Bza Meeting - Regular Meeting

Only item on our agenda for the public hearing is conditional zoning certificate uh to build an oversized garage in R1 residential district at 8059 South Bedford Road. Is there anyone here from the public that wishes to speak for or against um this item? This is not the applicant. Yes. Okay. So, this is an opportunity for anyone to speak and see already uh a little behind. I'm guessing that no one's come. So, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. I'll second. All in favor?

I All right. Being that you're here now, um I believe we can move right into the regular uh planning commission meeting for this evening. Uh can we get a roll call? Sure. Mr. Westbrooks here. Mr. Roberts here. Mr. Cox here. Miss Musky here. Mr. Wenhor is absent. Uh first is approval of the September 15th public hearing minutes. Uh anyone have any comments on those? I believe we are all Mr. Walhurst is not here, but that's okay. I'd approve them as as submitted. I'll second. Motion to approve them as submitted. All right. Got a motion, a second. All in favor?

I. All right. And then we have the minutes for the regular planning commission meeting from the same. Comments. Same motion. I'd make to approve as submitted. All right. I'll second it. All right. All in favor? I

I All right. All right. Our first item is the uh additional zoning or conditional use approval for the oversized garage 59 South Bedford Road. Mr. Ross, yes. You'd like to come up and have a seat up here at the table. Um we had your plans. Uh and we also have reviews from both, I think, the city planner and the city engineer. U France, would you like to go over?

Sure. My uh report dated October 4th um involving the request to construct a 24x30 720 ft detached garage and property located at 8059 South Bedford. Property being about 1.5 acres and zoned R1 residents. pretty common requests we see particularly in the R1 district that have these um larger oversized detached uh accessory buildings, garage in this case. The code basically says that detached garages are limited to 600 square ft except if you have certain circumstances um unique lot size, larger lot size, you can have a larger accessory building. And so, um, in this instance, the 1.5 acres perfectly fine. And I'll just walk you through 116302H, um, as it relates to accessory buildings as well as then 116302i, which are the provisions for large lots. For the accessory building, um, it's required to comply be located in the rear uh, rear yard and uh, comply with the sideyard and rear yard setbacks. They're identified in the code. Um and so in this instance, the applicant has provided a handdrawn site plan. No scale provided, but that does document um that the sideyard setback to stop property line is 17 ft is what's being proposed. Um that does comply with the 5T required by the code. So should be no issue there. Um the only thing is it'd be a recommendation to have a um site plan is drawn to scale. Um again because it's the proposal is to have 720 square ft and uh I see that site plan look very attractive. That that probably is going to be good. So you could submit that. The chair can

take that. Um 600 is the limitation otherwise the conditional zoning certificates required. That's why we have the public hearing tonight. Um I really don't see any reason why this can't be granted just subject to a couple minor things. the site plan being one. Um and then uh the u maximum ground coverage we have limitation um ground coverage of all accessory buildings and structures combined can't exceed 35% of the rear yard and then pl commission can permit greater but there's and I'm not sure it's on here um sir did you calculate out your ground your percentage of ground floor

so Um, I would just suggest it just be um a stipulation to your approval tonight. It's pretty easy. If you go on the Summit County GIS and these guys can help you. It'll detail out your lot size. It'll detail out the the size of your um your existing building, your existing house, and then the size of your accessory structure. And then just calculate out the percentage. There's going to be no issue. It's just more of a just an exercise to put on your site plan. I do have one of the original site properties down south. Yeah.

That shows the lengths and width. So So if you take that, you convert that into square feet and then you take your um your buildings in square footage, you'll be able to get the percentage of block coverage. There's I'm confident you're not exceeding 35%. So it just be something to just note on this plan.

Okay. Um and then uh there's a comment about the the building department as it relates to it being fastened appropriately. It's really not a planning commission item, but it's in the code. Building department will evaluate that, ensure compliance. Um the uh accessory building can't exceed 15t or the height of the main structure. In this case, it's 10 ft. So complies with the code. And then uh looks like it has a 312 pitch and that's the the minimum required. And so far as um the large site uh it is 1.5 acres uh qualifies and it does meet the setback. So with that said, I just um would recommend approval subject to um you can submit this into the record and somebody can check that for compliance, but I would suggest that that include the uh lock coverage as well. Okay. Do you have a copy of this?

I do not. Okay. All right. So, if you want to just condition it on that being submitted and then you can take that back tonight and then formally submit it to the building department. Um, provided it gets approved tonight, which I would suspect it would conditioned on those couple things. Okay. Uh, Mr. Yeah. So, I uh had a few comments there in my memo. uh the site plan that was submitted uh was cut off. Only about half of the drawing actually came through. Uh so, but I guess let me just ask you a few questions. The oversized garage, will it have gutters and downspouts? If necessary, yes.

Okay. Um if it has gutters and downspouts, it are those connecting to the catch basin and the storm sewer system that's on your property? Yes. Okay. And then that storm sewer, again, my drawing gets cut off. And maybe that drawing answers some of my questions. Does that storm sewer pipe empty into the roadside ditch on South Bedford Road eventually? I don't have a ditch. Oh, okay. Before we bought the property, somebody piped in the pipes in the culvert. Okay. So, I just have two catch basins at each end of the property.

Okay. So, then the storm sewer pipe French drain I put in last year all connect to that. Okay. Chairman, can I see the website, please? Maybe this help answer some of my questions. Um, hi. So, you have you have storm line. Yes. Coming from basically your rear yard heading towards South Bedford. When it gets to South Bedford Road, where does it tie in or what does it empty into? It empties into the school property has a catch basin also. Okay. When they redid the softball fields, all that water comes through and down next to my property.

Okay. And then it's somewhere between my catch basin and their catch basin. Yeah. No, no. What I'm saying though, this storm line that you drew here, it's heading in a a west direction towards South Ed Road. When it gets to here, where does that water empty into? What does this storm line tie into? Pipe, the ditch enclosure pipe. Perfect. That's great. Yeah. So, if if you have gutters, which I would strongly recommend,

uh please tie them into this catch basin, which ties in to this storm line and ties into the ditch enclosure bite. And if you do all that, we're good from an engineering point of view. And Susan, I don't know if you want to take a picture of this thing or maybe note it that this storm line ties into the ditch enclosure pipe. Which storm? And can you describe where it is? Uh, it is on the south along the south property line of Mr. Ross's property. Okay. And the French drain on the north side does the same.

Does the same. Okay. Yeah, you definitely want to tie your uh garage gutters into the the real drain, let's call it, not so much drain. Much easier. All right. Thank you. Yeah. So long as we do all that, we're good. All right. At least from my perspective, Kevin. Yes. You think we ought to approve this administratively since there's more than one thing? I think so. Subject to administrative. There's a couple things that Yeah, I think so. Uh before that, Mr. You got anything?

You guys have any other questions besides what's been brought up? Tony, you want to sure I make a motion? I make a motion that we we approve this uh uh subject to the comments made by uh uh the parties here and uh subject to administrative approval. And when you get those things up there and they look them over, that's what I would make that motion. Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Franc, do this need to be specifically me. Should we specifically mention the Well, I think I heard Mr. Cox specifically mention the engineer and planners memo.

Okay. and that revisions to the plan um based on the engineer and planners memo be provided for administrative review of compliance. I think I did see I I believe so. I I know I heard it. I heard it twice, not once from you. All right. Any other comments? All in favor? I I All right. So, yeah. Good. Yeah. Just add that stuff to that and get that information in and should be good to go. Basically, The coverage. The coverage. Yeah. Lack coverage property. Is it It's just the rear right of the rear. The rear yard of the rear yard or was the the whole um I said the rear

of the rear yard. So from the back of the house back of the house back make sure you're not and you could call up there and they could help you make sure you're putting that on there. Right. Okay. Yeah. You have like 65,000 square feet as your lot. if it's 1.5 acres. So, you should be able to just get some measurements to cap off the rear and determine square footage divided by the out buildings in in the main building and you're way under 35. It's more of an exercise to me. Okay. I will see you probably tomorrow morning. Okay. I'll call and do my math and I'll be there. Thank you, gentlemen.

All right. Thank you. And I don't need to pay you the $5,000. No one said that to be clear. All right. Thanks. Yeah. And I guess this isn't requested. Uh meant to make an announcement and I don't know if Are you the next applicant? I believe so. Yes. Okay. If you receive any emails regarding payment for anything, there was a uh uh email hack issue. Um Yeah, he received one asking for $4,000 or so dollars to be wired to really Yeah, we don't do any wiring.

You would pay the building department for an escrow and a fee which you already paid. There are no more additional fees except for permit. Wow. Somebody got into the system. I got to find that Brian Frans and get his paycheck. A good one. So, next is Escape Nails 746 Easter Road. So this is basically is it the same business changing names or do you know? I believe believe so. Yeah. Same basic kind of business if it's not the same. All right. Well, your plan was pretty self-explanatory. I know Mr. France has comments on that if you'd like.

Yeah. My memo dated October 11th for skate mails. Um this is in the Macedonia Town Square Plaza unit number two. uh for the more seasoned veterans of the group that's um formerly called Pelican Park.

Um so reviewed the application. Uh the proposal is to um erect about a 1.58 by 23.17 ft 36.6 square feet uh sign with um it's situated on one line of copy sign white acrylic letters black side returns and a black trim cap 5 in uh deep raceway it looks like um the letter can be the same and then painted fire brick on the raceway. Um the adopted criteria 2005 was the adoption date. Um that was amended 2014 I believe. Uh unit 2 is permitted at 53 square ft. Um so from an area standpoint no issue just a couple minor outstanding items. Um the second criteria does require dark um metallic gray trim caps and side returns black are being proposed and then the sign has to be 15 ft from 15 in 15t 15 inches from the bottom of the fascia band. Um but I couldn't tell based on the plan if if that was compliant or not. And then uh again the raceway is reported to be six inches and three inches for the letter can. So would recommend a revised plan that complies with these things. So the trim cap as uh proposed at black needs to be out gray side returns and the depth of the raceway letter can need to comply with the signing criteria. The insert is no issue that's being there is an insert being proposed in the existing ground. No issue there. We recommend approval subject two.

All right. Question. You can. How come we can't use black on the side on most of the signs that are black? Most of the signs in there are black. I just stop this finally here. Some of them are white, too. Yeah. And I don't honestly I don't see any that are what you want gray or silver.

Dark metallic. Yeah. So, I would say what happens is when these folks approve them, the signs, something happens after here, um whether they get approval from the building department and they put up something afterwards. Maybe they show the dark metallic, they switch them later, who knows? I can tell you in my time here at the city, we've seen some interesting things. Um, but nevertheless, all the ones that come out of here are approved with dark metallic. This planning commission can't approve anything otherwise because that's the agreed upon sign criteria both by the the city and the plaza owner.

Yeah, there's nothing special, I think, about the gray. I mean, other ones use what the bronze, they're just trying to go for consistency. Clearly there might be an issue of having consistency if they're doing whatever they want. But yeah, coming out of here we have to follow that criteria. They could have set the criteria up with something different. But that's what I think the applicant originally the owner asked for. Yeah. Like fine as long as it's consistent. It's not. But that's why I was wondering why they were black and the owner like I just want what we have. You have black returns but a white face. Yeah.

Any other comments? I assume you guys building together. Good. All right. Do you guys have any comments? No, not really. I did change the front. Yeah, I changed it because I didn't know if you're not. So, I did change it.

Okay. Yeah, if you're okay with Yeah. I can submit this to with that same comments. Uh I make a motion to uh uh approve the plan with uh addressing the comments of Mr. France's memo concerning colors and depth of the raceway to be reviewed administratively. I'll second. Any thoughts? All in favor? I

I so that should that should work. Susan, you add additional copies looking.

Okay. Well, thank you. No, you're good. You're good. Thank you. I've never been able to get down there.

Uh, next is the proposed lot split for the Enclave at 8282 Lake View Drive. Is that is that the address of the uh the address in here? talking about this area. Okay. But that is that's Lake View. Okay. So, this is the south bedroom first thing. Uh looks like no one is here. But in reviewing your comments, looks like they didn't provide what you were looking for anyway, which was still more information on the uh overall cover requirements to make sure they're not screwing that up by splitting off this section. Did you get the common please court case? No. No.

Where it is if anybody wants it. I mean, it's public record. Yeah. I mean, so I would say that uh while I would appreciate taking it and looking at it, it's the applicant's responsibility to have to submit it. Yeah. They should submit it. And you're right. The only thing that changed is there's like a notation on there that said it's going to be conveyed to the contiguous property owner. They cite the permanent parcel number and they state that vacant to remain vacant, which is consistent with what they said at the meeting. It's just, you know, my concern is does it impact any of the standards or requirements that came out of that case?

Yeah. Was there a certain percentage open space that was required? You pull this out and now they've got 7% less open space. And I don't know if the court document will state that or if it just states that you can have this many units and you have to be in compliance with all the other standards. I don't know, but they should provide it, submit it, and they should give us the bullet point. I agree. And is that how you you when you said to remain open, is that how you were requesting? I thought there was more detail on what you wanted to say that the use or how it was supposed to be left, I forget. So, go ahead.

Yeah. I just think um well I I don't quite understand why they're not com if they're splitting it off a plat they're effectively removing it from that existing plat. I don't know why they just don't combine it with the other one. Um that would make me feel more comfortable. Um but they are willing to I mean they're willing to deed restrict it or something but it's pretty hampered by repairarian. So, I don't know that it's buildable, but I would certainly want to be on the record stating whether it's buildable or Yeah. or we don't believe it's buildable. Okay. Yeah.

I think they were planning to have make it buildable, but then as they said at their meeting, it's not buildable and I think they want to do something different with it. I think the court allowed them to put certain things in here subject, the way I read it, subject to uh our the committee and the city going along with it. They have a certain density and all that, but I don't think they're going to build on it. Is that what your thinking is? Yeah. But if but if there is a density standard, that means that the density standards based on an overall area of the the plat. If we're removing out a big chunk of that area and giving it to somebody else,

then that might change what's allowed. I don't know. I don't know how the case is read. And again, I would I would recommend that they provide to us um a copy of it one and their analysis of it. You know, we point out we don't see an issue because blame or there is an issue and then we'll react accordingly. But until that happens, I wouldn't approve this until we get that information. Yeah. In short, they provided none of the information we asked and they're not here tonight, so we can't ask. and I don't want to do the research for them or assume anything. So,

I'll make a motion to continue this to the November meeting for additional information and for their attendance. And if they don't come to the November meeting, I would suggest you just you can either place it on an inactive agenda or deny it for cause. I mean, okay, we can cross that bridge. My guess is they'll show up. Yeah. So that was for um additional pro provided additional requested information and for their attendance. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second. All right. All in favor?

I the next item is ordinance 51-2025. That one is not the driveway. But that is the driveway one. But um but we also had the 55 2025 which was the recreational vehicle one. Huh. I think there's two thing two council things. Yeah. The RVs driveways.

We sign this on so that we had the one thing carried forward before was the driveway paving issue that we were going to uh kind of take over from council like we they were looking for our input and we said let's since there's not a hurry we're going to kind of take ownership of that and do something and then recommend to council although Mr. France recommended I send an email to council clerk and I did not do that. Uh, I meant to ask you because you offered to help me with some language of what to put and I didn't ask you for it so I didn't do it, but I will maybe after this meeting. Um,

do do you know is it still pending? How about the last conversation we had there was pending still? They're waiting on you guys to discuss it. Yeah. So, it's a little bit of the dog trying to catch its tail. So, I think you already exceeded your time. I think we did by far. Yeah. So, um, you know, you probably just I can help you.

Look, we get it that it needs to be studied. We'd like to talk about it and this time, if you're okay with it, we'll get you a recommendation back or you can just initiate your amendment. Do it yourself. You can send an email and maybe maybe both of those things. Yeah. If you don't mind helping me.

Yeah. I think though if you initiate the amendment, we should probably have some language to give because you initiate the amendment there's one or three ways to to do so in the code, right? The commission property owner council council did it for the resolution and sent it to you. By the time it got to you, you were already faced with having to make a decision at night because the time was the code. I think it's 11:41 or something. Um, so what I do is we'll send that email and then we should study it, put together some language and then propose an initiation. We can give it to council. They can look it over and yeah, you know, because it's a partnership, right? You don't want to give them something that they don't want,

right? So, you can give them some suggestions and they can say, "Well, we like this." and then they'll just by resolution send it back. I can talk to Mark as well. Good idea. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate that. Yeah, because I don't think this was necessarily it was like a council initiative or anything. This came from the building department, right? You guys your issue. Um,

so I guess we could do that. We could talk about something. I know Scott definitely has some thoughts on he he me saying he wasn't going to be here because he's sick, but he definitely had some thoughts on that. Not necessarily on the recreational vehicle. He didn't really have any thoughts. So, we could either wait till Scott's here and we all discuss it again or if anybody's got anything they'd like to discuss on it.

So, I went and I watched the um the original um city council meeting when it came up and it was two things. It was um these gravel driveways getting wider and wider as people kind of just drive all over and patrol there and then weeds are coming up in them. So, Um, I didn't hear anything about gravel or mud coming out the streets. There was like one mention of mud, but I think they were just sort of thinking that they're unsightly. Um, but at the same time, I think if they're behind the main building, if they're not visible from the street, I don't see why we should have that kind of influence over the material. That's what somebody wants to do to their yard, which I wouldn't. But, um,

you're talking about for the accessory building. Yeah. Are we still Yeah, that's what we're on. Right. So,

and then I thought some of the language is a little confusing. So, if you want to hold off until Scott's here, I I I think there's a better way to organize this. I think there's better language we could use where we're not so heavy-handed over what is required. Um, they also don't plan to ask anyone to upgrade to to a paveway, whether it be for all new buildings or new accessory buildings. So, um, and then I kind of looked around town and looked on an aerial. I really couldn't find a lot of examples. It seems like if they're there, they're they're either along Old and

Valley Road and those are very those are very kind of rural corridors. So, and you know, this town does have kind of a rural character character to it. So, um, you know, the impulse to to write something like this that could be very, um, prohibitive to building, you know, when somebody the property owner has a deeper property wants. Um, I don't know. I'm not sure we're total agreement with it or I'm in total agreement, but I think there are some middle of the road ways that we could address uh the language and what would be required. you know, if it's visible from the road, maybe within the first for 100 feet, they're required. And we just kind of set those limitations and then I think it needs to be a separate paragraph, not tacked on to these first two that really just deal with the sizes of the building. So,

okay. Well, appreciate your thoughts. I know Mr. Cox, you had some thoughts, I think. Well, uh, yeah, I I guess I got interested in it because of the whole system. When I was on the Hudson board for many years, when they have, uh, the building department or anybody wanted to, uh, put a new ordinance in, what they did, uh, was say, well, we got a problem, say, with gravel driveways, there's too many in the town, they would send that to the law department. I know it's expensive to do that. and the law department would look around for all the ordinances in various communities around there or in different states or something and they'd crank out something and so when you're talking about some of the languages confusing and all that that that was part of the issue that's the study of it. What I found kind of interesting was the exposfacto idea that no matter what we do or what they put in these ordinances, uh the non-conforming use statute, uh it used to be 2 years and you can lower it down to 6 months. Uh if they abandoned it for 6 months, uh then you can make them put in a a stone driveway or a asphalt driveway. But other than that, these people that have a gravel driveway, I think can keep there forever, no matter what we put in the ordinance, uh, they don't have to change anything. So, but but that that's in I think in all ordinances, uh, that that do this kind of thing. All the cities have that. So, that that struck me as sort of interesting. So, to me, it looks like the uh the the building commission is going to have to run around all the time and see if anybody has abandoned their gravel driveway for 6 months and then they can then they can do something to them. Otherwise, you can't do a thing to them. The way I read it,

that about right? Yeah, I think that's that's a very accurate synopsis of nonconformities and um I mean I think the city probably could do if they really wanted which is a heavy-handed approach they probably could put a sunset clause in as well. You know they could say we're doing this in 18 months, 24 months, three years or whatever the number is. Everybody who has a gravel drive has to conform to being hard surplus. I think I don't think I don't think you could make them. Uh I don't think you can make them even after three years or five years. Not not a conformity. I'm saying a sunset clause. I think as a charter municipality, you probably could, but that neither here nor there. I don't think the city wants to take that approach. That's pretty heavy-handed.

Yeah. And but you're right on the nonconformity side. Yeah. I I just don't see the building department having like I'm amazed that they do what they do with the staffing that they do. So, I just don't see him doing that. Now, that's a lot of doing. With that said, um, you know, to upgrade new to something, you know, you could probably spend some time and talk about what that is, but it does get to the same issue you raised. Like, if it's a long backyard, and I bet there's got to be some on North Bedford. Those are big, deep lots

and we see a lot of oversized garages there. There's got to be some and I don't know how you you know there's a although gravel does have the same runoff coefficient as concrete or asphalt so you're you're going to get the same sort of storm water run off. I was about to say I don't know how you're going to make somebody put that much hard surface but from a storm water standoint basically the same.

All right so it's my turn. I agree with what you said there. Like I don't like that we're kind of spinning their wheels on this and somebody like legal hasn't taken a first stab at writing this. But then if we ask them to do that, I I feel like we kind of need to give them some type of parameters on what we would agree on. I don't know if we vote on some like I let me give you a couple examples. So first of all, there's two things here and what they propose. The first is the primary driveway should be concrete from the road to the house. I think And I want to speak for everybody here. I think we all kind of agree with that. Okay. However, like I did some research. I'm not very good at this. That's why I would I love your idea having someone in legal who does this for a living to pull what are surrounding communities. You know, I looked at Twinsburg. I think I looked at Hudson, Solen, Brexville. The only thing I could find for any type of driveway requirement based on length. They all had width and thickness, but the only thing on length was Twinsburg. One of the things I thought was interesting, I kind of agree with it. They were talking about, I have it here. It says, "When a front yard setback is greater than 100 ft, the first 45T of driveway must be paved. Beyond that, 6 in aggregate unpaved driveway is acceptable. Minimum width of 8 ft. And we have properties where actually I think the first one here was like 200.

You're talking about you're talking about new property, right? Correct. Brand new. I'm not saying

somebody has one for the last 20 years, they can just keep their old gravel driveway." Not talking about that. But I'm saying somebody or or buys a house or or whatever built a house and they they're 150 ft back. Is that becoming too cost prohibitive for them to move here that they have to put in 150 foot minimum 8 foot wide or 10 foot wide? I think the maximum 20 foot wide driveway. Do we? So my point is is as a commission if we wanted to put limitations on the primary driveway and then if we also wanted to put put limitations on that secondary driveway to an accessory building. I feel like we need to get organized maybe potentially at the next meeting and put together a list of what we're looking for and then have legal draw that up. But I'd also still like to see legal provide us with examples of what other communities around us have done or if they've done anything at all. So I'm I don't not saying it's bad if we're the first one to do it. If there's a problem we can solve.

Well, you wouldn't be the first one for sure. Yeah. I just thought it was interesting. Again, I'm not very good at looking up things in code, but in the time I spent searching, I could only find one thing. It was in Twinsburg. So, and I couldn't find anything about a requirement for an accessory building in those same community. So, well, this is, you know, the way I looked at it, the whole thing is legal. But the problem would be the burden on the city for the next many many years seeing if somebody's changed their driveway uh in six months. They have a six-month clause in our non-conforming use clause. It could be two years, but it's now down to six months, which you're allowed to do.

So, if somebody abandons it for six months, yes, we can go in there and force them to do whatever we want them to do. The way I read it. Mr. Did you have any? I know you had some. I just been waiting here hear what you guys have to say. I did bring in some photos. Okay.

To kind of help you guys kind of get uh but I agree with what you're saying as far as the main driveway. Um I got an example here. There's a the entrance way and a house sitting far back and that's on valley view like you were talking about. Some of them lots are pretty deep. Okay. It's gravel at the road and then it's silver, you know, 100 some feet and then they transition it before they get to the house, they transition it to concrete. So, it starts gravel. It starts gravel and ends with concrete. See, like I I see the benefit for having it being concrete at the street to a certain distance. Gravel is a problem, but

and I like what Twinsburg says, you know, the first 45 whatever from the road should be hard to surface. That's makes sense to me. let them deal with that from there on out when you deal with driveways, you know, that length. Um, I do agree that it should be mainly the new construction, right? Um, you know, I agree there as well. Um, you know, we could even leave it at that, right? Is just for new construction.

I have another example here of you talk about the widening of the driveway. So, there's an example right there where it just expands and it looks pretty bad. Okay. That's on blueberry, I think. Right. Blueberry. Yeah. Blueberry. And so, you know, you got I got some of I'll just leave these here if you guys want them to see the rest of them. But you know, and then I got another example of an extension of of gravel uh off the concrete drive.

Yeah, like a turn around or something like that. Um, of course, these are existing, right? But so, you know, those are kind of things that I wanted to show you guys, give you some visuals. One last one here is unique. So, this is off Valley View. It's 9042 Valley View. And basically, it starts off with like an asphalt kind of driveway to the main house and then it goes past the house to a pool building that they're just building right now. Okay. Well, he's got a secondary drive. This is where it's come behind the house here, the second page. And then the third page, you could see a secondary drive coming off Valley View going into the pool building.

So that I thought maybe I'd just throw that in there for kicks. You see what you guys think of that. It's it's muddy. It's nasty. Um, but it's that secondary drive has been there for a while according to the do they uh uh you know when they put this dirt driveway in which you're talking about there. Don't do did they come to the city or just willy-nilly put it in there? Don't they get some kind of permit to put it in there? Well, as far as that one right there, that pool building, he's had that secondary drive for a lot of years as far as what he's telling me. Now, I came here in August, so you guys may know more about it than I would, right? But uh I'm just going by what he has said.

Well, if they don't have a permit to put it in in the first place, I think you can do anything you want to them. But if they got a permit from the city of Macedonia to do these various driveways, I think we run into our non-conforming use thing. That what you know, then you got to wait for them to abandon it. That way I look at it. Well, when somebody have a site plan, how did they get it in there? You know, just start building. I don't think you can. Well, all I know is like when new house is built or whatever, they have a site plan, right? Well, that's a new that's a new house. I'm talking about these old these old things that they do they do go through, you know, Chris and he does a good job of making sure everything complies with the zoning, you know, and he usually catches he's pretty good about it.

Yeah. But you don't there's not a specific requirement for a permit for a driveway. um if they're putting a concrete driveway. Absolutely. Right. But you don't require concrete. I've never issued a driveway for grass. Yeah. Whether it's required or not, there is no application for that and there's no prohibition. Otherwise, we would be sitting here talking. There's no prohibition, no permit. You're not going to get just go do it. Yeah. That's kind of weird, you know, in a way.

The idea the idea of somebody that got a permit to do it, you know, the non-conforming use and then and then they abandon it. But these people had no permit to begin with. Maybe maybe have a good right to go after them. I I don't know. I don't Somebody have to search that one out. I mean, the last one that you showed definitely is a property maintenance violation. I have to believe your property maintenance code addresses that situation. So, it's an enforcement issue. But, okay. So, let me ask you that this is just my question. How does this happen? So, this last property you talked about, they recently got an approval for it, a large accessory building. Yeah. So, can the city

say, "Well, okay, but hold on a second here. There's a problem here, and there was no permit for this. We looked, whatever." Can Can the city say you got to fix this before you can do this? I I don't know. I'm just asking. I'm trying to understand that.

Yeah, that's it's a little tricky. So, it that again, I don't know your property maintenance code, but um I have to believe that that is a property maintenance violation. What I saw in the pictures and then it gets a little tricky because can you hold up a permit for property maint? We had those conversations here, right? remember some of the the lot split giant lot split where it was like I don't knowund and some acres they're diving it up amongst other property owners and I noted in the report outdoor storage we push as much as we can to to get them at the end of the day if they tell us to jump in a lake I'm not sure we can hold our permit up

for something that's non related as far as that particular property drives senator drive been in here for a long accordingly saying, which it does look like it's been there for a while and there's ways to go back like you look at historic areables to to get a good idea when that drive went in.

Does that matter though? You know, again, I don't know what what we say about um I'd have to look at the code what we say about curb openings if it's limited to usually the code will say limited to one curve opening, two if you're lot front edge equals blank or right or your your right or something this way and then you have to have separation too. I don't know what that distance is, but you try to have them, you know, if you're going to have them, have them separated out far enough away, too.

My guess is that just went in. It just went in. Whether it's legal or not, that's I mean, it could have been there for 40 or 50 years, you know. Yeah. I don't know. Okay.

It might have been scraped out in 2016. Who knows? I will say a lot of things happened during co that's do you know if there's been many applications for the next meeting so far or he still got some time two already anything big so far yet okay just thinking meeting length but I would like to ask Scott supposedly he's got some some definite thoughts Chris you got a whole bunch of stuff marked up um maybe to discuss just a little bit further. And in that meantime, also I'll have Brian help me put some email together to the the council to kind of since we've you know blown the schedule.

Is it possible to have like what Tony asked for to have someone who knows what they're doing search this stuff some examples before the meeting so we can read through it and kind of collect our thoughts or No, I have to talk to Mark Gadetti. I can or we can call him together and and ask him. I don't know if he can get it for the next meeting or not, but I'm sure Mark always helpful to us. I'm sure he can give us some examples. Okay. So, I think at this point, I don't know if we really have to make any kind of motion to hold that for the next meeting or anything. You think it wasn't on your agenda tonight? Uh, this this 512025 is this one. So yes, it was an item on

the one we're talking about now. Would that be just continue it to the next meeting? Okay. I'll make a motion to continue this item to the next meeting. All in favor? I I Okay. Then the one thing I think this is what John Cooper is that his name? I missed that one. You want to add that to the agenda? Yeah. If I could make a motion to add discussion on ordinance 55205 from council to the agenda. Is there a second? Oh, I'll second it. All in favor? I Okay, so this one is the recreational vehicle one. Brian, did you get a copy of that?

I got it over I got it over um email and I looked at it and they all seemed reasonable. typically recreational vehicles, trailers, and residential areas. Um, most of the language you'll see that states that they have to be cracked and parked in the most practical and least notice noticeable location on the property for the public rightway. So, that language is kind of standard that least noticeable. I was just like, seems awful kind of ambiguous. Yeah, that's it's not uncommon. Okay. Okay. It is kind of purposy.

Okay, cuz that was my only real comment on the thing. But I guess yeah, in the language looking at the highlighted sections, it looks like they've defined recreational vehicle, added that in there instead of just

kind of talking about camp trailers and boats. They cross that out and then the recreational vehicle falls under the area where it's supposed to be in a garage or parked in a manner as to be least noticeable from the street. And then the section was added uh except that recreation vehicles may be parked in a manner visible from the street at any location upon the premises premises otherwise permitted under the codified ordinance in the city of Macedonia from May 1st through September 30th each calendar year. So basically during the season that you primarily use it May 1st through September 30th you can park it as long as it's like you a designated park. You can't just stick it in your front yard. It has to be on in your drive, but that's okay. Then beyond anytime after September 30th, before May 1st, it's got to be parked in a manner to be least noticeable from the street. So, not out front of your to try to get it back. Is that the intention of of this? Would you give any background on this because I assume this came from you guys as well or this?

Yeah. Well, yeah. And the idea is we like I just had a complaint this past week where you know a camper's been parked for a year, same spot, never moved,

right? You know, and so, you know, they're just trying to control the situation a little bit. I think there's been some debate over the time frame, right? You know, when when does the campgrounds open, when they close, that sort of thing. you know, that's seemed to be a hot topic with some of the councilmen, you know, as far as, you know, their constituents are concerned, which they should be maybe some of them, right? You know, um, so it's still been going on, right? And they just keep pushing it back to you and back to them, back to you. So,

but as I understand it, um, right now they're not permitted to park it, if I'm reading this right. I thought there was like a so many days and then it had to move. They're they're they're the least visible. That's just like this camper, this popup camper I'm dealing with right now. The only thing I can do is go to them and and and quote the ordinance to them and you know the least visible. They got a backyard they can put it at. So there isn't a time limit. It just No. Far as I know there's no time limit. Okay. I think they're trying to establish a time limit when people can take and park these things and they're off to the side. That's what they're trying to establish.

Okay. I live in an HA and we have I think some type of time limit like no more than five days or continuous days or something like that. Whatever. That's what I was probably thinking about. So this all this really gives you is is the ability if someone's got something that's been sitting there for a while and you say you could push it back. You could put it back a little farther. This doesn't need to be right out smack dab in front of your garage door or Yeah, you could you could easily put this back there. You need to do that in order because that's not the the

Yeah. In this particular case, it was a small popup camper, right? They're pretty small. They had a big pretty decent size backyard, very accessible. They could easily put it back there. We would give them an opportunity and then and if they didn't, we could sight them because it's out front. I mean, it's a nice house. It's got paid driveway, you know? They're they're around the turn around. You know what I mean? You know what I mean? They're right there and they park it right in the turnaround. So, it's right there, you know? So, and and council seem to be happy with this lang. Well, I'm not saying I they're happy with that because, you know, we got some people running for reelection and,

you know, Yeah. Oh, and then I guess you also added that they couldn't you also added they couldn't have the permanent connections, electricity, water, gas. So basically you can't if it's sitting out there, you can't be using it. It's not your current driveway is not a campground. Well, and that's what they're worried about too is people like living in them or rent them or whatever. out in my garage. But is there a way to write this where like like I if I had a neighbor had one of these and they wanted to pull it out on a Saturday for the kids to camp in and stuff and overnight and then put it away, you know, maybe it stays behind the house, whatever. It could still be used, but for a very

Well, that that kind of sounds like it could fall under this cuz this sucks. If she'll not have, you know, permanent connections, electricity, water, gas, if you were if your kids were going to slam a go plug in an extension cord, that's not permanent. Well, they can't plummet it into the house as well. Well, that happens. I believe that happens. Yeah. And that's why I love I like that language. I think that's a great idea. But if I understand those, city council sent this to us for our com our comments, right? Yeah. But did they like or is that just the formality of it? Is this the same issue as the other amendment? Did they do this by resolution? I I'm uh see if I can find John.

The email we got from John. I got it right here. Please be advised city council referred to ordinance number 55-225 attached to the planning commission for its recommendation. We understand the next planning commission meeting is Monday, October 20th. Any questions? Please let Jeff Martin or I know and it's signed by John Hoover clerk of council. So that's ordinance 55. 5 is that 55? Yeah. Yeah. 55-2025 the RV. Yeah, I didn't know it was so email's on September 26. Are you able to see? Is it on council's agenda pending as legislation? Uh it's an ordinance format.

Yeah. No, I looked at it. I guess I didn't realize sponsored by uh Mr. Garvis, which we know just doesn't necessarily mean that they're supporting or against it. They're just the one who introduced introduce it. Are you going to the agenda or going to try?

Okay, feel free to guess it would be on there because one of these is is the language written that council referred it on September 25th and I'm obtain set recommendation from planning commission on blank, 2025. I guess they're I read that as they're looking for us to potentially recommend it sometime this year.

Well, we'll tell you this when it comes to the campers and you asked about scenarios. If you got one of them fifth wheel campers and they're, you know, 30 40 foot long and your driveway's 45 foot long. I mean, that those kind of scenarios have been brought up, you know? I mean, how do you address those? I got it. But where where I feel like we got two things that are in my mind are crossing over the driveway stuff. If I own four acres and you can't see my house from the street, doesn't matter. But if this passes the way it's written, it now potentially matters. Yeah.

If I got a neighbor flies a drone over and takes a look, oh look, I don't like this neighbor. They got a camper in front of their house. They could do something about that. I feel someone who has a pretty large private property should have some type of I don't know. I don't know if it's an exception or I agree. So again, like I don't I I appreciate that you can't account for everything when you write this legislation, but I feel like these two are a little too general and we need to put some boundaries around it because I think the spirit of the people who work in the building department today would interpret it similar, but we don't know who's going to be working there 10 years from now, right?

Yeah. When I again I go back to my other idea, how they usually do it in cities. Rexville, Gates, Mills, Hudson, and Harlem, they've all had this problem. Nobody wants campers in their front in their front yard except for the person. They've all written they've all written ordinances on this. And again, I would have the our building department say, you know, these places are a mess. What do we do about them? They send it to the law department. They'd look around and do research. I know it's expensive for the city to do that, but they'd write an ordinance that makes some sense uh instead of putting this struck me as a bit of a hodgepodge here, here, there, and everywhere. And the IHOA uh uh rules are apparently just like yours. It all covers recreational vehicle and uh uh in fact the ex mayor is the one that approved our uh HOA rules because he built our development of Joe Minglerini. But so all these HOAs have a similar thing and that's what we should model ourselves after instead of you know each councilman says well I'd like this thing in there. I'd like that thing in there and you get kind of a hodgepodge. So that's what I would suggest. Again I know it's expensive but send it to somebody that can look around at various communities. You started doing that and that probably is the way to do it. Copy someone else's. I think

yeah opinion I I I understand you model it after an HOA like that but I want I would want to see some type of limitation there so that the person who does not want to live under an HOA type situation and they're fortunate to be able to buy you know two acres or four acres or whatever they don't want an HOA and I don't I I think we need to put some limitations in there if it's reasonable to allow them to not have to live under restrictions like that. Hudson has two and a half acre or parcels all over the place and Gates Mills has even bigger ones. Hunting Valley and all that and they've all I I I guess would wrestle wrestled with this problem. It would be great to see how they did it.

I think I think of if you try to model it after HOA I have this feeling that HOAs are strict like you just you don't have it sitting there. Yeah. Like you said maybe it's you know three days five days at the most in a year and that's you know when you're cleaning it out. Yeah. Ours was intended so you could park it for a few days to maintenance. They clean it and then it goes away. Yeah. Unless if the city doesn't want to be, you know, bus chops like that and you have to tell everybody you can't have I don't think we're we're probably not modeling after HOA, but you know, if the best you can do in standard language that everybody's probably using, if if you know, for since you've seen it before in other places that parked in a manner to be least noticeable from the street, again, it's kind of wishy-washy, but it's It's

Yeah, that's a good point. You know, it does language states now, right? That's so that that wasn't even an edited part that was being recommended to be changed. Yeah. Because like what you're saying, my my my hypothetical 4acre example. Yeah. Presumably, they would have the room on the back side of the the primary structure and move it, right? Or or someone wants to complain about it, the building department, you know, least noticeable street. You can't see it from the street park in the front yard. That's a good point. You know, be quiet neighbor. you know, it's not working and you can't even see it. That's a good point. Um, I don't know. I mean, I don't know that I have any major real problem with this. I don't have any real, you know, that was my only real comment is that language seems wishy-washy, but it sounds like that's kind of the standard.

Yeah, it actually gives you guys some flexibility, that kind of language. Um, it it adds the thing about, you know, which I think is important about not making these, you know, turn into a rental unit out in your front yard. um is is nice. Um you know, so I I would think we could pass it back, you know, and say, you know, no real recommendations, at least for me. I don't know if you guys have any I think they probably Brian, it sound like it's something we're they're kind of expecting us to return. Yeah. When did they September 26th and they got recognized that our next meeting was October 20th today.

They didn't say get it back this next one, but I think this probably It looks like they had a first reading August 14th. Maybe somehow it didn't get passed on to us or something like that. Well, maybe that's an update. Maybe there has been. I mean, September, they would have had a reading. If first was August, September, September would have been second. Second. Yeah. And you have 30 days after your receipt of getting it. So, so we won't read again before then. So, but if I understand the way this is worded, it says that it it may be parked in a manner visible from the street at any location upon the premise otherwise permanent. So, during that kind of

mean from May 1st to September 3rd. So, they can park it in the front of the house if they want to during as long as you're allowed to park it. Now, are you allowed to park vehicles in your front yard? Well, no. Probably not. Yeah. So, you have to probably be on a driveway or something like that or a pad or something like that during that period. You can't just park it anywhere, but you can park it somewhere that you're allowed to park vehicles for those five months. Why did you see the rain or what was that? Uh right below here. Yeah. Oh, I'm It wasn't one of the things. Okay. So, that's already the ordinance. So, you're keeping that. I understand. Okay.

And what's the time? I thought I was I thought that was May 1st through September 30th. That's interesting in itself why they wouldn't have taken it through the end of October because what what I think is what you're seeing is they're saying we recognize that people come home in the summer and they just travel with it because what my experience is is a lot of these people use these in the winter to leave Northeast Ohio. they bring them back in the summer and they stay parked in their house where their house is in the summer because they don't really use it much. So I just wonder why it's September as opposed to

I guess yeah maybe our maybe our recommendation would be is yeah are you sure that's the right dates to to to say you can have it out front you know or is that when you need to have it accessible because you're traveling south or you're coming back you know I I don't know the recommendation to consider extending to October 31st. Sure, you can. Doesn't mean they have to, right?

I'm just I'm just thinking of I'm I own a you know large recreational vehicle and this is my home base. I'm slightly older than what I am now. This is my home base and and over the winter I travel with it. I go to Arizona, whatever. I stay out of the cold and I come back here to my house and this is where I live in the summer and I keep my recreational vehicle in my yard in the summer. I'm keep it on my driveway if it's viewed from the street. I just feel like that's probably more common than the other.

I guess you could, you know, during those months that are outside that window, you can have it out there. It just has to be in the least visible spot. So if you don't have the means to put your RV back behind your house in that next to your driveway is the best you got, then I guess that's where you can put it. We're not. So, if someone complains, then you go build a bunch of a bunch of shrubs. Yeah. We're we're not, like I said, we're not we're just taking a a common sense approach to it. Yeah. The way it reads now, you know, and that's all we can do.

So, what's next? I mean, I think I think it would be nice if we could send back a recommendation to council if we've got any recommendations to it. If we think it's fine as it is, if we're a little bit confused on the dates, you know, we could say that it's, you know, should should it just be all year? The only place you can park it is the least visible spot. That might be right on your driveway if that's all the room you've got. Um, or leave it as the dates or extend the dates through October because people are, you know, I I don't know. That's how Brian says he would use it if he had it. He'd be traveling more in those offseason. He'd rather have it accessible, more accessible. My neighbors next door, they pretty much park theirs. They put a cover on it. He just put his cover on the other day

for the winter for the winter. He won't probably use it until spring. Um, you know, it's just how they travel. They they like to go north, though. So, it's kind of They may not be as retired. They are, but they but they Yeah. winter they're mostly around but in the summer they can go places and see sites and limits not I guess this one does

yeah so that's that's why yeah the dates seem a little bit tough to kind of pin down to me but I don't have any problem with it and if you wanted it accessible then just it's you can still have it at your house just got to kind of tuck it away if you have the It sounds like what you're saying is you would you would entertain a motion to approve it with the consideration that maybe they want to talk about the dates a little more for the reason that we talked about. It could be the traveling occurs in the winter to go south and they use it in the summer to just park and stay their own base. I'm not sure it would make a difference, but just for council to think about.

Yeah. And they maybe that may be what they're discussing back and forth themselves. Sounds like There's no substantive difference if it's end of October, end of September, end of November day. It's just it's kind of an arbitrary date to be honest with you. So, whatever the date is, the date is. I don't think it's going to change your opinion. What do you guys think about a recommendation like that? Does anybody have any other strong opinions that something that should get mentioned to council? I think that would be likely.

So, Susan, maybe I'll make a motion as stated by Mr. France there. discusses, you know, recommend it back to council. Um, the only thing we'd like them to consider, yeah, put put a little more thought to the dates because we had discussion here that kind of we had disagreeing sides of when people use it and what might be the useful dates. But besides that, everything else we we agree with. I think it's a good idea. No issues. Okay. Is that the end of the book? That's the end of the motion. Looks like random. If someone doesn't second it, I might add more to it. Did you get it?

I think so. So, they're recommending it back to council to con consider thought putting thought into the dates winter versus summer usable dates. You know, other than that, you agree with everything else. Are you leaning more towards extending it the end of October? Is that what I'm That might be uh something to consider. I mean, I don't I don't have one. So, I don't know. I don't travel like that. So, I don't know what was in their mind when they came up with those dates or if it was just arbitrary because other communities did it. You know, the thought was with the dates was the idea of the campgrounds closing during the winter months and they need a place to park their RV,

you know, if and then if they can't comply with the ordinance, they would put it in storage, you know, is is a thought pattern. So, we should probably have a second before want to second that. Okay. Any more discussion on that or let it go and we'll we just have someone discuss it. They could leave it as it's written. Yeah. We just let them to consider the Yeah. I don't think in general if it went out like this. Fine. Okay. All right. All in favor? I

I think that's it. That's the last agenda item. Susan, anything else we need to discuss? No. All right. Make a motion to adjourn. Can I have those pictures back from my I bring them back?