Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. This is the city of Quinnburg Planning Commission meeting for Monday, May 19th, 2025. Roll call, please. Everybody in. Mr. Shipley. Mr. Walker. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Hogler. Yes. Mr. Cohen, present. Mr. Sheck, present. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I 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. Little housekeeping to start off the evening. Uh we need to elect a planning commission chairman. Uh nominations. you second. Anyone else? Then through acclamation, I will accept and continue as chairman. Thank you. Uh, vice chairman nominations. I don't think these mics. Steve, are you again? I'll do it again. All right. Wish you don't leave when there's agenda. Sorry. Anyone else? Uh, second. Second acclamation then. Uh Steve will continue as a vice chair. Thank you very much. Uh session the uh unfinished business. The first item is the Latwood Consolidation 9385 Shepard Road. If the applicant could please come forward and uh overview and presentation uh again of what you're looking for this evening. Our attorney is running late. We're kind of waiting on him. That's

okay. Bob, is was he giving the presentation this evening or were were you or is he here for just in case? No, he was going to give the presentation, but let the I mean, we gave the presentation at the last meeting and Okay. Um well, we could uh we can go right into the regular meeting, do the approval of public participation, and then come back. Yeah, that's what I I was going to recommend. If we move the public participation up, we'll do that and then um your attorney's on on his way, correct? So, should be here hopefully in a few minutes and then we'll be able to transition into that. Well then you gentlemen I guess can have a seat for the moment. Thank you. All right. First item on the regular meeting agenda is the approval of the January 27th, 2025 minutes. Uh any comments or corrections to those minutes? Seeing none, they'll be accepted as submitted. Next is the minutes for the April 21st, 2025 meeting. Any comments or corrections? Seeing none, those will be accepted as submitted as well. Public participation, the opportunity for members of the community to address planning commission. If you'd like to speak, please come up to the microphone, your name, address, and there should be a sign-in sheet that you could fill out if you have not done so already. Thank you. Uh, dear planning committee, name and address, please. It's kind of in my thing. Oh, okay. Uh, thank you for being here tonight to hear our concerns of Twinsburg residents. My name is Dr. Patricia Stoddard Dair. I live at 9546 Andrew Drive in Twinsburg. I have been a resident of Twinsburg for nearly 18 years. I'm going to outline for you tonight reasons why the city planning

commission should reject the proposed lot split. Firstly, the zoning frontage as outlined in the proposed lot split is outrageously detached from the 75- ft frontage requirement for R4 lots outlined in section 143.09. Please look at the proposed map and notice the tilt at the back of the proposed driveway easement. This is supposed to meet the frontage, the lot frontage requirement. This part right here that's slanted and this part right here that's slanted. That's the 75 ft. According to the code 1129.12, a front lot line is defined as quote the boundary of a lot which abuts a private or private right of way unquote. This lot frontage does not appear to abut a private a public right ofway because the driveway is quote owned by the upfront property owner. It looks like the supposed frontage line is at a 45 degree angle, not facing the street. The frontage line is facing the neighbor's backyard. This is in violation of the required frontage of 75 ft for R4 property as stated in 113.02A O2A of the Twisburg residential zone dimensional standards. Last time we heard the city planner weigh in on her assessment of this lot split. However, importantly, we're here tonight because the city planning commission has an important role in determining if this lot configuration meets the standards outlined in the code. The proposed lot split is a substantial deviation which undermines the zoning code's intent to maintain consistent lot widths which are crucial for preserving neighborhood character and ensuring adequate access and

frontage. Importantly, the Twinsburg planning and zoning code does not explicitly state that an easement can be used to satisfy the frontage zoning requirement. The Twinsburg zoning requires uh regulations require lots to have proper street frontage to ensure public access, emergency response accessibil accessibility, and utility service provision. In this case, the developers are attempting to circumventage requirements by creating access easements which do not align with the intent of the zoning regulations. The planning commission has the authority to evaluate whether such easements comply with the zoning standards or if they undermine the purpose of the frontage regulations. I urge the Twinsburg Planning Commission to reject the lot split on the grounds that there's not a true 75 ft frontage represented in this proposal and reject the idea that these lapable easements sufficiently meets the standard. Lack of sufficient frontage was one of multiple reasons why the BCA rejected the previous plan. Accepting the proposed plan would be a violation of the intent behind the city's zoning regulations. The R4 zoning district is designed to maintain uniformity in residential development, ensuring that the lots conform to established standards for width, depth, and frontage. The proposed flag lot undermines the intent of these regulations by introducing irregularity, irregularly shaped parcels that do not align with the district's planning goals. In practical terms, the proposed lots do not meet the required lot depth to width ratio. Section 1187.07B1E limits lot depth to no more than 3.5 times the lot width. This

regulation aims to prevent disproportionately deep and narrow lots, which can lead to insufficient land use and potential access issues. Originally, the zoning commission rejected the proposed parcel A and D, which are the back lots. Those proposed lots had a depth that were more than 3.5 times their lot width. The new lots split propos proposal functionally has the exact same issues of having the need for a very long driveway in order to access the back lots. The easement technically assigns part of the long driveway to the front property owner of interest. For the purpose of the length to width calculation, the front driveway is claimed by the front property owners. However, for the frontage requirements, the driveway is claimed by the rear property owner. This appro approach is contrary to the intent of the zoning code and undermines the purpose of the frontage requirement and does not revol resolve concerns about public access utility service provision and emergency response accessibility. It also does not fix the water infiltration concerns posed by a long driveway. The Twinsburg zoning code provides minimum standards. Section 1103.01 general interpretation states that the provisions of the code shall be considered minimum requirements and shall be construed to further its underlying purpose and objectives. Both parts of the preceding sentence are relevant. The planning commission has the right to place additional conditions on property developers and the code shall be construed to further its underlying purpose and objectives. Not may be construed, shall be construed to further

its underlying purpose and objectives. The underlining purpose and objectives are outlined under section 1101.02 O2, which is the stated intent of the code, which reads, quote, "The intent of the city of Twinsburg zoning code is adopted for the following purposes. Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, maintaining and enhancing the quality of life in the city. Preserving and enhancing environmental quality, assuring compatibility of uses and practices with zoning and districts, facilitating the economic provision of public utilities and services, and establishing design standards for adequate public streets, roads, and highways necessary for adequate levels of service." So, we know what the intent is. So, the first part of the intent of the code has to do with protecting health and safety. Flat lots rely on long, narrow driveways for access, which can create traffic congestion and visibility and access issues for emergency responders. The proposed lots would require extended driveways, potentially leading to bottlenecks and restricted access for fire trucks, ambulances, and other emergency vehicles, as well as for postal and delivery drivers. At what point would fire and police have a chance to comment on the proposed lot split? Will the feedback be received too late if the lot split proposal is is is reached today is is accepted today? The purpose of the code is in part to protect emergency services from this type of situation. Another important safety issue exists with this plan. to directly adjacent to the proposed easement, which would have to be the location of the rear property's driveway is a swing set. I'm concerned about the safety of the children who play in that area if a long driveway is directly adjacent to this play space. In the winter, a car could veer off the long driveway into the play

space on the adjacent property. And I will show you a picture of what that looks like. So where the tree line is is where they would put the road, the the driveway. This is just feet away from a swing set. Number two, under the intent of the code has to do with potential negative impact on neighborhood character and infrastructure. The introduction of multiple flag lots in a predominantly standard lot neighborhood can disrupt the established character and cohesion of the area. Flag lots often lead to increased density, potential traffic congestion on narrow accessways, and challenges providing municipal services. Moreover, the uncon unconventional lot shape and access arrangements may affect property values and the overall aesthetics of the neighborhood. Infrastructure constrain strain is also a concern. The creation of multiple flag lots could place additional strain on municipal services including water, sewer, and road maintenance. and the unconventional lot shapes uh may lead may complicate the utility connection uh leading to higher costs for both the city and the adjacent property owners. There is also a likely negative impact on property values. Flag lots disrupt the athletic the aesthetic and functional cohesion of a neighborhood potentially and likely lowering property values for adjacent homeowners. The irregular lot shapes and non-standard access points may deter and will likely to deter future buyers, affecting the overall desiraability of the area. It was unreasonable for me as a property owner to anticipate or imagine a flag lot was going to be permitted in my

backyard. It reduces my property value to have a long driveway adjacent to my property. There is also environmental drainage concerns. The long narrow driveways require flag lots required for flag lots increases the imperous surface areas leading to higher runoff and potential flooding issues. The city must consider whether the proposed development adheres to storm water management requirements. Many homeowners have already talked at length to multiple city officials about our concerns about the added water infiltration to our property if the plan is approved. In addition, many lake h lake plat property owners um have spoke out against the proposal in the past at zoning meetings and also at planning meetings and seven letters were submitted to the res by residents of Lake Pla and there was also a letter from the Lake Pllla HOA which represents 144 households. So there's widespread number of people who reject this proposal and are urging you to reject this proposal. Finally, there's also a concern regarding the precedent this lot split would set for future non-conforming developments. Approving these flag lots sets a dangerous precedent, encouraging other developers to circumvent zoning regulations through easements and variances. This could lead to widespread non-compliance, making it harder for the city to enforce zoning laws in the future. um consistent enforcement of zoning regulations is essential to maintain orderly development and ino uphold the integrity of the city's planning objectives. So, in conclusion, the proposed flag lot at 9385 Shepard Road fails to meet multiple zoning requirements, including lot width, depth, and frontage regulations, poses safety risks, infrastructure challenges, potential property devaluation while also setting a

precedent for future zoning circumvent circumventions. As stated in my initial point, there is nowhere in the zoning code that says in an easement meets the requirement for the frontage requirement. The planning commission has the option to reject the lot split on this grounds. 113.02 states in the event of any requirements or regulatory provisions of this code are not found to be consistent with one another, the more restrictive or greater requirement shall be deemed in each case to be applicable. I urge the planning commission to reject the proposal to preserve neighborhood integrity and uphold zoning standards. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh anyone else that would like to speak regarding this? Um you're the applicant so you'll have the opportunity to to speak. There isn't with and yeah that's not Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Joe Depra. live at 9554 Andrew Drive. Yes. And I'm opposed to the lot split as well. I second everything Patty said. Okay. Um I'm here more to gain a better understanding of the planning commission as well. And I might share some things and ask some questions if that's okay. Well, really, we're not here to to answer specifically back to you. We're here to hear your comments and thoughts and then we'll have general discussion after we have input from the uh applicant as well as discussions with the city planner and the uh attorney. Okay. Well, I had a chance to review the prior meetings with the planning commission and the BCA and um at the very last planning commission meeting, a question was asked

by Mr. Walker that wasn't answered uh in that meeting. uh it just got interrupted. One of his questions was um has the owners contacted the residents in this community about their plan and it was it was not answered. I was curious, Mr. Walker, as to why you would ask such a question. I think in any application, not just this one, that it's something to be considered. Now, it's not necessarily required in code, and I've got our lawyer who can tell me if I'm wrong on that. Um, it is something I prefer to ask in some cases. Okay. to because I mean to to be be honest and and I I can't think of any codes that I'm familiar with where that and this is putting on my old lawyer hat, but now I used to be a maritime lawyer and a military prosecutor, so don't you know take my knowledge of planning law as limited. Um I'm not familiar where there's any code that actually request it. But uh to the points that Dr. Stoddard Dare addressed in her opening and in the prior version of the code before the new code came in of which I've been a very very big fan. Um to me when it go it goes to questions of consistency. But I also think too if I grew up in the country and uh if you move into a neighborhood and you're wanting to do something I think it's good to get to know your neighbors. It's the old Kentucky boy and me. Does that help? It does. Thank you. I proceed. series. Um, you know, I was looking over my twinsburg.com with the with the various documents that are out there, including the planning commission's introduction, purpose, and mission, which you guys are probably obviously

well familiar with. It says, "The planning commission plays a pivotal role in shaping the growth and development of the city of Twinsburg, composed of dedicated residents who volunteer their time and expertise. Thank you." Um the commission is tasked with reviewing and evaluating land use and development proposals to ensure they align with the city's vision and regulations. So clearly this uh stard talked about some of the regulations in the code. I'm more curious in the vision component. Seems like there's two components, a vision and then you have the regulations. I would think the regulations work off of the vision. So, can one of you explain to me what vision means from a planning commission decision point? Anyone want to jump in on that or do you want why don't you finish? I mean, there could be a whole discussion and debate on that on that topic as to what the vision is. Um the vision, the way I see it, uh is is um trying to create uh a better uh Twinsburg uh looking at the the things that the city has put together in our plan uh for development of the city, looking at what the community and applicants who come into the city want to do and trying to to just create something that we see uh and we have different opinions. That's why there's different, you know, that's why we have a a variety of people uh who serve um trying to shape really what is good for planning for the city of Twinsburg. Okay. And I'm just going to continue to read through the By the way, we do have things that help guide us in doing that. We have a comprehensive plan that's put together and other groups and committees that are involved in the city as well who provide input depending on what's

being proposed and being developed. Gotcha. Actually, I saw that there was a link to the comprehensive plan as as sort of almost like the source of how the vision and the regulations come into play. In fact, I would just maybe like to read a portion of the comprehensive plan that talks about that. A portion. Uh yes, just a portion. Um it says the comprehensive plan is the official document setting forth major policies related to the future development of the community. The plan articulates the location extent of residential, business and industrial land uses, community facilities and thoroughares. The relationships between all of these elements are based on the community's estimated needs over a period of years dot dot dot dot. To be fully effective, the comprehensive plan must be sensitive to the wishes and needs of Twinsburg citizens and to the requirements of a changing environment. It must represent the thought and dedicated work of both officials and citizens. Keeping the comprehensive plan current is an ongoing task. And I just want to connect the citizens. I I we mentioned, you know, the neighbors that are adjacent to this property that wants to be developed, but also the HOA. There's a significant amount of households affected by this proposed lot split. And you know, my representation of one of those citizens is that we should be heard. It's it's you know, again, I'm not going to repeat everything. Miss Stutter Dare shared, but we have some major concerns and I know you guys do too. You've asked a lot of questions through the past past two

or three meetings with this group. Not only current concerns, but future concerns for those that might take ownership of those flag lots. They came out of your mouths. Um, you're rolling the dice. Be caution what you asked for. Those were words right out of the last meeting, Mr. Shebec. Um, in fact, at one point early in the meeting, it says you had mentioned that I will not approve this early on in that meeting. So, you've got concerns. We truly have major concerns as well. And I just want to express that that I'm against this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I'm Charleston Bumpy and I live at 1487 Jennifer Drive, Twinsburg, Ohio. I am directly in the back of the proposed change that's coming. Um, I did a little research on the sale of the property and I found that in talking with the previous owner that there were originally two parcels and a third parcel that was a 1 acre that was a 1 acre parcel that was uh split the two parcels and that at the time that uh he w that his mother passed away and he was going to sell the vacant parcel, which he did, that that did not include the one acre parcel. That is supposedly part of the 4.5 acres that that the uh developer contends that it belongs to. If you look at the uh auditor's site, you will see that each one of their

uh parcels describes that one acre parcel. So that one acre parcel can't be owned by two different people or can't be part of two different parcels. I do not believe. This is merely a a a site on my part. So I think that the first thing that has to one of the first things that has to be looked at is if that parcel is not part of what um they consider to be the 4 1/2 acres that would negate the four parcel split and all and and and not and and negate the flag lot theory. Um, so that's I just wanted to bring that to the attention at this point because I think that would be make an impact on what a final decision would be on planning because that would change the whole demographic of what they're already planning. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Would anyone else like to speak at this time? Well, obviously I have lots of questions and comments that have come up based on what was discussed, but before we do that, I think we need to give the applicant an opportunity to come forward uh and present what you're looking for uh and and address any of the comments. Unfortunately, you didn't hear all of them, but you probably have an idea uh is what what it is. Um, so a name and address and um an overview of your presentation for this evening, please. Hi, I'm attorney Al Shrader. Uh, I'm with Rodrik Linton and Belfance. Uh, the address is 50 South Main Street, Akan, Ohio. I'm one of the principles in that firm. Um, I understand there's been a number

of different meetings with this body and first off, I want to thank you for your service for uh to the community. I was a township trustee and elected official for 28 years. I was on county council for about a year and a half. So, I know that what you do is very difficult and what you do is very important and we appreciate uh your time and consideration. Um, first off, we have a deed to our property and that's what we've asked the ability uh to do a lot split on. So, there's no question we own the property. We represented that to you when the application was filed. We have a copy of the deed here if you need to see it. Uh there's no question that we have ownership of that property. It's apparently been raised. Something has been raised for the first time tonight. Didn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but we own the property. Second, as we're speaking about property, uh, one of the concerns that government has is that people have a right to own property in our country and they have a right to develop property in our country. What we have to do is develop it in accordance with your rules and regulations. and we have met uh personally and by phone with your planning people to make sure that we understood your code and that we complied with your code. We believe we do. Uh we would ask you to uh certainly ask your law director and your uh planner uh whether or not what we've done meets your code. We believe it does and if it does, you have an obligation to approve it. And the difficulty is I believe you

approved a very similar thing a little while ago, a few years back. Um so absent a serious reason to turn this down, we believe you ought to approve it. If we meet your code, then this ought to be approved. And if it isn't, then there's a real question as to whether we are in fact honoring people's property rights. Um, I'm here more to answer questions if you actually have any. Uh, I believe it's been discussed quite a bit. Uh, it was a nice day out there, so I'm sure all of us would like to get home and and relax a little bit, but if you have some questions, I'd be happy to answer them. All right. Thank you very much. I think there's going to be a variety of discussion going going on. Um I'm going to start with um I don't believe in the thing of setting precedent uh because every situation has unique circumstances to it and one something is approved for one thing doesn't automatically mean it should be accepted for the next unless they were typically identical and that usually doesn't doesn't happen. So setting precedent to me um I I I personally don't don't go with that. Um, as far as um the comment made about um the property and the number of acreage that was raised, um we have a uh lot split with legal descriptions that are done by um a registered uh engineer surveyor. Therefore, based on that information, we have to believe that the land is what it is and what it's represented to be. that there isn't being double dipped by any acreage for two parcels. Uh if that was the case, the legal descriptions wouldn't match up and it it wouldn't work. So, um we have to assume that that that is not an issue. Um, I know I wasn't at the last meeting and I I

apologize that I had a a conflict in schedule, but in reading the minutes and having discussions, uh, I understood a lot of that meeting had to do with the concern, uh, about storm water management, um, and how this was going to affect the adjoining neighbors. Um what is being presented tonight or has been presented for the lot split uh really doesn't address that issue because they're not here to develop the parcel. They're only here to get the lot split. Um when they come forward and they're ready to develop the property, they would have to address those issues. they will have to address those issues and they'll have to address them to meet the standards uh that that are that are the city has that would be reviewed and approved by the city engineering department. So, uh if they do get the lot split, it's not like that's it. They're done. There's still a lot more work that they have to do including that. Uh plus, um I saw nothing in this package about easements for utilities to those back properties. uh the easements that I see in place are just egress and access easements, nothing related to um utilities. So that's something that they would have to work on also. However, there was a lot of uh uh things brought up by the residents tonight uh beyond the storm water management aspect and I hadn't heard those issues uh prior to to tonight. Uh, so I have to go to you Matt and Lynn. Um, as they address the planning and zoning, uh, as far as with depth, frontage, um, you know, do do those items as presented meet our zoning code? They do. Um, the the lot width to depth

question that was raised um is for a lot in a major subdivision. for a lot split or minor subdivision that that lot to that width to depth requirement. um is just not part of that type of development site because typically you have a scenario like the one in front of you this evening where you have a residual piece of land and it doesn't involve um construction of a new street. And so the the lot width to depth typically can't be met um just by the nature of it. So so that that's not something um that is a non-conformance in the situation. Um yeah that yeah that right the three and a half times the lot with regulation that applies to major subdivisions. Okay. So that this to for the board's edification tonight, the lot split, which is the only question before the planning commission is the lot split. The lot split is a minor subdivision. And that's why when Lyn and I say, you know, this is a regulation for a major subdivision, that'd be a different category of lots split, not the category that's before you tonight. Yeah. And that's by intent. It's on purpose, just by the nature of these lot splits on a sort of collector type roadway. Um the issue of the frontage. Um we allow for the frontage to be taken from a private right ofway and that's what we have here. An ement is a private right ofway. Um yeah the easement will create the private right ofway. the the vision in the comp plan is for residential uses at this location and the R4 zoning allows for the density and

lot size that is proposed. Um the engineer has reviewed the layout and has um approved the driveway locations in terms of um appropriate access location. Um, there's not a requirement for an owner in this scenario to contact adjacent property owners or residents. That's those are the notes I have, right? Is there something I missed? No. Well, just another question though just related to something. I I know again typically this happens when we're reviewing the develop part when they would come back as opposed to just the lot split, but I'll ask it since it was something that was brought up is has there been any discussion or reviewing of this by the police department or fire department for safety purposes or access purposes. Again, understanding that they haven't submitted the development. It is only a lot split. Yeah. Um, yeah, there's been no comments really in opposition to this from safety forces, but have have they? Yeah, of Okay. And and again, I know when it comes time to develop that, they're usually more even more involved at that point. Correct. But um Okay. Um Ed, comments or questions? A lot of the questions were asked and answered, Steve. Well, you touched on it. I was going to bring that up soon. You're talking about an access easement, but you're also going to need utility easement because the utilities are going to have to go down the access easement. So, you have D2 easements. Just way I'm reading this, and I'm not a legal expert, but access easement says grants the right to cross another person's property to reach their own, especially common for landlocked properties. Utility easements allow utility companies like electric water companies access to property for infrastructure, maintenance, repairs, power lines, and water.

So, do we not need a utility access to get water in? Well, actually, they're both to to answer your question. Um, as you know, uh, if this were a public road, that's usually where you see your telephone poles and your utilities. This is a private access and that same access would therefore uh, be where the we would expect the utilities would come in at. Now, there'll be more detail presented as the chair mentioned when we get a little further down the road. Uh but um what we're here tonight for is the lot split and the utilities you can expect will be on that private road or easement or whatever you want to call it. I I think Phil you're going to need to present legal documents creating the easement for utility and we will util companies are going to run a utility accident right we'll present those documents at the appropriate time but as you pro pointed out that's step two the and I can tell you even though it's too early and we're not at step two that we'll do whatever uh summit soil and water or the other authorities uh require are with regard to drainage and we appreciate that. And to answer the question about contacting neighbors, I I always for 40 years now have felt that these hearings are where we do get some input from the neighbors and find out what they're thinking. Um, if I have to address that, the reality is they got a drainage problem now before we do a thing on that property. So, it's not like our property has caused it. Understood. Councelor, I don't mean to interrupt, but I want to make sure that we understand very level that's not any argument I've made at the beginning. I think it's been established in discussion with regard to this property that there are drainage issues at Lake Plat and I believe the baseline when it

comes to storm water is thou shalt not make it worse than whatever state that it is. That's correct. So, I want to make sure that we're we're even even killed on that. No, we're on the same page there and I'm assuring you we ain't going to make it any worse. Uh hopefully uh we don't we're not sure we can say it'll make it better though because we don't think their problem is caused by our property. Well, better is not the legal standard. I'll be the first. It has to be it is thou shalt not make it worse. Right. And I can tell you that commandment we will follow. Okay. Any other questions? Yeah. So go ahead, Steve. I just, and I said it before, if I were to purchase one of these front lots and find out that I have to pay taxes on the property that my neighbors using to access the lot behind me, plus um I don't think there's any waiver of liabilities on that. So, they're basically crossing my property and I'm liable for them being on my property. I just think it's a bad plan when you can legally develop this lot for three lots with no variances and we'd be totally done. But you're trying to sandwich in four lots and I just I think it's ridiculous. I think it's a bad plan and that's just my whether it's legal or not. That's just my my personal feeling and I'm done. All right. Thank you. Um Michael, I have nothing else. I do appreciate the opportunity to consult with the with the law director between last meeting and this one. Scott, any comments or questions? I do actually as the as the ranking representative of city council. Um I'm the son of a developer. My dad put me and my sister through school buying land and developing lots. I can't think of a single time in his 40 plus

year career that development didn't ruffle somebody's feather somewhere along the line. Um, Mr. Bazan, if you don't mind asking this question, does this plan this evening satisfy the city's requirements legally to have a a recommendation for this? definitely putting me on the spot there. But what I will say what I will say is uh the city planner has reviewed it and has opined I think numerous times now that the minor subdivision lot split that's before this commission does meet the code requirements. I have reviewed the city planner work and I have not identified any issues with that. Uh, and so that's a long way of going that at at this point it's the city's position that the application before you does check the boxes that are necessary for a minor subdivision lot split. Um, now in the end it's the planning commission's decision. But fair enough, but yeah long way around. Yes, I yes I do believe that the application so meets the requirements. I mean, everybody wants to talk about property owners rights and the ability to develop and so on and so forth. Certainly, the people that came up and spoke earlier this evening from Lake absolutely have rights as do the applicants here this evening. Um, Mr. Cohen, you've mentioned several times this is about the lot split and the legality thereof. um whether you like it or dislike it. I think if it meets the requirements um that I I I can't tell anybody how to vote, but I think that um you know, I think this is something that the applicants have the right to. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Lynn, any other information that you

want to provide uh planning commission regarding this application? Nothing else. Matt, anything else that you would? Uh, well, I guess one last thing. I think it was sufficiently handled, but just in case any of the members of the commission have any follow-up questions, Lyn and I did look into the property ownership, uh, that applicant did bring the deed. I think there I think the one acre issue, at least from the best that Lynn and I could come up with, there's an issue with how the property cards are being read by some of our residents. And it looks like when you read them, that there's one acre residual sitting out there. But that is actually a function of how the property cards are created in Summit County, at least based on uh Lynn's experience, that you have a listing of two separate acreages, one always being one acre and then the second listing is the balance of land that makes up that parcel. But I wanted to go back to that one because I think it's important for the commission to hear. The transfer was of a certain parcel ID within Summit County. It was purchased by the applicant and the applicant has the deed for that same 4 acre and some change parcel if you'd like to review it. Uh but that is something that Lynn and I were alerted to by our our residents here and we did investigate that and we found no errors or oddities or anything of the sort. Thank you. Um, I'm just going to say it one more time here before I make my motion that, uh, lots only, a lot of work down the line if this should get approved tonight. Um, as it relates to easements, storm water management, uh, and and anything else that will be part of the review and approval process by planning commission and and the city departments going forward. Any closing comments or anything else you'd like to share at

this time? No, thank you for listening to us. My dad was a rubber worker and we both benefited from the fact they put us through school. So, that was a good thing. That's all I have. All right. Thank you. Thanks. uh we'll sit down then and certainly hear from I'll let you have the opportunity uh to come back up and make one final comment here and and if need be you'll have the only the only thing I'd like to understand is that nothing can h nothing nothing can happen to those once this is approved if it should be approved tonight um that nothing can happen to those parcels as they sit right now until something is presented again in another form. Is that right? So you couldn't bring in a bulldozer and to tear down trees? I that goes to what Mr. Walker said about this isn't a building permit. So that Yeah, because I think I get your question. Yeah, this is not a permit that's going to authorize the building. It's not a zoning permit. Well, it's purely a lot split approval for the The only reason I mentioned that is because originally there was a house on on the property and that was torn down. I don't know. You know, one day we saw a bulldozer there and the next day we didn't see a house. So, uh I didn't know if that's something that had to go through the the planning commission at that time. It went through architectural review board. Okay. Thank you. That I just wanted to clarif uh I appreciated um what you were saying about um the requirement for the width to depth requirement. I was confused because I was looking at the paperwork from the original variance request and it was saying that it needed a variance that required that um width to depth variance. So that's where we got the impression that that was necessary. Um I also wanted to say that when this came this proposal came for

I've heard people say things like you previously approved this. That's not my understanding. My understanding is that there was a conditional approval based on certain conditions. Those conditions were not met and the conditions that were put on it previously have still not been met as far as my understanding goes. Um, I also uh what what Miss Mutter was saying um regarding the the frontage, she said that the city allows uh allows for it, but that doesn't mean that it must allow for it to allow the easement to count as frontage. There's a difference between it's allowed and it must be allowed. I still would contest and say and advocate that just because it can be allowed does not mean that it should be allowed or that you don't have the right as the planning commission to disallow that. Um, also in terms of emergency services, she had said that police and emergency services didn't make any comments in opposition. My question is did they make any comments in favor of this plan? because we have a whole set of codes set up where they might not even know that this is under consideration. Um so it's framed as if they didn't make any um opposition comments, but did they make any comments in favor? And then um I I'll just quote I my main question is does the planning commission have to accept the the easement in consideration of the lot frontage? And uh my read of it is that they do not. They do not have to accept that. And I would advocate that they should not accept it because it's ridiculous. It's it's ridiculous because the purpose and the spirit of it is to have a certain amount of frontage to to give access to the property. And if you look at how tiny it is in actuality because again we have to go back to that

picture, that silly silly picture of the lot split. Um ah can't bring it up right now where it's just a it's a real it's even more narrow for the majority of this lot frontage. It's only here that it's 75. So this is a 45 degree angle. What does that mean for does that mean that it could be a 75 degree angle? I mean like how how how far could you take this where it would still be acceptable and to be considered frontage? So I I advocate strongly that this is an appropriate frontage and that this is not in the spirit of uh of the code for the city and that it will do it will do harm to us um as property owners, you know, because this part right here where those trees are right by the swing set, that's all going to this is where the driveway is. That's where the driveway is, Mr. Chair. Yes. For the board's understanding, the definition of front lot line in the code is the boundary of a lot which abuts a public or private right ofway. A right-of-way easement on a private parcel is a private rightaway. You do not have the discretion to change the definition of lot line in our code. Thank you. Uh final comment. Yeah, I just want to continue on the the intent vision concept. Uh what we what I heard again in the last meeting, the functionality of what has been done by this easement was truly to grant the permission to have to pass the code. It's clearly it was a workaround. Simply that's what it did. the words out of the miles of of of

the commission here was the functionality did not change. The purpose there's going to be a driveway that's going to continue on past that easement. I mean, it's just it is ridiculous to some degree that we can have these workarounds to appease a code. Go back to intent, spirit, vision. What was the vision of our city in this comprehensive plan is to give quality of life, right? Quality of life of us as citizens. And I just don't see how this lot split in its, you know, and its impact on, you know, all the neighbors will have. It's just again intent spirit as part of what I read in the planning commission's role is to evaluate in addition to regulations. Thank you. Thank you. Did you have any final comments that you'd like to make regarding this? Only if you do, you need to come up to the microphone, please, so that it can get recorded for posterity. Uh, let me be brief. Um, time people have property rights and I've probably never been to a zoning hearing where some of the neighbors weren't too happy that somebody wanted to develop something next door, no matter how they wanted to develop it. It's our nature as human beings to be happy with the way things are hopefully and that's a credit to your community. But the reality is the landowner has property rights and our requirement is to follow your code. We've done that. Your planner said we

followed it. Your law director essentially said we followed it. So we believe you should approve this at this very early stage. All we're doing is a lot split. There'll be, as the chairman said, a lot more to be done later and we intend to meet all the commandments later. Uh, so with all respect, we would ask that you approve this. Lawyers always get to be pretty unpopular because sometimes we say we might sue somebody and we don't want to have to do that. The reality is we met your code. This matter should be approved. We can avoid that kind of thing by simply approving it and moving it down the road. If we screw up somehow in the future, that's an additional issue that you address then. But right now, we meet everything in your code and therefore we respectfully request that you approve this proposal. It's only the lot split. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Um, so I'm going to make a motion here in a moment and I'm going to preface it with this by saying, uh, to me this is a black and white issue for what we're doing and it's pretty straightforward as to what I see has to happen. But even saying that, it I find this to be a very difficult decision um in in what it is with everything that we've heard. But um, with that, I'm going to make the following motion. and upon reliance upon representations made by the applicant and their representative along with the submitted lots survey for 9385 Shepard Road permanent parcel number 64-01251 date stamped received April 1st 2025. I move that planning commission

approve the requested lot split with the following condition. Final approval of the easements by the city planner and law director. Do I have a second? Second. Discussion. Roll call. Mr. Cohen. Yes. Mr. Hogler? Yes. Mr. Sheck? No. Mr. Walker? No. It's a 22. requires a majority. Uh therefore, the uh application is not approved. Um any comments for them moving forward. You can have discussions with uh the city planner and law director uh at uh tomorrow, I guess, discussing this um defeated um at a 22. All right, moving on. Um, communications and miscellaneous. Uh, Scott, anything to share? Ed, anything? No, sir. Steve, um, are they moving forward with the parcel development up by the Cleveland Clinic for the trailer storage? They are. I see a lot of equipment. Yeah, they are. They um submitted a slight revision to the retaining wall feature. Um so yeah, they're moving forward. So you can stockpile some dirt. Yeah. Yeah. Anything else? Nope. Michael, I'm going to make a motion to excuse Craig when we come to it. Other than that, I have nothing else. Thank you. Uh Lynn, what do we see on the horizon? Um I think we should have a site plan for our June meeting. So I

would I would see us having a meeting. June, are you able to share for what? Um the the um just a site the Ravena Road site that you um reviewed for resoning the old blue top site. Um I think they'll be in front of us for a conditional use permit for storage units at least um on the portion of the property that is appropriately zoned at this time. I just call top storage. Yeah. That would be it's a June 16th. June 16th. All right. Anything else? That's it. You had anything else to share? Nope. That's it. Uh, a motion to excuse Craig this evening. So moved. Second. Discussion. Roll call. Mr. Walker. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Hogler. Yes. Mr. Cohen. Yes. Mr. Sheck. Yes. Then uh again uh thanks for another year of uh leading you wild guys. Thank you. and Steve, thank you for I I'll try not to uh go away when there's when there's big techn going on. So Craig Craig's wife's retiring tonight, so he's at Nice. Ah, okay, understandable. That's awesome. So, um, we'll say, uh, German, uh, 729.