is highlighted is the lot in question today, someone has purchased that lot. It has a 50-foot flag stem currently and it's almost 1000 feet in length. So, our sub regs state that the flag stem length cannot exceed 500 feet, but that the Planning Commission may approve them up to 1000. So, there is a caveat. I can't approve it beyond 500 feet, but I can bring it to you if you see a reason to approve it up to 1000 you can do so. The other caveat is the width. This is taking about 6.8 acres dividing into two. One piece will be about 4.59 and the other piece is 2.3, anything that exceeds 3 acres is supposed to have a 30 foot flag staff. Well, if you've got a 50 foot to begin with and you're dividing it in half, it becomes 25, so it doesn't meet the width requirements as dictated by the sub regs either. Now, when it was originally subdivided out, it didn't meet it, but we didn't see it. In a sense, we didn't review it. It didn't come here. So, it's a situation where we kind of have to work to possibly clean up. An issue that's out of our control based on what state law allows through subdivision of land. So, I'm going to stop here. Are there questions on what I'm saying to this point? Ben Berry: There is a provision if you have two flags stems that are adjoining, that they can be less than that. But the caveat is that just has to be less than five acres. Robert Varnell: We're five feet off being able to meet that minimum. Blake Allison: You said there's also the X amount of flag stems that can be sequential? Robert Varnell: Yes. But the question becomes then when I'm taking one of these individually. So, if I had a plat and it was just this subdivision, I wouldn't see the flag stems next to it because they're not in this subdivision. Blake Allison: OK, awesome. Robert Varnell: That doesn't mean what you're saying is not accurate. They already exist and that part I have my hands tied so. Bill Estes: Can you say that again? I heard everything you said, and I did not understand your answer. Robert Varnell: So, the ordinance states that no more than two flag stems can be side by side. As you can see, we've got in existence 3. So, when you subdivide those, if all three of those were subdivided, we'd end up with six. But when I get a plat it's just this piece. I don't. I can't take into account what's already next to it, because that's not part of the subdivision, so it's two. Blake Allison: In my mind, the potential only way forward to your explanation would be allow the loss to be split into 2.3 and 4 point whatever, and then move forward with the 25 and 25 with the deed restriction saying they can know they cannot subdivide further and an easement requiring or allowing both lots to use the exact same flag staff for cross access just an access, which is pretty good on the 50 foot. In these scenarios, maybe county or whatever else, that's a pretty common access agreement. We even have them or up in town of North Ocoee St. One the Tom did several of them. So that's not outside the realm. And you touched on that, I know you said it's tough to type all that up without any Robert Varnell: And let me just say. If these were greater than the 1000 feet, they would not be in front of you because there is no mechanism to break those to create any flag stems longer than 1000 Feet. Then to build a Rd. at that point, you've got to build the road, but because this falls within that range. I put it before you. My recommendation is denial because I think it sets precedent based on our regs, which are specific and consistent and been held up and used on other people all over the city. What makes this property unique is that it was subdivided outside the purview of Planning Commission review based on state law, so there is some room. But that is my recommendation and the applicant maybe here he may want to speak to it or if you have questions for him as well. Blake Allison: The other alternative would be potentially, and this would be outside of Planning Commission would they deed restrict all the flag stems and do one common driveway all the way all the way? Robert Varnell: If all the property owners in the area wanted to, you know, my recommendation was they should get together and build a road. Then they could subdivide it all they want. But you know I guess anyway; I won't get into the personal decisions. Bill Estes: You said if it was more than 1000, it wouldn't be here. So, the other two pieces of property that have flagged stems. Robert Varnell: That's right. They could not be here because there is no mechanism. for me to bring it because it gives this body the ability to go to 1000 feet. The regs say it specifically. I can go to 500 Planning Commission can take it to 1000. Bill Estes: And you’re kosher with the deed restrictions for on and on. Now clean this up. Robert Varnell: It's it. It feels like almost vindictive to say you can't do anything with it. I get it. It's 6.89 acres. You want to cut it in half, but that's not my problem, you know. Unfortunately, I've got a job to do. That's why it gives you all the purview to make that decision if it is going to be moved forward. Then my recommendation was it has to have some protections from further problems because it does meet that that 1000 foot threshold. Jamie Creekmore: And you're saying this is unique just because of the two adjoining it kind of gives us the window for doing the? Robert Varnell: Well, we have no mechanism for those. They have to build a road because there's no, I can't come to you and say go over 1000 regs stop at that 1000 linear feet. Ben Berry: All these lots are on septic. In the city but on septic? Robert Varnell: Until the sewer line is run, then they will be charged for sewer whether they connect to it or not. Ben Berry: So, the plan of start when we annex this, the plan of service had a theoretical build out. You know so far whether this was worth enhancing or not and it had some pretty significant Cleveland Utilities cost to extend sewer. Yeah. And so, at this point what could happen is you've got 4. Cleveland Utilities could be allowed for millions of dollars worth of improvements for 14 lots. Is that really everything to do with this this? Robert Varnell: You know that the state law has all sorts of caveats in it, and this is one where it’s kind of doesn’t work in our favor. Blake Allison: Since we're on this subject briefly, I know discussed it. To prevent this from happening in the future, what kind of steps can we take for the deed not to be reported and this to be circumvented again? Again, it's a perfect storm with an annexation by referendum. I'm talking to protect the rest of this county residents. If Cleveland utility spends millions of dollars with no payoff, rates going to go up for everyone else. So just like taxes, everything's going to go up for unnecessary spending, right? But looking to keep it from happening. Robert Varnell: Again, it's difficult, you know, because if you're on an existing road and you have all of these. If there's 14 acres or 15 acres, they can divide it into 3 fives, and I wouldn't see it. I think it's just something that, you know, there's different mechanisms we can look at when we're annexing most of the time. When we annex, we're annexing based on a specific build out, you know all that stuff. So, in this case it worked differently. That was what we were told was happening and it evolved and changed, which is a property owner’s per view. We start getting into property rights and things like that. If I knew what the catch all was, I probably would have used it before. I think this is what I'm saying on this because I saw this before. It's just nothing I can do. Ben Berry: I think it's great to have five acre lots as long as there's not any public cost to. I mean having a developer’s agreement with CU executed before you annex property. Hope you will fix the problem. Hopefully that occurred here. I know it's occurred on a few others, so hopefully that occurred here that way. Robert Varnell: And I don't know if the applicant is here or if anybody else wants to speak to this one, but we might want to certainly because it's a it is a variance request. Tricia Pennington: So, does anyone here want to speak to this? Clarke Taylor: So, we're being asked to vote for the two requests separately. Robert Varnell: That's correct. There are two different, so the length and the one for the width. So, if you're going to approve one, the other one goes with it. But there are two separate variants. Decisions that would be needed to create those lots. Alma Dotson: So, if we vote to give the variance we would be setting a precedent. Robert Varnell: Two, you know, like I said, within that 1000 feet to a point, yes, but by requiring the joint access easement to cover the entire 50. will be on the plat that protects us if it ever does need to be built into a road that we have the necessary right away to do so. If you can't get those 50 feet, I probably wouldn't even bring it in front of you just because there's no way to do it. The only reason this one's here is because it does have a, and I saw that from the get-go. And so, I said, well, I'm going to do, I'm going to put it in front of the public body in front of the board is same. Maryl Elliot: You recommend denial, but if we vote to deny. Are the other people penalized about using this property? Robert Varnell: So, you can build multiple houses on one lot, but they can never be subdivided or sold separately. And I think the intention is for families to live next to each other in this case. And they would like it to be two separate deeded lots that could never happen under other circumstances, unless they built the to city standards, etcetera. Blake Allison: In my mind, in this case, if it's speaking just for myself, since it's under 1000 feet. And it's not like we're lacking 15 feet for the Flagstaff. We're like in five, right. I know we all have to have some sort of stop, right? But we're liking 5. I see a lot of deed restrictions with access agreements quite a bit in our line of work. I'm in favor of allowing this one, to your point about setting precedence, yes, but each one on each one of these flag stems is almost treated in my mind, whether it's in the suburbs as a PUD, right, not a PUD in, though, we have all the control, but that it's up to the discretion of the body on each one of the requests. So, if you feel strongly to deny that you have that right. Right. It says up to the Planning Commission discretion from 500 to 1000, right? Bill Estes: We can put this in one motion. We don't have to make them separately. Robert Varnell: I think for the Minutes I'd like them separate, and I mean. I know that's nitpicky. I think it's important. Blake Allison: So, to take a stab at it, whether it flies or not, I move to approve the flag stem since it is under 1000 feet to divide the two lots and then I guess we'll have to and that flags then must include, well, I guess we'd have to do a nest? Yeah, we'd almost have. Robert Varnell: Yeah, I'm seeing Bills point now and trying to frame the sentence. To have them both. Bill Estes: There's three parts to this. Gets in the minutes either way. Blake Allison: So, if you move to approve. You'd also have to move to approve the deed restrictions, allowing that access to the parcel and the deed restrictions to not allow any further subdivision of the lots. Bill Estes: Hey, before we move on, Robert, thank you for explaining all that. To me this last week. Robert Varnell: Well, like I said at the beginning, that one was very hard to write down. Sometimes I'm better at just talking through it. Bill Estes: Thanks for your time on that. Robert Varnell: Yeah. Really. Anytime.  Blake Allison made a motion to approve the flag stem length and width variance, with deed restrictions, allowing that access to the parcel and the deed restrictions to not allow any further subdivision of the lots for 6.89 acres, more or less, of property located at Dry Valley Road (also described as Tax Map 028 048.15) and located within the RA Residential Agricultural Zoning District, seconded by Clarke Taylor. The motion passed 8 -0. Yes – 8 No – 0 Recused - 1 e. request by Gary Waters for consideration of a Plan of Service for about 10.99 acres, more or less, for property located at Lewis Street NE and includes Tax Map 058B Group C Parcel 010.00. Robert Varnell: This piece right here, the piece next to it is already in the city. The plan of service is fairly straightforward. About eight years ago, the other side, the piece of joining this, was annexed into the city and during that eight-year process the applicants you know have been waiting for the services to be available on site, which they now pretty much are the development that will occur will incorporate both. The proposed annexation piece, as well as the one that's already within the city limits, it's residential development. As you can see in the PUD when you look that it's addresses both townhome and single family attached and has a cap of 175 units. The plan of service is fairly straightforward, being that part of the future developments already in the city, the services we already bring to that location. At this point, even though it's vacant. And we'll include some improvements, you know, at the access point, which will be along Benton Pike. So, any questions on the plan of service aspect because I'll just go through each one and then y'all can vote independently. As far as the PUD goes, it's fairly straightforward based on some of our recent ones. There was a typo which I corrected in the main version, it's not 300 units, it's 175. It's got the Richard Stone requirements as expected, as well as the separation on the driveways for the townhomes and requires open space. So, regarding that, if there's any questions within the PUD document itself, I'm happy to answer. Ben Berry: Mentioned that this development is going to include property to the north that's already in the city, but the property what is it zoned industrial? Robert Varnell: It's zoned mixed-use. Ben Berry: All right, so it doesn't need zoning, it's not included. Robert Varnell: But, well, I think they're wanting to see if the annexation moves forward and its residential development that is a residential developer who's purchasing. Blake Allison: For some reason I thought we had seen something on the north part. Robert Varnell: Oh, you did at the beginning. Yeah, it was years ago. It was some kind of industrially based use. Blake Allison: Thank you for putting the bus stop shelter as we've been discussing that and the deceleration lane, that's all that they feel is needed. No left hand out of Benton at this time. Robert Varnell: You mean from Benton Pike in? Yeah, well, no, but that could be dictated through site review if warranted based on that, if it goes to 175, we'll see, but we would have that ability at that point. Ben Berry: So, does this not have a concept plan? Robert Varnell: So, the language within this PUD requires it to come back to you guys as well as City Council once the concept plan is complete. They were supposed to get it to me, they did not. We're going to move forward with the zoning and annexation, but it will come back to you with that concept plan that. Good point though, I should have brought that up. Blake Allison: A concept plan more than likely will include the north side. Robert Varnell: It will include the whole thing. It will be an A4, it will be rezoning the front PUD and taking into account the entire thing. Blake Allison: That just may throw our unit count to look at the road. Robert Varnell: A little bit and the 175 is based on the total acreage. Yes, not just this piece. It is the entire 20, it's like 19 acres. Blake Allison made a motion to approve a Plan of Service for about 10.99 acres, more or less, for property located at Lewis Street NE and includes Tax Map 058B Group C Parcel 010.00, seconded by Bill Estes. The motion passed 8-0. Yes – 8 No – 0 Absent - 1 f. request by Gary Waters for consideration of a resolution to annex about 10.99 acres, more or less, for property located at Lewis Street NE and includes Tax Map 058B Group C Parcel 010.00.  Bill Estes made a motion to approve the resolution to annex about 10.99 acres, more or less, for property located at Lewis Street NE and includes Tax Map 058 B Group C Parcel 010.00, seconded by Blake Allison. The motion passed 8-0. Yes – 8 No – 0 Absent – 1 g. request by Gary Waters for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 18 acres, more or less, for property located at Lewis Street NE from FAR unincorporated county and MU Mixed Use Zoning District to PUD Planned Unit of Development 58 Zoning District and includes Tax Map 058B Group C Parcels 010.00 and 011.00. Clarke Taylor made a motion to approve an ordinance to zone about 10.99 acres, more or less, for property located at Lewis Street NE and includes Tax Map 058B Group C Parcel 010.00, seconded by Jamie Creekmore. The motion passed 8-0. Yes – 8 No – 0 Absent – 1 h. request by Phoenix Investors for consideration of a Plan of Service for about 14.87 acres, more or less, for property located at King Street and Buchanan Road and includes Tax Map 065E Group F Parcel 011.00 and Tax Map 065E Group C Parcel 001.00. Robert Varnell: Yes. So, this is also planning service, annexation and zoning. The plan of service had some expense relating to sewer and water. As you know, the city is already servicing this area. It's an area of charter and the new Arby’s that's being built there on King Street. So many of the city services are already right there. So, the plan of service is fairly straightforward from that standpoint. When you get to the zoning standpoint, this is another one where we didn't have the concept plan yet. They will have to bring it back through. But they aren't there yet, but they do want to get it annexed and zoned at their request. That's what they're looking to do. It's based on a R3 type development, so it would be some kind of apartment type complex, and it's restricted in unit count to 150 based on the PUD. That's for the entire piece. You know it dictates access on King Street so that Buchanan Rd. doesn't have the access point it dictates from within the city. The city is proposing the Annex King Street to the edge of this development. Through this process, we already have most of it. This would just extend it another 100 feet or so. The other caveats include the brick or stone for the apartment structures and some kind of amenity being pool clubhouse that's expected with that type development. Otherwise, it's fairly straightforward in that regard, and we'll get a site plan at some point which will come back to this body just like the previous one. We don't know when, but that will be in the future sometime. And there may be folks here to speak to this one as well. So, if you have questions for me, I'll be happy to answer them. Tricia Pennington: Any questions and anyone would like to speak. OK, please come to the podium and state your name. Terry Buckner: My name is Terry Buckner, and I’ve got some concerns. We've lived here. My grandmother has lived right there since 1950, just before you come over the hillside to go across the top of the hill to Buchanan. First of all, that hill is very, very dangerous. It's a blind spot. If nobody's been over there, I would encourage you to go over there and try to pull out of my grandmother's driveway. It's a gravel driveway just past spectrum before you get to the top of the hill. It's very dangerous. We're not opposed to annex and growth and development, but this area, that property in particular was a Maytag hazardous waste industrial dump site. I played there as a kid. That's the only place I've lived all my life. So, if you go over there, there's barrels. You can see all kinds of nastiness dumped on that property. I don't know what the intent would be to try to clean it up, but it's environmentally, I would think it's unusable for any more development, especially 150 homes because it is just there are barrels upon barrels where they've used it for a dump site. You can walk very not very far off of Buchanan or King Street into there and you can see it. There's a natural spring on the bottom and the bottom side of there. Of course, my grandmother, my mom and dad that live off of Blackburn. There we would have some concerns about the storm water because it comes through a deep valley through there and just runs off right into the Linda Drive area which part of it's in the city and part of it's in the county. Of course, I already mentioned the traffic on King Street and Buchanan, and it's just really bad. I know this is just a zoning request but would there be road improvements in mind for King Street. Robert Varnell: The zoning department requires improvements for them to build at their expense at their entrance and up to it beyond that no, because most of that's county traffic is coming up anyway, you can, but in regard to this development, their impact we're requiring them to access on King and then improve King from that point to the edge of their property. And then that's all the city going towards that traffic light, yeah so, it has a deceleration lane and some things like that that would assist. They also have to deed us right away. We have a 50-foot requirement. If from the center line of pavement to the edge of that to that property line is less than 25, they'd have to be just that difference, whatever it may be. So, if future improvements on there needed to be made within the city limits, we'd have the ability to do this. Terry Buckner: I just know that hill is very. Of course, my grandmother is the only residential left on that side of the road. Other than one house right before you get to Buchanan. But I mean, I can’t tell you how many times I've about got hit coming out of there. Just people come flying over the hill, toward APD 40. It's a bad spot. I think that's about all I had to say is just, you know, just the main is the concerns of the hazardous waste on the property. Robert Varnell: And you know the applicants, they knew this when they purchased this property from Whirlpool and are following EPA guidelines on how they can develop it and how it gets cleaned and things like that. It'll actually be an improvement once they do that to the, you know, environment for the area and then the stormwater issue will actually probably be improved as well when it develops, because we'll have to do a pretty significant amount of ponds and different things because you have to show a net loss of water running off site. So, whatever is going off today, you take that and reduce it. They have to. They can't. If they can't make it more with that, it has to be less so there are some benefits of those things do actually develop so fully in that runoff, but just to speak to your specific concerns. Terry Buckner: Thank you very much. Alma Dotson: So, going to bring site plans and more information, right? Can we be updated a little bit about the environmental part of it that you spoke of. Robert Varnell: Yeah, I'm sure that once we have a site plan, a lot of that will be more concrete and understanding what's there and what they're doing with it. So, I'll make sure that that's produced. And the EPA and TDEC and you know it's the whole thing. It's a known site, but there are mechanisms to develop them nationwide and these people do this kind of work nationwide. They know what they're in for and what they're dealing with, specifically, buy industrial property and redevelop this company, so it's nothing new to them, they're not intimidated. This is just step one. Ben Berry made a motion to approve a plan of service for about 14.87 acres more or less, for property located at King Street and Buchanan Road and includes Tax Map 065 E Group F Parcel  011.00 and Tax Map 065E Group C Parcel 001.00, seconded by Blake Allison. The motion passed 8-0. Yes – 8 No – 0 Absent - 1 i. request by Phoenix Investors for consideration of a resolution to annex about 14.87 acres, more or less, for property located at King Street and Buchanan Road and includes Tax Map 065E Group F Parcel 011.00 and Tax Map 065E Group C Parcel 001.00. Bill Estes made a motion to approve a resolution to annex about 14.87 acres, more or less, for property located at King Street and Buchanan Road and includes Tax Map 065E Group F Parcel 011.00 and Tax Map 065E Group C 001.00, seconded by Clarke Taylor. The motion passed 8-0. Yes – 8 No – 0 Absent – 1 j. request by Phoenix Investors for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 14.87 acres, more or less, for property located at King Street and Buchanan Road from I-1 unincorporated county to PUD 59 Zoning District and includes Tax Map 065E Group F Parcel 011.00 and Tax Map 065E Group C Parcel 001.00. Jamie Creekmore made a motion to approve an ordinance to zone about 14.87 acres, more or less, for property located at King Street and Buchanan Road from I1 unincorporated county to PUD 59 Zoning District and includes Tax Map 065E Group F Parcel 011.00 and Tax Map 065E Group C Parcel 001.00, seconded by Alma Dotson. The motion passed 8-0. Yes – 8 No – 0 Absent – 1 Chairman’s Report Tricia Pennington Reported that she is working towards retirement including stepping back from the Planning Commission and that it has been a pleasure to work with everyone. Director’s Report Robert thanked Tricia for her service, she’s done a great job leading and keeping everybody on their toes and we appreciate everything and look forward to seeing you around outside of this room. Adjourn 6:48 pm