October6,2006Cpcsummary
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DRAFT MINUTES CLEVELAND CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING – OCTOBER 6, 2006 ROOM 514 - CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER: 9:06 A.M. ROLL CALL: BOWEN_P_CIMPERMAN_P_COYNE_L_KURI_A_LUMPKIN P PINKNEY_P_SMALL_P_ ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS 1. Ordinance No. 1549-06 (Coats/Ward 10): Changing the Use Districts of parcels bounded by Deise Avenue, Maxwell Avenue, Aspinwall Avenue, E. 140th Street and including portions of Cobalt Avenue and Saranac Road as shown on the attached map from Semi-Industry and General Industry to Residence Industry. Tabled on September 15, 2006. ACTION: Motion to Remove Ordinance No. 1549-06 from the Table. BOWEN Y CIMPERMAN_1_COYNE_A_ KURI_A_LUMPKIN Y_PINKNEY_Y_SMALL_Y_ APPROVED X APPROVED SUBJECT TO STATED AMENDMENT ___ DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED UNLESS AMENDED TABLED ___ Note: Commissioner Bowen acted as chair in the brief time between meeting start and Mr. Coyne’s arrival. STAFF REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION: This ordinance is needed in order to upgrade the zoning to protect the adjacent residential neighborhood. WITNESSES: Elizabeth Kukla, City Planning Commission Robert Brown, City Planning Commission City Planning Commission Regular Meeting – October 6, 2006 DRAFT TESTIMONY: Mrs. Kukla made available to the Planning Commission members a paper titled, “Explanation of Ordinance No. 1549-06.” (Exhibit 1) She said that the legislation was initiated by Councilman Coats to update the zoning at the subject site and to encourage future uses to work better with nearby residential properties. She said that existing uses would be grandfathered, but could not expand without a zoning variance. She said that there is a strong residential area to the south of the subject area. She said that there is landscaping and a mound along Deise Avenue. She showed via PowerPoint site photos and maps depicting the context for the proposed rezoning. She said that she had received neither negative nor positive phone calls regarding the proposal.* Mr. Brown explained what were allowable Residential Industry land uses under the Code. He said that this category will include houses and light industry, with no outdoor storage of industrial materials being allowed. PROPONENTS: Stanley Hall, Resident at 13810 Deise Avenue: I am for the zoning change because of the truck traffic and its inconvenience adversely affecting the quality of life in the area. This is happening both to the north and to the south of where I live. I am having trouble selling my property because of the semi-truck traffic in the area. Cecil McGinnis, Resident at 15716 Deise Avenue: There is currently noise and dust caused by the truck traffic. John Manos, City Rose, 739 East 140th Street: This is going to impact my property over the long run. I want to see these inappropriate heavy industrial land uses phased out. OPPONENTS: Morris Walker III, Business Owner, 14405 Saranac Road: I own a dump truck service. If you rezone the property, it will bring the value of my business down and I will forced to sell my business. I need to stock materials on my property. *Note: Comments attributed to speakers in the “Testimony” portions throughout these minutes are not direct quotes. 2 City Planning Commission Regular Meeting – October 6, 2006 DRAFT Craig S. Miller, Ulmer & Berne Attorneys: I represent Northern Ohio Scrap Service Corporation, a steel wire recycling facility. My client is a family-owned business that has been on the site for six years. They are located on a 2.35-acre portion of the property. Their business is 600’ away from the nearest residences. The land has been used for steel wire recycling for 100 years. It is a highly organized business and a clean operation. If there is an overuse of Residence Industry zoning, there will not be land available for steel suppliers in the City. This rezoning would reflect a jump of two zoning classifications; the problems cited by staff and others could be resolved by rezoning the land to Semi Industry instead. If the land were to be rezoned to Residence Industry there is a provision of the Zoning Code, Section 347.06, that takes effect such that my client would have to cease operations on the site within eighteen months after the rezoning. Mr. Brown: The eighteen-month rule is now being researched by our Law Department. As I understand it, the law applies only to junk and wrecking yards, not outdoor storage of products, as in this case. But I will confirm that with Law Department. Mr. Miller: My client’s business is also a processing operation. I would be delighted if you are correct. Mr. Miller provided a PowerPoint presentation which is embodied in Exhibit 2. Again, he said that his client’s property was 600’ away from the nearest residential zoning district. Mr. Miller: My client will spend $30,000 for a fence to meet Code requirements. Please do not move too hastily in approving this ordinance, particularly if the Law Department has not yet researched this sufficiently. Mr. Brown read from the Zoning Code the pertinent chapter titled, “Regulations for Junk and Wrecking Yards.” He said that the language was clear that it is not talking about new rolled wire. He said that the key question was whether salvaged metal was being stored at the site. Mr. Miller: They take scrap metal and make and process steel wire. Mr. Coats: I am in support of the zoning change. The current zoning is not working; we are concerned about how to make the area more attractive so that businesses will invest in the community. We have been able to draw $35 million in investment there, but that is not good enough. The area had a history of 3 City Planning Commission Regular Meeting – October 6, 2006 DRAFT Industrial and residential uses co-existing. We want to make the area attractive to investors. We must have the resources to change that area for the better. Mr. Miller: My client furnishes eight jobs on site plus there are the truck drivers, who are independent contractors. Chairman Coyne (to Mr. Miller): Why is there no direct access to East 140th Street? Mr. Miller: For a brief time traffic went through the Manos property. There is no wheel washer on site, I believe. John Manos, City Rose Ltd.: The owner of the subject property is difficult to work with. Mr. Brown: I received from the Board of Zoning Appeals office a copy of the Building Department’s adjudication order against Northern Ohio Scrap. One of the citations against them was “Open yard storage of wire or other used material must be enclosed within a seven foot high fence or wall.” However, if what the company is storing is not used material, but rather a product, then the premises would not be considered a scrap yard. Chairman Coyne: Would Semi-Industry Use District be all right with the Councilman rather than Residence Industry? Mr. Coats said that he would be amenable to the Semi Industry classification under certain conditions. Commissioner Cimperman (to Mr. Miller): I suggest a compromise would be appropriate. Mr. Brown read from Code, citing the provision that in a Residential Industry zoning district trucking activity after dark, or on Sundays, or holidays is prohibited. Chairman Coyne said that he did not find the Residence Industry District to be appropriate in this case. He said that he did not like using a rezoning to address a traffic problem. Mr. Brown: Semi Industry zoning can make the problem from getting worse. It would not limit the hours of trucking, however. This would be the CPC’s 4 City Planning Commission Regular Meeting – October 6, 2006 DRAFT recommendation to the Building Department. The Building Department has the last word on interpreting the Code to determine if the subject tenant is a scrap yard operation or not. Commissioner Cimperman: I am not sure that that deal has been offered by the current Administration; I don’t know whether it has been approached. Mr. Coats: We are in conversation with Bratenahl, but discussions have not yet been completed. Chairman Coyne: Please note for the record that the business owner was not present for this meeting. ACTION: Motion to Approve Ordinance No. 1549-06 with the finding that Section 347.06 of the City Codified Ordinances does not apply to the particular (current) business activity at 13600 Deise Avenue. BOWEN 1 CIMPERMAN_Y_COYNE_Y_ KURI_A_LUMPKIN 2_PINKNEY_Y_SMALL_Y_ APPROVED X APPROVED SUBJECT TO STATED AMENDMENT ___ DISAPPROVED DISAPPROVED UNLESS AMENDED TABLED ___ 5 City Planning Commission Regular Meeting – October 6, 2006 DRAFT 2. Ordinance No. 1759-06 (Zone/Ward 17): To change the Use District of a parcel of land on the south side of Franklin Avenue from General Industry District to Multi-Family Residential District. STAFF REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION: This ordinance is needed to allow for future residential development. General Industry does not allow for residential uses. Note: Commissioner Bowen recused himself on this matter and left the Table. WITNESSES: Elizabeth Kukla, City Planning Commission Robert Brown, City Planning Commission TESTIMONY: Mrs. Kukla distributed to the Planning Commission copies of a paper titled, “Explanation of Ordinance No. 1759-06.” (Exhibit 3) She provided a PowerPoint presentation to show context and particulars for the proposed rezoning. Mrs. Kukla: The address of the property is 8001 Franklin Avenue near the Painters’ Loft development. Mr. Brown: The parcel next to the one in question was rezoned several years ago to accommodate the conversion of an industrial building to housing. So, this is really a phase two of a rezoning. It was an industrial area once, and now it will all be housing. PROPONENTS: Rob Namy, Rysar Properties: This measure will enable the development of 15 housing units, in two- and three-story buildings. We will return with the project for design review.