[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6474042,"mediaKeyId","5742692-8ce6a25ac39d5d39718b28334cf13764","parentId",5742692,"title","Committee approves substitute version of front-yard plantings ordinance for further review","audioSeconds",2048,"startMs",33000,"endMs",2081000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5742692-8ce6a25ac39d5d39718b28334cf13764&start=33&end=2081","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5742692-8ce6a25ac39d5d39718b28334cf13764/thumbnail_33000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6474042/Lakewood/Cuyahoga-County/Ohio/Committee-approves-substitute-version-of-front-yard-plantings-ordinance-for-further-review","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6474042-d08256d224d550784dd15f26c7fdeda4/orig.mp4?Expires=1775393132&Signature=a6RKUSPGMJEfYygR2iuV2qXlHRSA2lV-4z6SCFvdRvWER0hMIzRw5hv7LA5oK8248d1n~x7A8bABahaMOYfXcPAnWmhXyAvopI7XweARPPgTeXvvc4qewcY33LqbwFEcDRZ4VifCj-GTfV1F3tSNPp3MLXrhlLHRhhkDyYNsiYQYQgLraIFa6jW3NKic7ThR2Bz4hyG4eD2sr8uofzX9X7a4N93OU13bL0dYtXTQ41Y~6MpoSceA5IYUW54RROo5m00Y8XNb~Bt9g~96WX5PBV9vK5TQVHkRmY8dGUxgeiNSN6iOWYB3VM0pkhG2CdDoPDo53-sxt9tkSM9BlOwZ7A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lakewood","date","2025-09-09T17:30:21Z","article","The Housing Planning Development Committee on Sept. 8 approved a substituted draft of Ordinance 18‑20‑25, a proposed change to Lakewood rules for front‑yard plantings, and left the item in committee for additional refinement and public outreach.

The substitute reduces some required buffer distances and clarifies how naturally managed landscapes would be treated while pointing enforcement back to existing code sections addressing sight lines and obstructions. Committee members and members of Keep Lakewood Beautiful said they want more time for review and public education before the city moves to final adoption.

Committee chair: “It's not my intention to pass this this evening. This is simply for discussion purposes,” the chair said at the start of the item, and the substitute motion was advanced for continued committee consideration. The chair described the intent as creating “an affirmative ability to grow and maintain managed natural landscapes” while preserving enforcement tools for safety concerns.

Why it matters: The ordinance would change how the city treats front‑yard plantings by allowing a broader set of native or intentionally managed plantings in small setbacks near sidewalks and driveways. That affects residents who have invested in rain gardens, native plantings or other non‑turf front yards, and it determines how the building department enforces vegetation that could block pedestrian or motorist visibility.

Key provisions and debate
- Setbacks: The committee discussion centered on lowering proposed side‑yard setbacks. The substitute narrows previously proposed 4‑foot setbacks to 2 feet along side property lines and maintains a 2‑foot setback from driveways, a distance the chair described as approximately a lawn mower's width. The chair said the change was intended to \"allow naturally managed landscapes.\"

- Height and sight‑line enforcement: The substitute refers enforcement to existing code sections for safety. The chair and building department staff cited code language that allows the building department to cite vegetation that obstructs pedestrian or motorist sight lines if plants exceed the specified heights, saying the code limits include a 36‑inch standard for obstruction in sight‑line contexts. The draft also retains a separate 6‑inch limit for turf grass to distinguish unkempt grass from intentionally managed plantings.

- Jurisdiction of the tree lawn: A member of the public and building staff clarified that the tree lawn — the strip between sidewalk and street — is part of the public right of way and falls under public works jurisdiction. Assistant director Swallow said the building department's jurisdiction begins at the edge of the sidewalk and the proposed ordinance would apply from the sidewalk back toward private property.

Public comment and community concerns
Allison Welch, a resident who spoke at the microphone, asked for clarity about which height standards applied to which plant types. She summarized the chair's intent: “As long as pedestrians can see and people can navigate the area. That's the intention of what's drafted at least.”

Agnes Michalak of Keep Lakewood Beautiful raised questions about how the city will define a “managed native natural landscape,” which plants will be permitted or prohibited, and whether changes could require residents who have invested years and money into established plantings to alter or remove them. Michalak and committee members discussed the value of grandfathering established plantings and providing clear public education and outreach before any enforcement changes take effect.

Committee action and next steps
A motion to substitute the ordinance with the redlined version presented at the meeting was moved and seconded and was approved by voice vote; the chair announced, “so the ordinance has been substituted, but it's still gonna stay in committee.” The committee directed staff to continue consultating with the building department, public safety, Keep Lakewood Beautiful and other stakeholders and to return when figures and definitions are refined. Committee members indicated they expect additional public education, and that a rollout would likely occur in early next year if adopted.

What remains unresolved
Committee members and public commenters asked for clearer, user‑friendly language about: who decides whether a planting qualifies as a managed native landscape; how the city's noxious‑weed list will be applied; whether existing plantings will be grandfathered; and whether the same principles might be extended to tree lawns in the future. Staff said the administration will seek public safety review of setback distances and will update the ordinance figures before the next hearing.

The committee left the substituted ordinance in committee for additional stakeholder review, edits and public education work before any final vote.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Housing, Planning & Development Committee - 9/8/2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Housing Planning Development Committee on Sept. 8 approved a substituted draft of Ordinance 18‑20‑25, a proposed change to Lakewood rules for front‑yard plantings, and left the item in committee for additional refinement and public outreach.","taxTitle","Lakewood, Cuyahoga County, Ohio","taxId",5453,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6474039,"Transit study recommends on‑demand contracted system as lowest‑cost option; fixed‑route carries higher cost and higher ridership potential",1447,2103000,3550000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5742692-8ce6a25ac39d5d39718b28334cf13764&start=2103&end=3550","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5742692-8ce6a25ac39d5d39718b28334cf13764/thumbnail_2103000.jpg","/articles/6474039/Lakewood/Cuyahoga-County/Ohio/Transit-study-recommends-ondemand-contracted-system-as-lowestcost-option-fixedroute-carries-higher-cost-and-higher-ridership-potential","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6474039-8712eb9e813578079813b0c45ed1511b/orig.mp4?Expires=1775393132&Signature=i8Q8w8l35gzoSIzzGygf-fc-~qt55laZc9F3Sbmw1JQTCs6pwoQ3YoOjTh0DFNBxBq4N2IjCnk-YB4wkIBIGIGnxtXyzWjWWLgFG-g9jwazdjZVjbiiUHTqVmAvfR0NqsFUL7IC8Vr-UxUTnHUgk2nzuS8mFjiEVKbGKsabO9aH~3FMO0LU~pOMW3~Jrmmtwm4aaWEfVU8KcsZoe39BiA5Tsx87Sxzxu2L9Fa2qhAf7FJLJuZnWhbPsRF2-mld3fx0e83c~jRu0jMJUKluu0zTCabW8cuXhLDSElVqIQA8VVnZ3g4vv0t0tayJ31i9huR3mTzs4KgHHzKiUeFR6X4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Housing Planning Development Committee heard a presentation Sept. 8 on a completed transit feasibility study conducted by Iteris that evaluated multiple ways to restore a local circulator or another local transit service in Lakewood. Assistant director Boss told the committee the consultant modeled fixed‑route, contractor‑operated and on‑demand alternatives and concluded that \"none of these systems are profitable, unfortunately,\" recommending an on‑demand contracted approach as the lowest‑cost, lowest‑risk option for the city.

The study surveyed residents, modeled likely boardings and tested six alternatives. It found demand for improved frequency and coverage but showed significant cost gaps between operating and fare revenue for fixed‑route options.

Survey and demand findings
Iteris received more than 500 survey responses asking how residents travel within Lakewood and where they would like to go. Walking was the top current mode; 44% of respondents ranked riding the bus among their top three preferred modes. Top desired destinations included Lakewood Park, the public library and several grocery and retail centers.

The consultant reported the primary reasons residents do not use existing transit were that buses do not come frequently enough and buses do not go where riders want to go. Iteris applied Federal Transit Administration (FTA) stop‑based forecasting and trip generation data to estimate potential ridership for route alternatives.

Alternatives and costs
Iteris modeled two fixed‑route loop options and multiple on‑demand permutations. The presentation showed fixed‑route forecasts ranging from roughly 43,000 to about 68,000 boardings per year in modeled scenarios; fare revenues were projected at roughly $100,000–$190,000 annually in the modeled fixed‑route cases. Capital costs in the fixed‑route scenarios were estimated at about $1.3–$2.5 million per 10‑year vehicle lifecycle, and annual operating costs ranged approximately $1.1–$3.7 million per year, depending on service hours and frequency.

Assistant director Boss summarized the consultant's recommendation: the city should consider an on‑demand contracted system (similar to the existing Senior Transportation Connection arrangement) as the most efficient, lowest‑risk path because it requires lower capital and operating outlays than a city‑owned fixed‑route operation.

Council discussion and next steps
Council members and the chair pushed the discussion toward funding and partnerships. Several council members suggested exploring external sponsors, partnerships with the school district or targeted pilots using existing vehicles to test demand and operational assumptions before committing to a large capital or operating program. One councilmember noted past experience: the Lakewood Circulator historically had high ridership relative to similar pilots but still required external subsidies and was discontinued for financial reasons.

Assistant director Boss said the study did not include direct negotiations with the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) or school district; Iteris used publicly available RTA and local data for modeling. He and members suggested staff could pursue follow‑up work such as: requesting any historical ridership data for the earlier Lakewood Circulator, seeking more detailed RTA cost information, and scoping a limited pilot or targeted service to test conversion from ride‑share trips and measure real demand.

What the study does not resolve
The consultant report did not identify a funding partner or an immediately implementable fixed‑route solution that would cover capital and operating costs through fares. Council members observed that the broader funding environment — including state and federal transit funding levels — will strongly affect the feasibility of restoring a circulator. The committee asked staff to make the Iteris report publicly available and to return with follow‑up options if council is interested in pursuing pilots or partnership discussions.","A consultant study presented to the Housing Planning Development Committee found no self‑sustaining (fare‑covered) option for a Lakewood circulator. Iteris modeled fixed‑route and on‑demand alternatives, forecasted ridership, and concluded an on‑demand contracted model would be the lowest‑cost, lowest‑risk way to restore local service; councilors","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee approves substitute version of front-yard plantings ordinance for further review

Transit study recommends on‑demand contracted system as lowest‑cost option; fixed‑route carries higher cost and higher ridership potential