Board approves variances for Pearl Road bank, holds off on digital highway sign
Hi, I’ll be live-tweeting today’s City of Cleveland, Board of Zoning Appeals meeting beginning at 9:30 am for #CLEdocumenters @CLEdocumenters @NeighborUpCLE
08:20 AM Aug 2, 2021 CDT
You can watch the meeting live on the City Planning Commision’s Youtube channel:
Here is a link to the full meeting agenda. I will post the relevant portions of the agenda as projects are discussed.
https://planning.clevelandohio.gov/bza/agenda/2021/crr08-02-2021.pdf
A little background on the Board of Zoning Appeals: it is a 5-member body responsible for hearing appeals from individuals who are requesting exceptions or variations for City Ordinances in regard to land use and building requirements.
The Board also hears appeals from individuals who are questioning the appropriateness of orders made by City officials.
On today’s agenda are five projects. Three projects are on the eastside in Ward 1 (3912 East 155th St.), Ward 8 (16115 Waterloo Rd.), and Ward 9 (607 E. 102 St.). Two projects are on the westside in Ward 3 (2451 Thurman St.) and Ward 13 (4106 Pearl Rd.)
There are currently four sitting-members of the Board of Zoning Appeals: Kelley Britt ( Chairperson ), Tim Donovan, Myrline Barnes, and Alanna Faith.
All board members are present at the beginning of the meeting, and the meeting starts promptly at 9:30 am, with Board Secretary, Elizabeth Kukla, introducing the meeting’s ground rules with a preamble.
This meeting is being held virtually over the WebEx platform. Comments could be emailed beforehand, and can be given through the App’s chat function.
Councilman Kevin Kelley is present at the meeting. Therefore, the Board begins with the Case in Ward 13, where Kelley is councilman.
Discussion begins on agenda meeting: Calendar No. 21-114: 4106 Pearl Rd, Ward 13.
The owner proposes to erect a 2,200 square foot bank building and 15 space parking lot in a G2 Local Retail Business District and an Urban Form Overlay District. https://t.co/u7AJjBu8bX
For the Ward 13 case those testifying are asked to swear an oath, those swearing-in include Lucas Reeve, Jeffrey Cossel, Tony Coyne, Matt Moss (City Planning Commision), and Councilman Kelley.
In 1975, the property was zoned as a muffler shop. Variances were applied on this property for a motor vehicle repair garage.
In 2016, the property was rezoned according to Elizabeth Kukla, and is now included in an Urban Overlay District.
The property owner is seeking a variance to include more parking spaces on the property than allowed by the code. According to Coyne this is necessary because the code allows only six spaces, and he argues the bank won’t have spaces for customers.
Coyne describes that although the Code only allows 20 feet for driveways, the property owner seeks more to allow for vehicular traffic.
The Code requires landscaping, however Coyne describes that the bank would like to have masonry work instead of landscaping. He cites safety concerns due to bank robberies at ATMs in the neighborhood.
The owner appeals for relief from the strict application of six sections of the Cleveland Codified Ordinances, Section 384.04, dealing with Urban Form Overlay Districts.
The Purpose of Section 384.04 is “to foster a high level of walkability and design quality for Cleveland’s urban streets.”
Matt Moss from the City of Cleveland responds to Mr. Coyne’s. He says that the plan already passed through design review from the city of Cleveland.
Moss states that the city supported a proposed single curb-cut on Pearl Rd. despite the code’s prohibition, because it could promote future development in the vicinity.
“The project team has done a great job working with the city,” says Moss.
Jeffrey Cossel and Coyne discuss with Moss the height of shrubs and potential layouts for walkways. A sticking point for Cossel is the steepness of the grade change for a possible additional walkway.
A compromise to create a step instead of a ramp is pushed back against by Cossel, due to liability issues, including possible skateboarders using the space.
Moss indicates that the entrance would not have to be ADA compliant, due to an already ADA accessible entrance. Moss reiterates that the spirit of the code requires an entrance on the main street for the Urban Overlay district.
Lucas Reeve from the Old Brooklyn Community Development Corporation raises the point that the easement to the property on Pearl Rd. is important to develop the property to the north of this property.
Reeve cites the property’s proximity to a large new park. He cites the property to the north as a long time “problem” in the neighborhood. And therefore access to the property to the north is important for future development.
Coyne mentions that there has been discussion of developing the property to the north as a residential development, although he mentions that this may not be feasible.
Moss reiterates that the goal of the city is for this section of Pearl Road to be as “pedestrian-friendly as possible.” Therefore, the request for only a single curb-cut on Pearl.
Kelley says “this is a critical project for the neighborhood.” He says that the site, as is, is “terrible.” He says that the developer here can be “relied on” and the plan for the bank fits the needs of the neighborhood.
Kelley urges the Board to approve this project in order to see construction begin “as soon as possible.”
Board Member Tim Donovan moves to support the variances, noting that the single curb-cut issue was discussed as related to future development. Motion is seconded.
Secretary Kukla asks whether a motion would include the variations to shrub heights, as well as a pedestrian acess from Henninger. Chairperson Britt affirms. All four members support the motion.
Calendar No. 21-114: 4106 Pearl Rd, Ward 13, is approved conditionally. Ratification hinges on receipt of amended drawings.
Discussion begins on agenda itm Calendar No. 21-109: 3912 East 155th Street, Ward 1.
Discussion begins on agenda item: Calendar No. 21-109: 3912 East 155th Street, Ward 1.
The owners of this property are proposing to establish use at this property as a Residential Facility for six occupants in an A1 One Family Residential District.
Rita Davidson says that she has updated her application from six residents to five residents. She says that the facility she intends to run will be “run properly” and create “jobs.” She cites her experience in the foster system, and that her mother raised foster children.
Section 337.02(h) states that a Residential Facility of more than 5 unrelated persons is not permitted in a One Family District, nor if it is located within one thousand feet from another Residential Facility.
Rita Davidson says that she wants the house to be for only five residents. There is a discussion then about the standard for approving the facility.
Following a question from Laure Wanger, Davidson says that the house staffing hours are “6 am to 11 pm.” She says she has spoken to the neighbors, but has not spoken to the councilman.
Board Member Donovan citing “due dilligence” suggests the Davidson asks for a postponement on this case, and Chairperson Britt suggests she speak with the councilman to put together her case for this variance.
Davidson requests a postponement for 30 days on this case. The case is postponed until September.
Discussion begins on Calendar No. 21-093: 16115 Waterloo Rd. Ward 8.
The owner, The McPhillip’s Way, proposes to erect an 80 feet tall automatic changeable copy (digital) pole sign in a C2 Local Retail Business Zoning District.
The city originally requested a proposement on this case. It is before the Board now. There was extensive testimony about this case at the last meeting were it was. The appelant is appealing denial of this sign by the city.
The sign in question is 4x larger than allowed by Section 350.14(b) of the Codified Ordinances, which states that the maximum square footage is 50 square feet. The appellant is proposing a sign of 219 square feet. https://t.co/IzYXgl1gXw
Sean McPhillips discusses the design for this sign. He says since the wall was built on the highway hid the old sign at the business. McPhillips says that the sign is angled at the highway, and that it dims at night.
Chairperson Britt mentions that the wall has been up for 14 years.
City Planner Sharonda Whatley reiterates that the design for the sign was rejected by the city beforehand when it was brought before design review and the planning commission.
Whatley discusses that design review has not approved “a pole sign” since her tenure on committe. She says that the discussion at the committee dealt with the longstanding nature of the business in the community.
Councilman Micheal Polensek says that proposed sign is critical for the McPhillips business and that “it would not impact the adjacent residential community.” And based on his interactions with the neighbors, he supports the variances. https://t.co/0sweO7cSlX
Board Member Donovan asks whether the sign will advertise businesses beyond McPhillip’s Way. The owners say it will not.
Donovan asks whether the commission’s decisions were “arbitrary and capricious,” citing the standard required to approve a variance.
Maurice Reuelens recites arguements made at Planning Commission and Design Review Committee discussing that they felt this variance was “too extreme too pass.”
Donovan cites again the “arbitrary and capricious” standard, stating that the decision made seems not to have been. Board Member Alanna Faith says she agrees with Donovan’s assessment.
McPhillips says that he is asking the Board to approve their variance to help them, so they can hire more people and do more sales.
Elizabeth Kukla brings up a portion of the code allows for certain businesses to have higher signs when close enough to a freeway exit or entrance ramp. According to Mr. Ricardi, this is true, but he says that the current sign does not fit into this category.
Donovan makes a motion to find that the Design Review or Planning Commission were NOT “arbitrary and capricious.” The motion is seconded and all members of the board vote in favor. Therefore the administrative appeal was denied.
Donovan makes a motion to approve the variances for the sign, based on the freeway exception cited by Elizabeth Kukla, and only if the business advertises on the sign for the business and it is removed were the business to be out of business.
Mr. Riccardi brings up the point that the sign requires approval by the City Planning Commission, because it is located in a design review district, therefore upholding the Commission’s original decision makes approval of variances impossible.
Mr. Ruelens says that this sign doesn’t qualify as a freeway ramp sign and another freeway ramp sign mentioned in the Planning Commission was 40 feet high, and this sign would be 80 feet high.
There seems to be confusion over whether or not the Board is able to approve variances after already approving denial of this project by the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission.
Mr. Riccardi says that in cases were City Planning wanted to punt to the Board to make a decision, they did not deny a plan on their own. Whereas here, City Planning already denied the project.
Board Member Alanna Faith asks about what alterations have been made to the sign, through the design review process. “It seems to me that there was lack of effort on trying to be compliant with the code.”
McPhillips discusses revisions made to the sign before bringing it to the Commission. “We have made numerous improvements, and we would like to leave it up to you guys.”
At this point, the Board has ruled on the administrative appeal: it has denied the appeal.
So to sum up: on agenda item Calendar No. 21-093: 16115 Waterloo Rd. Ward 8. Both the variances and the administrative appeal sought to construct the sign are denied.
Discussion begins on agenda issue: Calendar No. 21-113: 2451 Thurman St., Ward 3.
The owners of this property propose to erect a 26’ x 50’-3” three story frame single family residence with 2 bay attached garage in a B1 Two-Family Residential District. https://t.co/eafwkNtpzi
Harper continues, “This is a typical new construction project on Thurman.” “We typically work to get the garages set back further,” but he says in this case “it wasn’t feasible.” https://t.co/ShP6z1Rg8O
Wagner brings up the fact that the agenda lists this project as a single-family home, but the architectural design notes it as a two-family home. According to the Chairperson this is a two-family district, so should be allowed.
Donna Grigonis says that the block clubs in the area have approved the project and that it was “clear in her notes” at every meeting she attended that this was a two-family home. “I know that the neighbors knew that.”
Mr. Riccardi notes that “we can make it a two-family now. And all the variances are the same.”
Board Member Allana Faith moves to approve the variances for Calendar No. 21-113: 2451 Thurman St., Ward 3. Members Donovan, Britt, and Faith vote yes. When asked, Ms. Barnes did not respond to vote.
The Board approves the variances for Agenda item: Calendar No. 21-113: 2451 Thurman St.
Discussion begins on agenda item Calendar No. 21-117: 607 E. 102 St, Ward 9. https://t.co/hNYccK5cm8
The owners of this project propose to build a chain-link fence for her front yard. Ms. Wilson says that people are cutting across her yard. “It’s really creating a lot of problems,” and “It’s making me uncomfortable to live in my own house.”
Maurice Ruelens mentions that on this street there are many fences already on the street, and therefore there is a “precedent.”
Board Member Faith, says that this issue is a “safety concern” and that she moves to approve the variance.
The motion is seconded by Board Member Donavan. Votes in favor are Board Members Britt, and Faith, and Donavan. When asked to vote Ms. Barnes did not respond. Variances are approved.
Meeting adjourned at 11:415 a.m. This concludes the City of Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. For meeting coverage check out http://documenters.org
Have questions? Think we got something wrong? Send any inquiries on the meeting or these tweets to @cledocumenters Or email us at documters@neighborhoodgrants.org