[I. Call to Order]
[00:00:11]
GENTLEMEN. IT IS. I THINK IT'S. WHAT TIME IS IT? 703. AND WE ARE RUNNING JUST A LITTLE BIT LATE. BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, AND WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. TODAY IS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20TH, 2025, AND WE ARE HERE FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING. EXCUSE ME. SO WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED WITH A ROLL CALL OF COMMISSIONERS. DIRECTOR SMITH. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
COMMISSIONER MARK FIELDS, PRESENT. COMMISSIONER MILLER HERE. COMMISSIONER MELANIE STYLES, PRESENT. COMMISSIONER WATSON HERE. COMMISSIONER JOEL PRESLEY, PRESENT. COMMISSIONER.
ELEANOR ANDERSON. COMMISSIONER. KEISHA CHAPMAN. COMMISSIONER JOSEPH FIELDS. QUORUM. THANK YOD WOULD YOU PLEASE JOIN ME IN A MOMENT OF SILENCE? THANK YOU. AND AMEN. AND NOW WE WILL HAVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW HAVE THE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA. CAN I GET A MOTION,
[V. Adoption of the Agenda]
PLEASE? OH, WE DO HAVE, MADAM CHAIR. YES, SIR. I MAKE A MOTION. WE ADOPT. WE ADOPT THE AGENDA. SECOND, IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY. SECOND, THAT WE WILL ADOPT THE MINUTES.I'M SORRY. ADOPT THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I.
I OPPOSES HEARING NONE. THE AGENDA IS APPROVED. AND WE DO HAVE COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN THAT
[VI. Approval of October Minutes]
IS HERE NOW. NOW, WE WILL HAVE AN APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER MINUTES. GOING TO HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE, OCTOBER MINUTES. CAN I GET A SECOND, PLEASE? IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECOND THAT WE APPROVE THE OCTOBER MINUTES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I.I OPPOSES HEARING NONE. THE MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 2025 HAVE NOW BEEN ADOPTED. MISS DIRECTOR
[VIII.1. P2025V-001-09, P2025V- 002-09]
SMITH, DO WE HAVE ANY OLD BUSINESS? WE DO NOT. HEARING NONE. WE WILL SKIP DOWN TO OUR NEW BUSINESS. DIRECTOR SMITH, THANK YOU. IN REFERENCE TO ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE AGENDA. ONE MOMENT PLEASE. IN REFERENCE TO ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE AGENDA, CASE NUMBER P2025 .001.09. IN CASE NUMBER P2025 .002.09, THE APPLICANT N G CAPITAL LLC STEVEN GOUGH PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1247 AND 1253 WASHINGTON ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE J INFILL 5F2 TO ALLOW CEMENT SIDING FOR TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. CASE TYPE IS A VARIANCE.BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING. I'M SORRY, WE JUST NEED TO GET RIGHT HERE. OH OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU I'M SORRY, BUT I DID SKIP THE RULES FOR PUBLIC HEARING. AND WE WILL GO INTO THAT NOW. STARTING RIGHT THERE BEFORE WE START THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY.
THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING RULES ARE AS FOLLOWS. PERSONS BOTH FAVORING AND OPPOSING THE PROPOSED CASE. EXCUSE ME ONE SECOND. PERSONS BOTH FAVORING AND OPPOSING THE PROPOSED CASE
[00:05:20]
WILL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. THE APPLICANT FOR THE ZONE ZONING CASE, OR THE APPLICANT'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE, IF ANY, WILL BE ENTITLED TO SPEAK FIRST, FOLLOWED BY OTHER SPEAKERS IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSAL FOR A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES. THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED ZONING CASE WILL THEN BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK FOR A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES BY MAJORITY VOTE. THE COMMISSION MAY INCREASE THE TOTAL TIME OF SPEAKERS, PROVIDED THAT EACH SIDE IS GIVEN THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME. IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE SPEAKER FOR A SIDE, THE CHAIR OR THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY LIMIT THE TIME ALLOTTED TO EACH SPEAKER. INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER. OTHER THAN THE ZONING APPLICANT, THE ZONING APPLICANT MAY RESERVE A PORTION OF HIS OR HER ALLOTTED TIME FOR REBUTTAL. SPEAKERS MUST ADHERE TO THE RULES OF DECORUM PRIOR TO SPEAKING. EACH SPEAKER SHALL IDENTIFY HIM OR HERSELF AND STATE HIS OR HER CURRENT ADDRESS. EACH SPEAKER MUST SPEAK ONLY TO THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE. UNDER CONSIDERATION SHALL ADDRESS REMARKS ONLY TO THE COMMISSION, AND SHALL REFRAIN FROM MAKING PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ANY OTHER SPEAKER. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY REFUSE A SPEAKER THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE, IF ANY. IF, AFTER BEING AFTER FIRST BEING CAUTIONED, THE SPEAKER CONTINUES TO VIOLATE THE RULES OF THE DECORUM.LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE HEARD OUR RULES FOR PUBLIC HEARING. WHAT DO I HEAR FROM THE COMMISSIONERS, MADAM? MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? IT HAS BEEN MOVED IMPROPERLY. SECOND, THAT WE ARE NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I. I OPPOSE THIS HEARING. NOW. WE ARE NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC HEARING. DIRECTOR SMITH. YES, IN REFERENCE TO CASE NUMBER P2025V .001.09, P2025 .002.09. THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1247 AND 1253 WASHINGTON ROAD, APPLICANT IN CAPITAL LLC, STEVEN GOUGH. CASE TYPE IS A VARIANCE. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS TO DEFER THIS CASE AT THIS TIME. COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE HEARD FROM DIRECTOR SMITH THAT WE ARE BEING ASKED TO DEFER THAT CASE, AND IT ENDS IN 2002-09. AND THE ONE PRIOR TO THAT ENDS IN 001-09. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE THAT IS ATTENDING THE MEETING THIS EVENING WANTS TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS CASE? DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE CASE? IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD. I DO NOT SEE ANYONE COMING FORWARD TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE CASE. SO NOW WE MAY GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, MADAM CHAIR. YES, SIR. MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SECOND, IT HAS BEEN MOVED IMPROPERLY. SECOND, THAT WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON P025V AS IN VICTOR DASH 00109, P2025. VICTOR DASH 002. DASH ZERO NINE. WHAT DO I HEAR, COMMISSIONERS? MADAM CHAIR. YES, MA'AM. MOTION TO DEFER. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY. SECOND, THAT WE DEFER THE CASE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I. I OPPOSES HEARING NONE. THE THE CASE HAS BEEN DEFERRED. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. WAS THERE A SECOND ON THAT ONE? I, I THOUGHT I GOT A SECOND HERE. DID I NOT GET A SECOND FROM ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS HERE ON THIS CASE? DID I GET A SECOND. YES. SECOND. OKAY. A VOTE ON THE MOTION TO
[00:10:04]
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. YES, YES. ACTUALLY, WHAT I DID, I THINK I JUST I DON'T THINK I CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. DID I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE IT, AND THEN WE HAD A MOTION FOR THE CASE TO ACCEPT THE DEFERRAL. SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY OPEN ACTIONS[VIII.2. P2025RZ-001-10]
ON THAT. WE'RE DONE. WE'RE DONE. OKAY. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR SMITH, THE SECOND CASE, PLEASE. YES.IN REFERENCE TO ITEM NUMBER TWO UNDER NEW BUSINESS CASE NUMBER P2025001-10. THE APPLICANT IS HORACE WALKER. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1416 EAST VESTA AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REZONING FROM R-1, A URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO R-2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THE CASE TYPE IS A REZONING. THANK YOU. IS THERE IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? YOU MAY COME FORWARD. A. MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND, IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY.
SECOND, THAT WE WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON STATED CASE P2025-001-10. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I. I OPPOSES HERE AND NOW. THE CASE IS NOW OPEN. YOU MAY GO AHEAD, PLEASE. CHAIR. MICHAEL. MIKE. OKAY. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? OH, THERE WE GO.
OKAY, NOW, NOW I'LL TURN IT DOWN. WELL, GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR. AND THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS HORACE WALKER. I AM THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 1416 EAST VISTA AVENUE. AND MY PURPOSE HERE IS TO REZONE MY PROPERTY FROM R-1. TO R-2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE. OKAY. AND I NEED TO GET YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE. YES. 1416 EAST VISTA AVENUE. OKAY. YOU MAY CONTINUE.
OKAY. THANK YOU. THIS IS FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE STEP FOR MY MORTGAGE COMPANY. THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT I REZONE THIS TO AN R-2 VERSUS AN R1. A AND I'M JUST AT THEIR DISPOSAL TO HAVE DO THAT IN ORDER FOR ME TO COMPLETE MY MORTGAGE APPLICATION. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY VISUALS OR ANYTHING FOR THE COMMISSIONERS TO SEE OR. I DO HAVE A PICTURE THAT I.
SENT IN LAST WEEK. AND THEN ALSO I THINK THERE'S A SITE SURVEY PICTURE AS WELL. SO WHAT WE'RE SEEING NOW IS THE ONLY ONLY VISUAL OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO AS YOU CAN I DON'T AS YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES ON THIS STREET. THEY'RE ALL DUPLEXES MULTIFAMILY STYLE HOMES. AND THE GOAL IS JUST TO REZONE MY SPECIFIC PROPERTY BACK TO WHAT IS ORIGINAL ZONING WAS WAS INTENDED FOR. THERE IS NO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THIS PROPERTY. NOTHING'S CHANGING. IT'S GOING TO REMAIN THE FUNCTION AS A TWO FAMILY HOME. IT IS A DUPLEX PROPERTY, LIKE I SAID, ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES ON THE STREET. WE JUST WANT TO REZONE IT BACK TO WHAT IS ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR.
OKAY. THANK YOU. DOES THAT COMPLETE YOUR PRESENTATION? YES OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE IN FAVOR OF THIS REZONING? IS THERE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO COME FORWARD IN FAVOR OF. IS THERE ANYONE OPPOSED TO THIS REZONING? IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD. ANYONE IN OPPOSED? SEEING? NONE. COMMISSIONERS. WHAT DO I HEAR, MADAM CHAIR? OH, DO I GET THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION NOW? YEAH, WE GOT A MOTION. MOTION, MOTION. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER P2025RZ001-10. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD. I OPPOSES HEARING NONE. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
STAFF, DO YOU HAVE ANY? I'M SORRY. STAFF WILL GIVE THEIR REPORT. OKAY. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. STAFF RECOMMENDATION PLEASE. YES. IN REFERENCE TO THIS CASE KNOWN AS
[00:15:03]
CASE NUMBER P2025001-10. PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1416 EAST VESTA AVENUE. AS STATED, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REZONING TO REZONE FROM OUR URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO OUR TWO FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT. AND IF YOU SEE THE MAP UP HERE ON THE SCREEN, THE PROPERTY OUTLINED IN THE BLUE LIGHT BLUE THAT IS THE PROPERTY. IF YOU LOOK ON THIS SLIDE HERE, THE CURRENT ZONING AS STATED IS THE R-1A URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. NOTATED ON THIS ZONING MAP IS. IF YOU SEE THE YELLOW RECTANGLE, THE YELLOW ONE. THAT PROPERTY WAS REZONED IN 2003 TO R TWO AS WELL. AND IT'S JUST ONE HOUSE OVER FROM THIS PROPOSED PROPERTY. REZONING. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND TYPICAL ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD INCLUDE R-1, RL, R1, R2, AND R2, AND R3. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN R-2 ZONING, WHICH IS A TYPICAL ZONING DISTRICT IN THE TRADITIONAL URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, AS SHOWN ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ON THE SCREEN, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF THE REZONING FROM R-1, A URBAN RESIDENTIAL, TO R-2 TWO FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT. AND IF YOU LOOK ON THE SCREEN, YOU'LL SEE THE SNAPSHOT OF THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED. ONE HOUSE OVER THAT WAS APPROVED ON MAY 20TH, 2013 TO THE SAME ZONING DESIGNATION. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? YEAH. OKAY. I SEE LIGHTS ON DOWN TO MY LEFT. SO MAYBE THEY'RE JUST ON. SO IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO I HEAR? MADAM CHAIR, MOVE THE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE'VE ALREADY CLOSED. I'M JUST WAITING ON MADAM CHAIR. YES, SIR. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT.
WE ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY.
SECOND, THAT WE ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD THAT MOTION. DO I HEAR ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING? NONE. WE MAY GO FORWARD WITH THE MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I. I OPPOSES HEARING NONE. THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS.
AND THANK YOU. APPROVED. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. COMMITTEE. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR
[VIII.3. P2025ZM-001-10]
SMITH. THE NEXT CASE, PLEASE. YES, MADAM CHAIR, IN REFERENCE TO ITEM NUMBER THREE UNDER NEW BUSINESS CASE NUMBER P2025, M-001-10. THE APPLICANT, MR. OKOYE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1457 GUS THORNHILL JUNIOR DRIVE. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A ZONING CONDITION MODIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE 200 023 TO INCREASE THE DENSITY FROM SEVEN TOWNHOME UNITS TO 12 TOWNHOME UNITS.CASE TYPE IS A ZONING CONDITION MODIFICATION. THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT. THANK YOU. APPLICANT, YOU MAY COME FORWARD PLEASE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY I WANT TO I'M SORRY.
ONE SECOND. LET ME HEAR FROM ATTORNEY WIGGINS. MADAM CHAIR. YES, SIR. MAKE A MOTION. WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO I HAVE A SECOND? IT HAS BEEN MOVED. AND PROPERLY. SECOND, THAT WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER P20250001-10. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I. I OPPOSE THIS HEARING. NONE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. APPLICANT, YOU MAY GO AHEAD. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE. MY NAME IS DANIEL OKOYE HERE FOR 1457 GUSTON HILL DRIVE. MAY I PLUG IN MY THUMB DRIVE IN HERE? YEAH. STAFF WILL HELP YOU ACCOMMODATE THAT.
YES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. OKAY, SO THIS IS A TWIN HOME COMMUNITY. AND
[00:20:23]
.588 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED 1457 GHOST HILL DRIVE. WE'RE PROPOSING A THREE STORIES WITH TWO CAR GARAGES, NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY DESIGN, AND IS ALIGNED WITH THE GOALS OF REDEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND OUR REVISED VALUE PROPOSITION IS ENHANCED REVITALIZATION, AFFORDABILITY AND BETTER VISUAL APPEAL. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS MODIFICATION OF CONDITION NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS NO MORE THAN SEVEN BUILDABLE LOTS TO ENABLE THE PRACTICAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF 12 FEE SIMPLE TWIN HOMES. WE CALL IT TWIN HOMES. SO OUR REVISED DESIGN IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLEVELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO 12 UNITS ON THIS PARCEL, THE LOT WITH WHICH THE REVISED DESIGN COMPLIES WITH THE 25 FOOT LOT WITH REQUIREMENTS. AND AS FAR AS THE FEASIBILITY AND THE ORIGINAL DESIGN, THE OFFERINGS WAS BETWEEN 400 AND 500,000. OUR REVISED DESIGN IS MORE AFFORDABLE WITHIN 200 AND $300,000 IN IN PRICE RANGE. SO WITH OUR DESIGN. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. LET ME GET TO THIS.THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH A 12 TOWNHOMES. OUR TWIN HOMES ACTUALLY WHAT DO YOU CALL IT. SO THE CURRENT DESIGN, THE CURRENT DESIGN THAT IS APPROVED, THE SEVEN TOWNHOME, THE SEVEN LOTS. IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE WE'RE NOT REALLY CHANGING MUCH. THE PROJECT VALUE IS ABOUT THE SAME. THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. WHAT WHAT IS THE APPROVED. WELL, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IT'S ABOUT THE SAME. THE TOTAL FOOTPRINT. IT'S CLOSE ENOUGH. IT'S ABOUT A 9600FT■!S IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE. THE CURRENT DESIGN IS 69%. OURS IS 66%. AND IF YOU CAN SEE THE CURRENT DESIGN HAS A TOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT. I'LL. WELL, I'LL THE PRIOR DESIGN IS 85, 26 AND THE CURRENT DESIGN IS 9600. SO IT'S KIND OF WE'RE NOT CHANGING MUCH AS THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE HERE, EXCEPT CREATING HIGHER DENSITY AND, AND AT THE SAME TIME COMPLYING WITH THE CLEVELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND NOW HERE ARE TWO PICTURES THAT SHOWS WHAT THE PREVIOUS DESIGN LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. SEVEN UNIT. THE AVERAGE UNIT SIZE IN THE PRIOR DESIGN IS 3197. AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS 2000 SQUARE FOOT. THE PRICE RANGE IN THE PRIOR ONE IS $495,000. AND OURS. WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS 289,000. SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND STILL KEEPING UP THE ESTHETICS OF THE DESIGN. SO I PUT UP ALL DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, STERLING VILLAGE TOWNHOMES AND THE MARTIN STREET TOWNHOMES. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SHOW THAT, I GUESS PRIOR TO THE CLEVELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT, THESE WERE APPROVED AT A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 1700 SQUARE FEET FOR STERLING VILLAGE AND 2400 SQUARE FOOT FOR THE MARTIN STREET TOWNHOMES. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ASK FOR IS NOT FAR FROM WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE IN THE PAST. YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER. AND IF THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS THAT I CAN'T ANSWER, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER TO MY MY DEVELOPMENT PARTNER, IF THAT'S IF THAT'S OKAY. THANK YOU. SO THAT CONCLUDES YOUR PRESENTATION. YES. YES. DO WE HAVE. THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIR. YES, SIR. I MAKE A MOTION. WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY. SECOND THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE HAVE TO HEAR FROM ANYONE IN FAVOR OF. THAT'S OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYONE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT? ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF? DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE PROJECT? ANYONE HERE AGAINST? THANK YOU, THANK YOU NOW. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. SAINT. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY. SECOND THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
[00:25:03]
LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD. I OPPOSES HEARING NONE. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY. SECOND, THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. APPLICANT. WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE SPEAKING AGAINST COMMISSIONERS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I ACTUALLY DO, COMMISSIONER. GO AHEAD PLEASE. I WAS JUST TRYING TO FAMILIARIZE MYSELF WITH WHAT A TWIN HOME WAS VERSUS SORRY. ONE SECOND. IF YOU TURN YOUR MIC OFF, THERE WON'T BE ANY FEEDBACK. THANK YOU. OKAY. I WAS JUST TRYING TO FAMILIARIZE MYSELF WITH YOUR MIC. OFF. OFF.OKAY. LIKE THAT. OKAY, NOW WE'RE READY. I'M TRYING TO FAMILIARIZE MYSELF WITH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DUPLEX AND A TWIN HOME AND A TOWNHOUSE. AND I'M LOOKING UP THE DEFINITION IT SAYS CONSISTS OF TWO SEPARATE LIVING UNITS THAT SHARE A COMMON WALL THAT ARE LOCATED ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS. THIS IS NOT TWO SEPARATE LOTS, IS IT? TURN YOUR MIC ON. YEAH I'M SORRY. YEAH. SO IT'S GOING TO BE TWO SEPARATE LOTS. SO IT'S FEE SIMPLE. SO IT'S REALLY TOWNHOMES. BUT IN SETS OF TWOS. AND WE DIDN'T CALL IT DUPLEX BECAUSE DUPLEX IS MORE LIKE RENTAL. YEAH. YEAH. SO WE JUST CALL IT TWIN HOMES TO KIND OF MATCH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PUT OUT THERE. SO IT'S REALLY JUST TOWNHOMES AND SETS OF TWOS. THAT'S THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT IS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. SO I HAVE A QUESTION. CAN YOU GO BACK TO I BELIEVE IT'S LIKE FOUR SLIDES BACK FOR SLIDE. WHAT. FOUR. NO. WHAT NUMBER IS THAT. GO BACK. SOME MORE. FOR YOU HAVE THE COMPARISON OF THE WHAT YOU HAD BEFORE AND WHAT YOU HAVE NOW THAT ONE GO BACK.
YES YES YES. NO NO NO. GO BACK. ONE MORE, ONE MORE. THIS ONE. NO NO NO NO. THAT ONE. OKAY. NO.
GO BACK. ONE MORE. YOU WENT TOO FAST THERE. LISTEN. OKAY. NO, THERE'S ONE THAT HAS TWO HOMES THAT GO BACK. YOU PASS IT AGAIN. THAT ONE, THAT ONE. OKAY. THE CURRENT DESIGN AND THE PRIOR DESIGN. SO YOU'RE LOSING THE SPACE IN THE NEW DESIGN FOR THE HOMEOWNER, RIGHT. THEY'RE LOSING SPACE. SO YOU'RE ADDING MORE UNITS AND SHRINKING THE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND USE THE PROPERTY. SHRINKING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. YES. YOU'RE GOING FROM 24 TO 22. SO IN TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IT'S. SO OUR CURRENT DESIGN WILL HAVE MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE WHEN YOU'RE AGGREGATED.
BUT IN INDIVIDUAL UNITS THE OLD DESIGN WAS MUCH LARGER. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, WE'RE JUST SLIGHTLY ABOVE THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM THE PRIOR DESIGN. BUT WE ARE FIT IN MORE UNITS IN THAT 2400FT■!S. SO THE POINT WEE TRYING TO MAKE OVER HERE IS LIKE THE IMPERVIOUS LOT.
COVERAGE IS SLIGHTLY IT'S IT'S IT'S IT'S CLOSE ENOUGH. SO WE'RE NOT MAKING MAJOR CHANGES AS FAR AS TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND THE TOTAL PROJECT VALUE IS THE SAME. CLOSE ENOUGH. BUT THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS WE HAVE MORE UNITS AND AT AFFORDABLE PRICES. IT'S IT'S THE POINT WE'RE TRYING TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. SO WERE YOU CONCERNED MOSTLY ABOUT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF UNITS OR REDUCING THE COST OF THE UNITS? SO IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE COST TO MAKE IT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE, WE HAD TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO MAKE IT, BECAUSE WE CAN'T IN OUR CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS. IT'S MORE AFFORDABLE TO GO WITH A LOWER COST BUILDINGS THAN THE HIGHER COST BUILDINGS. SO TO ACHIEVE THAT, WE NEEDED MORE MORE UNITS. AND THE TOTAL PROJECT VALUE IS STILL IS STILL CLOSE ENOUGH. BUT AS FAR AS AFFORDABILITY, WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING IS MORE AFFORDABLE THAN THE PRIOR DESIGN. SO DOES EACH UNIT HAVE A GARAGE? IS IT A TWO CAR GARAGE OR GARAGE PER UNIT? YES. PER UNIT? YES. OKAY.
YES. FOR NOW THAT'S THAT ENDS MY QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONERS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION. SURE. MR. I HAVE A QUESTION WITH THE DENSITY. OKAY. WITHIN THE HALF ACRE, YOU'RE GOING TO YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE THE FOOTAGE BY FIVE UNITS. WHAT ABOUT THE THE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE CROWDING, OVERCROWDING AND AND EVENTUALLY THE SERVICEABILITY
[00:30:06]
OF THE. OF THE UNITS. WELL, SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE OVERCROWDED. SO WITH THE DESIGN WHAT WHAT I CAN SHOW YOU WE WE WE MEET THE AS WE, WE WE COMPLY WITH THE CLEVELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. RIGHT. WE'RE AT A 900 FOOTPRINT PER UNIT ON THERE. AVERAGE LOT SIZE OVER THERE IS 1875 WHEN YOU AVERAGE THEM ALL OUT. SO WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING THAT IT HASN'T BEEN APPROVED. YOU KNOW WE HAVEN'T. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS SOMETHING WE'VE SEEN BEFORE IN THAT AREA. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT A ON AVERAGE 1870 FIVE SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE PER UNIT. AND THAT COMPLIES WITH THE CLEVELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND THE ACTUAL UNITS WILL BE SMALLER. YES. YES. YEAH. IT WILL BE SMALLER THAN THE PREVIOUS. THE PREVIOUS WAS WHAT, OVER 3000FT■!S BEDROOM. YEAH. Y. BEING SMALLER OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. SO WHAT AMENITIES DO YOU OFFER FOR I MEAN, THERE'S GOING TO BE GARBAGE. THERE'S GOING TO BE GARBAGE. SORRY. PICKUP AS FAR AS, LIKE LIKE A PUBLIC AREA. LIKE A WE HAVE PLANS. WE'RE STILL REFINING WHAT THOSE PLANS ARE GOING TO BE AS FAR AS LIKE WHAT WE CAN PROVIDE LIKE A, LIKE A COMMUNITY, MAYBE LIKE A SMALL AREA WHERE LIKE A PARK OR JUST JUST A WE'RE TRYING TO WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO WE'RE STILL REFINING THAT PROCESS, WHAT KIND OF AMENITIES WE'LL HAVE ON THERE. SO YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY SPACE LEFT OVER. ONCE YOU BUILD THESE ONE MORE TIME, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SPACE REALLY FOR AMENITIES. NOT NOT. NO. SO SO THE MAIN THING WE'RE THINKING AND MAYBE LIKE A WE'RE STILL REFINING IT, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL BE POSSIBLE, BUT LIKE A COMMON AREA, LIKE A LOBBY ROOM OR MAYBE A GYM OR SOMETHING.WE'RE STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT IS GOING TO BE. IT HASN'T BEEN DECIDED YET, BUT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. THAT CONCLUDES MY QUESTIONS. AND I DON'T SEE ANY LIGHTS ON FOR ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS. SO WHAT DO I HEAR FROM STAFF. CAN WE ALREADY ATTORNEY WIGGINS IN FAVOR. HAVE WE ALREADY DONE ANYONE IN FAVOR? ANYONE OPPOSED? YES. YOU CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY. SECOND, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD. I OPPOSE THIS HEARING. NONE. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. THANK YOU. AND YOU MAY BE SEATED. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR SMITH. WHAT DO I HEAR FROM STAFF? WE'RE GETTING OUR PRESENTATION PULLED UP. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. IN REFERENCE TO THIS PROJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1457 GUS THORNHILL DRIVE, PROPERTY KNOWN AS P2 025 ZM DASH 001-10. THIS CASE TYPE IS A MODIFICATION TO A CONDITION OF ZONING THAT WAS PLACED ON THIS APPLICATION WHEN IT WAS REZONED BACK IN 2023. THE CONDITION WAS KNOWN AS CONDITION NUMBER FOUR IN THE ORDINANCE, AND THE CONDITION WAS TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON SITE TO SEVEN. THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR AN INCREASE OF FIVE ADDITIONAL UNITS. AS YOU SEE, HERE IS THE CURRENT ZONING MAP. THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED TO RT, WHICH IS OUR RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME ZONING DISTRICT. THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY A LITTLE OVER A HALF AN ACRE, AND IT'S LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF IRENE KID AND GUS THORNHILL. AS YOU SEE ON THE ZONING MAP, THE RECTANGULAR SHAPE PROPERTY HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE. THIS IS A MAP OF OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP, SHOWING THAT THE PROPERTY HAS A DESIGNATION OF REDEVELOPMENT. NEIGHBORHOOD. IN REDEVELOPMENT
[00:35:03]
NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE IS A MAXIMUM OF 4.8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. AND THE CITY'S GOALS FOR REDEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD IS TO MAINTAIN A HISTORIC NATURE, ALONG WITH PROVIDING REINFORCEMENT FOR STABILITY OF THESE TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOODS, AND IT'S ALSO ENCOURAGING HOME OWNERSHIP AND PROMOTING DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES. THE TYPICAL HOUSING TYPE IN REDEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD INCLUDES ZONINGS OF SINGLE FAMILY RL. OUR URBAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS R1. A RT IS A TYPICAL ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS WHAT THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R2 AND R3 ARE ALSO TYPICAL ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE REDEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE CLEVELAND AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF LOTS THAT THE CLEVELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW, WHICH IS 12. THE APPLICANT ALSO INTENDS TO ALTER THE PREVIOUS PROPOSED UNITS BY REDUCING THE SIZE TO ALLOW FOR THE ADDITIONAL LOTS.AS HE STATED IN HIS PRESENTATION. WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN NOW IS THE ORDINANCE 200 DASH 023. THIS IS THE ORDINANCE THAT APPROVED THE REZONING BACK IN 2023 FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE REZONED FROM I-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO RT. AND IF YOU SEE IN SECTION ONE OF THE CONDITIONS, YOU'LL SEE THE FIVE CONDITIONS THAT WERE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY. ALL OF THOSE CONDITIONS WILL STAY INTACT. IF THIS IS APPROVED, CONDITION NUMBER FOUR WOULD CHANGE TO STATE NO MORE THAN 12 UNITS. 12 BUILDABLE UNITS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ZONING CONDITION. MODIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE 200 023 TO INCREASE DENSITY FROM SEVEN TOWNHOME UNITS TO 12 TOWNHOME UNITS WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION. DID I SAY WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL? OKAY.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, AND WITH THE CONDITION, APPLICANT SHALL MEET ALL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE CLEVELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT AND DEVELOP NO MORE THAN 12 BUILDABLE LOTS.
THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. AND IT CONCLUDES OUR REPORT. THANK YOU. ATTORNEY WIGGINS, IS IT OKAY IF I ASK DIRECTOR SMITH A QUESTION WITH WHAT YOU JUST PRESENTED? DIRECTOR SMITH DOES THIS PROJECT SATISFY THE HISTORIC PORTION OF WHAT THE OVERLAY STATES? I THINK THAT WAS PROBABLY IN YOUR SLIDES. TWO BACK. IF YOU GO BACK TWO SLIDES, YOU'LL SEE THE HISTORIC STATEMENT THERE. AND I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THIS PROJECT COMPLIES CONFORMS TO THAT. THE APPLICATION CONFORMS TO THE REQUEST FOR THE ZONING MODIFICATION, WHICH IS WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR. THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, THE CLEVELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT, THOSE CRITERIA POINTS WILL BE SATISFIED AT THE PLAN REVIEW STAGE. OKAY. THANK YOU. WHAT DO I HEAR FROM STAFF? I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER. MADAM CHAIR, I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE. SO I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION BEFORE WE GO INTO THAT TOO, IS THAT MY MOTION IS TO DENY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO TO DISCUSSION ON THIS DISCUSSION. WAIT A MINUTE.
SO YOU HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, WHICH BEGINS THE SECOND. THAT'S RIGHT. TO DENY THE APPLICATION. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. SO THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT FROM STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION JUST FINE OKAY. LET'S SEE IF THAT GETS A SECOND. IF IT DOES AND DISCUSSION IF IT DOESN'T WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION SECOND OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO DENY.
AND DO WE HAVE A SECOND SECOND. AND WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR LET IT BE KNOWN BY A SHOW OF HANDS OR SAYING I BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BE RECORDED WITH JUST A SHOW OF HANDS. SO.
I. SURE. I MOVE THAT WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION WHERE WE HAVE THE MOTION THAT HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE MOTION IN A SECOND ON THE MOTION TO DENY, TO DENY VOTED IN FAVOR OF THAT. AND WHAT I'LL DO IS ASK FOR. OH,
[00:40:06]
YES, THANK YOU. VERBAL YES OR NO ON THE MOTION TO DENY IS ON THE MOTION TO DENY. I SAID YES.AND WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER MARK FIELDS. CAN I, CAN I, CAN I CALL IT PLEASE.
YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. PLEASE DO. COMMISSIONER MARK FIELDS CAN I, I JUST WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION BECAUSE WE ARE. NO, SIR. THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR DISCUSSION. THIS IS VOTING ON COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN'S MOTION TO DENY THE MODIFICATION TO THE ZONING BOARD.
COMMISSIONER MARK FIELDS. YES. YES TO DENY. YES TO DENY. COMMISSIONER MILLER. NO, COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER MELANIE STILES. YES. COMMISSIONER. WATSON. NO.
COMMISSIONER JOEL PRESLEY. YES. COMMISSIONER. ELEANOR ANDERSON. NO. COMMISSIONER. KEISHA CHAPMAN. YES. COMMISSIONER. JOSEPH FIELDS. YES. YES. EIGHT. WE SHOULD HAVE HAD A DISCUSSION BEFORE COMMISSIONER TOOK THE VOTE. SO THE MOTION TO DENY PASSES 5 TO 3. THE MOTION TO DENY HAS PASSED. SO THE APPLICANT IS THE REQUEST HAS BEEN DENIED TO MAYOR COUNCIL.
YES. AND IT WILL GO TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL. MADAM CHAIR. YES, SIR. I'M A LITTLE. A POINT OF DISCUSSION. THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR ATTORNEY WIGGINS. IT DIDN'T OCCUR. I WOULD HAVE LIKED FOR. I THINK IT SHOULD HAVE. AND IT IS A POINT OF DISCUSSION. OH I AFTER SHE CALLS THE MOTION AND THE SECOND SHE DIDN'T GET DISCUSSION BEFORE THE VOTE. CORRECT.
THAT'S CORRECT. THEN YOU CAN GO BACK AND REDO IT SO YOU CAN GO BACK THROUGH THE ENTIRE MOTION.
WELL, YOU ALREADY HAVE THE MOTION. YOU HAVE A SECOND. BUT YES, YOU SHOULD GET DISCUSSION PLEASE. CORRECT. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE MOTION. YES. SO BEFORE WE VOTE WE WILL HAVE A DISCUSSION. SO THERE COMMISSIONERS THAT WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION I THINK YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM. YES. YES. PLEASE GO AHEAD. I WANT TO DISCUSS THE FACT THAT IT WAS A ORIGINAL I'M SORRY. IT WAS ORIGINALLY REZONED FOR FOR SEVEN UNITS. AND I THINK THAT BECAUSE OF THE, THE SIZE OF THE LOT, A HALF AN ACRE TO PUT TO INCREASE IT TO 12 UNITS, I THINK THAT'S EXCESSIVE. SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY INCREASE. A DWELLING ON THAT SPACE FOR THAT MANY UNITS FOR DIFFERENT, FOR THAT MANY DIFFERENT FAMILIES. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I WOULD LIKE TO DENY THIS MOTION AND REVERT IT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SEVEN UNITS THAT WAS ORIGINALLY AUTHORIZED IN THE COUNCIL'S REZONING IN THE PAST, IN 2023. SO I THINK WE SHOULD JUST LEAVE IT THERE. IF HE'S GOING TO DO IT AT ALL, IT SHOULD BE BE DONE WITH THE SEVEN UNITS AND NOT THE 12 UNITS. I BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE THE SPACE IS BIG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE DWELLINGS AND FAMILIES IN THAT SMALL SPACE. SO THAT'S MY OBJECTION TO IT. COMMISSIONER FIELDS, DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS? YES. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YES, SIR. OKAY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE GOING. IF YOU LOOK AT THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS POINT TWO ACRES OR EVEN LESS THAN THAT OVER ACROSS EAST POINT. AND SO IF YOU LOOK DIRECTLY DOWN THE STREET. JUST NORTH OF THE SITE, AND YOU SEE TOWNHOMES THAT ARE IN SMALLER LOTS, IT'S MATCHES THE CONTEXT
[00:45:06]
OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT INCREASES THE DENSITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH WE ALL NEED FOR THE BUSINESSES THAT WE WANT TO SERVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT DON'T ALLOW FOR BIGGER HOUSES. IT IS. IT'S THE MISSING MIDDLE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN THE CITY, FOR EVERYBODY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY. SO THAT'S MY COMMENTS. IT'S IT'S A PERFECT PROJECT FOR THE LOCATION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER WATSON. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS. SO YES. SO I JUST COMMISSIONER CHAPMAN. YES. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS. MY DENIAL WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE SHOULD BE SEVEN OR NO MORE THAN SEVEN, BUT THE PROPOSAL IS TO 12, RIGHT. SO DO WE. IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS THAT IT'S NO MORE THAN A CERTAIN AMOUNT ON THAT LAND? I MEAN, ADMITTEDLY, I MAY HAVE JUMPED THE GUN MAYBE A LITTLE BIT, BUT I JUST I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER SMITH. YES, THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE APPLICATION IS TO PUT A MAXIMUM CAP. THEY WERE MOVING THAT MAX FROM 7 TO 12. RIGHT. AND SO I GUESS SO MY POSITION STILL STANDS. YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU SIR. GO AHEAD MADAM CHAIR. WOMAN. MY THOUGHTS IS BEFORE WE DO THIS, WILL IT SET A NEW PRECEDENCE FROM THE PREVIOUS THAT GOING FORWARD, LOTS OF THIS SIZE, EVEN IF IT DOESN'T FIT THE NEW MINIMUM WILL THEN THEREBY BE 12 INSTEAD OF EIGHT. I THINK I SAW ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE FROM STAFF IT WAS THE MAX WAS EIGHT 4 TO 8 FOR A FULL ACRE, AN ACRE FOR AN ACRE. SO WE SETTING NEW PRECEDENT THAT WHETHER EITHER OF US ARE ON THIS PANEL. SO IS THAT A QUESTION FOR STAFF THAT YOU HAVE? OKAY. SO, DIRECTOR SMITH, I THINK THIS IS A QUESTION THAT PERHAPS YOU OR YOUR STAFF CAN ANSWER. AND THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO THE LOT SIZE AND WHAT THE PRESIDENTS WERE SETTING. COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER PRESLEY, I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT'S SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR THE MOST PART. YOU ARE CORRECT FOR THIS PARTICULAR ZONING, FUTURE LAND USE. IT ALLOWS A DENSITY OF 4 TO 8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE PER ACRE. SO IF THIS WAS AN ACRE, THE MAX WOULD BE EIGHT UNITS THAT COULD ACTUALLY FIT ON THIS LOT. THIS PROPERTY SITS WITHIN THE CLEVELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND WHEN YOU APPLY THOSE REQUIREMENTS, THOSE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, IT ALLOWS A DENSITY. IT ALLOWS A BUILDING FOOTPRINT OR A LOT SIZE, WHICH IS MUCH LESS THAN THE ZONING DISTRICT. AND I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO TECHNICAL BECAUSE I CAN THE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE CLEVELAND AVENUE OVERLAY IS 8875FT■!S. THAT'S THE LOT SIZE. SO THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE TAKING THIS HALF ACRE SITE AND TRYING TO APPLY THE CLEVELAND AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT LOT SIZE. AND THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE COMING UP WITH THE 12 UNITS FOR THE MOST PART. SO THEY ARE IN COMPLIANT WITH THE CLEVELAND AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT. HOWEVER, IT DOES EXCEED THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF OUR. WHAT I'VE ACTUALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FUTURE LAND USE, TECHNICALLY THAT'S NO MORE THAN FOUR UNITS ON THAT HALF ACRE SITE. SO THEY ARE IN COMPLIANT ON ONE END AND.AND NOT COMPLIANT AS IT RELATES TO THE ACTUAL FUTURE LAND USE MAP. DOES THAT COMPLETE? DOES THAT COMPLETE YOUR I MEAN, ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE ANSWER OR DO YOU WANT TO? YES. HE CLARIFIED THAT ELOQUENTLY, VERY CLEARLY. OKAY. NOW THAT HE TO TO STAY WITHIN THIS
[00:50:01]
NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE OVERLAY. THE OVERLAY DISTRICT. CLEVELAND SEND MY NO VOTE IF WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE VOTE AGAIN. YES, MA'AM. ATTORNEY WILLIAMS OKAY, DID I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? YES. COMMISSIONER FIELDS AND I AND THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE IN WHEN I'M READING HERE THE 1870 FIVE SQUARE FEET LOT, SQUARE FEET PER LOT AND THEN IT SAYS IN THAT OVERLAY DISTRICT IS 8 TO 11 IN WHAT I'M READING HERE. AND SO THEN IT'S EVEN UNLESS THIS IS INCORRECT, IT'S ABOVE WHAT I'M SEEING. BY ONE. ON LOTS EIGHT FOUR. THAT'S NOT THE THAT'S NOT THE THAT'S NOT THE NUMBER. GOTCHA. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO FOR THE REST OF US WHAT WAS THE CLARITY THERE. SO AND GIVE US THE PAGE OF WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT SO WE CAN ALL LOOK ON PAGE FOUR OF SEVEN. I WAS READING THAT AND I WAS SEEING THE OVERLAY AND THE SQUARE FOOT.BUT THEN IT SAYS DISTRICTS OF LOTS EIGHT THROUGH 11. AND SO I WASN'T I WAS MISREADING, I WAS THINKING IT WAS THE NUMBER OF LOTS. SO THIS IS JUST FOR LOTS EIGHT, NINE, TEN AND 11. THANK YOU. SO DOES THAT COMPLETE YOUR QUESTIONS OKAY. SO WE HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION HERE, COMMISSIONER ANDERSON. YEAH I'M MY QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED TO ADDRESS IT TO KIMBERLY OR TO BRITTANY OR SOMEBODY ELSE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A BIG DISCREPANCY BETWEEN NUMBER OF UNITS PERMITTED FOR ACREAGE VERSUS LOT SIZE. HE CAN GET THE 1870 FIVE SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE, 12 OF THEM. OUT OF THIS PARTICULAR ACREAGE, BUT THEY'RE CONFINED TO SEVEN EIGHT UNITS.
WELL, ACCORDING TO, YOU KNOW, THE ACREAGE. SO I'M WONDERING IF THERE IS WHEN WE DO THE. YOU KNOW, DO THE DO THE PLAN UPDATE, CAN WE LOOK AT THIS AND REALLY DIG INTO IT SO WE CAN GET RID OF THESE DISCREPANCIES? BECAUSE IT SEEMS UNFAIR TO APPLICANTS TO COME FORWARD WITH SOMETHING THAT MATCHES A, BUT THEN B DOESN'T MATCH. THAT'S ALL. YES, WE WILL BE LOOKING AT THAT AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE REWRITE. COMMISSIONERS. WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS AND I SEE ANOTHER LIGHT ON. I'M SORRY, JUST ONE MORE POINT OF VIEW, MADAM CHAIR. BEFORE WE OUTRIGHT DENY AND OR APPROVE, WE DO STILL CAN PUT PARAMETERS AND CONDITIONS. YOU CAN PUT CONDITIONS ON IT. YES.
INSTEAD OF JUST AN OUTRIGHT JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. SO WITH THE MOTION THAT IS PENDING, WE CONDITION IT AT THAT POINT. OKAY. SO COMMISSIONERS, DO I HAVE. A MOTION. AND ATTORNEY WIGGINS, DO WE NEED TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE PREVIOUS MOTION BEFORE WE PUT ANOTHER ONE ON THE FLOOR? MOTION.
AND SO. WITH SOME CONDITIONS. WHICH THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, ADHERED TO ANYWAY. SO UNLESS YOU WANT THE CONDITIONS. SO DIRECTOR SMITH, CAN YOU LOOK PULL UP THAT LAST PAGE WHERE YOU HAD IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE JUST CONDITIONS THAT WOULD ORDINARILY BE THERE SO THAT THE PERSON OR THE COMMISSIONER THAT IS MAKING THE MOTION CAN ACTUALLY SEE WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE. PULL UP THE CONDITIONS. DIDN'T YOU HAVE YOU DIDN'T HAVE
[00:55:03]
A PAGE THAT HAD A 1 OR 2 CONDITIONS. YEAH. THERE'S ONE CONDITION RIGHT THERE. YEAH.OKAY. SO WHOEVER MAKES THE MOTION, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT THE CONDITIONS BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR MOTION, WE CAN DO THAT. SO DO I HAVE A NEW MOTION? WE'RE RESCINDING THIS ONE. MOTION TO SAID DO WE NEED A. YEAH. WE DON'T NEED TO RESCIND. WE JUST NEED A NEW MOTION. IF IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A NEW MOTION, A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. MOTION TO APPROVE, TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONS. NOT ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS. SECOND CONDITIONS ON THE CONDITIONS FROM THE STAFF, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY CONDITIONS ON THE PROPERTY, AS AM I CORRECT. RIGHT. THAT'S. SO THE CONDITIONS HAVE ON THE SCREEN WERE CONDITIONS OF WHEN IT WAS RESOLVED WITH THE SEVENTH. SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WE WANT TO CONTINUE THOSE SAME CONDITIONS. IF YOU'RE APPROVING IT UP TO THE 12TH. YES. MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CURRENT CONDITIONS MINUS THE SEVEN UNIT LOT SIZE, BUILDABLE LOTS. SO IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, YOU WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO INCLUDE THE CONDITIONS FROM WHEN IT WAS SEVEN APPROVED AT SEVEN, SO THAT WOULD ENCOMPASS THE 12 AND IT WOULD ENCOMPASS WHAT WAS ON THE CONDITIONS WHEN IT WAS APPROVED FOR SEVEN. OKAY.
MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE CONDITIONS FROM THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL, IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY. SECOND, THAT WE ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. LET IT BE. PLUS THE CONDITIONS FROM THE PREVIOUS ZONING WITH THE SEVEN UNITS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. WHAT DO I HEAR FROM STAFF? FROM COMMISSIONERS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I, I OPPOSES HEARING NONE. CASE NUMBER P2025Z-001. DASH ONE. DASH ONE ZERO HAS BEEN APPROVED. THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE ANY MORE CASES. CASE. THE LAST CASE THAT WE HAVE,
[VIII.4. P2025RZ-002-10]
DIRECTOR SMITH. YES. IN REFERENCE TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR UNDER NEW BUSINESS CASE NUMBER P2025002-10. THE APPLICANT IS CITY OF EASTPOINTE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2418 MILL STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REZONING FROM AN UNKNOWN ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT. CASE TYPE IS A REZONE, A CITY INITIATED REZONING. COMMISSIONERS, CAN I GET A MOTION, PLEASE, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, MADAM CHAIR? YES, SIR. MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, IT HAS BEEN MOVED IMPROPERLY. SECOND, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN ON CASE NUMBER P2025 OR Z-002. DASH ONE ZERO. IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A DEFERRAL ON THIS ITEM. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYONE. DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH. DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE IN FAVOR OF OF THIS APPLICATION? ANYONE IN FAVOR OF.DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT IS NOT POSITIONED TO THE ZONING, THE REZONING ON THIS CASE HEARING NONE. SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONERS. WHAT DO I HEAR, MADAM CHAIR? YES, SIR. MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY. SECOND, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD. I OPPOSES HEARING. NONE. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. STAFF, WHAT IS YOUR REQUEST OR YOUR RECOMMENDATION? STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DEFERRAL OF THIS ITEM. THANK YOU. DO WE NEED A MOTION TO ACCEPT? CHAIR? YES,
[01:00:04]
SIR. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR DEFERRAL ON THIS PROJECT.SECOND, IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY. SECOND, THAT WE ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER P2025 OR Z-002-10. ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD. I OPPOSE THIS HEARING.
NONE. THIS CASE IS DEFERRED. THANK YOU. STAFF, DO YOU HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? WE DO NOT.
[I. Announcements]
COMMISSIONERS. DO WE HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? YEAH. LIKE A LITTLE CLARIFICATION ON THE THE PARTY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE HAVING ON THE 10TH STAFF. DO YOU HAVE ANY UPDATES ON THE DECEMBER EVENT? OKAY. LET'S GO TO THE MILANESE PLAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SPECIFIC QUESTION? IS THERE A SPECIFIC QUESTION, COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER, IS THERE A SPECIFIC QUESTION? YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IT OR WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE IT. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE IT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IT. YES, SIR. OKAY. THAT'S THAT'S MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.COMMISSIONERS OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, MADAM CHAIR? YES, SIR. MOTION TO ADJOURN. SECOND, IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND PROPERLY SECOND, THAT WE WILL ADJOURN TO THIS EVENING'S MEETINGS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY THE WORD I. I OPPOSE THIS HEARING. NONE. THE MEETING IS NOW
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.