Planning Commission

MINUTES REGULAR MEETING CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2022, 6:00PM CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL BUILDING 190 CHURCH STREET NE The regular meeting of the Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission was called to order by Tricia Pennington, Chairman at 6:05 P.M. Commissioners present included Ben Berry, Clarke Taylor, Maryl Elliott, Tiffani Sherlin, and Bill Estes. Clarke Taylor arrived at 6:06 P.M. Commissioners absent included Alma Dotson, Blake Allison, and Jamie Creekmore. Staff present included Robert Varnell, Planning Director, Erica Bevis, Darla Jenkins, Administrative Coordinator, Joel Prince, Planner/Codes Enforcement Supervisor, Jonathan Jobe, Director of Development and Engineering Services, Cathy Andrews, Redevelopment Coordinator, and Joe Fivas, City Manager. Legal Counsel present included John Kimball, Attorney for the City of Cleveland. Others present included Justin Dumsday of River Street Architecture, Jason Farmer of Riverstone Construction, Tony Richmond of Richmond Surveying, Mike Gray of Tacala, Dustin Tommey of City Fields, Wes Robbins of CT Properties, Richard and Shirley Hames, Vanetta Bratcher, Janet Hutson, Ryan Morris, John Bratcher, Chad and Jennifer Grisham and Barb and Randy Minnix. The minutes of the January 18, 2022, regular meeting were presented for approval. Ben Berry made a motion to approve the January 18, 2022 minutes and Bill Estes seconded the motion. A vote of 5-0 passed the motion. Yes-5 No-0 Absent-4 In the Public Hearing, Public Hearing to hear comments for the FY2022- 2023 CDBG Annual Action Plan. Chairperson Pennington called the public hearing to order and introduced Cathy Andrews, Redevelopment Coordinator for the City of Cleveland. Ms. Andrews informed the commission and public that the city is requesting comments as it relates to the 2022-2023 CDBG Annual Action Plan. Ms. Andrews outlined the CDBG program, defining the 3 national objectives. She also gave examples of project that have been implemented with CDBG dollars. Bill Estes and Ms. Andrews described the CDBG target area in the City of Cleveland. Page 1 of 33  Bill Estes stated that he would offer comments to Ms. Andrews at a later date for the record. Dustin Tommey of City Fields thanked the CDBG program for its support and requested that funds be use for Down Payment Assistance and efforts toward affordable housing. With no further comments, Chairperson Pennington closed the hearing. Clarke Taylor arrived at 6:06 P.M. In the Consent Agenda, a. Request by Northpoint Surveying for approval of a Revised Preliminary Plat of Murray Ridge Subdivision Lots 3 & 4 of Phase 2 Robert Varnell stated this item is a revised plat. They switched up kind of structures they want to build there. So, it changed the lot a little bit. It meets our regulations, and we recommend approving. Bill Estes made a motion to approve the request and Ben Berry seconded the motion. A vote of 6-0 approved the motion. Yes-6 No-0 Absent-3 In Old Business, a. Request by Courtyard by Marriot for approval of a proposed hotel located on Frontage Rd NW. The property comprises Tax Map 33 Parcel 4.01 and contains 2.35 acres. The property is zoned CG General Commercial Zoning District and is also located in the IGC Interstate Gateway Corridor Overlay Zoning District. Robert Varnell stated this is a second submittal. The criteria that we look for in the Interstate Zone has been met. They were agreeable to what we look at to include in our gateways. This item is ready to approve based on the staff’s recommendation. On the first floor is masonry on the first floor. And above that is architectural detail that they have gone above and beyond on most of the models they are building of similar use around the country. The effort they’ve put in meets the ordinance we are trying to achieve. Bill Estes made a motion to approve subject to staff comments and Clarke Taylor seconded the motion. A vote of 6-0 passed the motion. Yes-6 No-0 Absent-3 Page 2 of 33 In New Business, a. Request by TACALA, LLC for approval of proposed Taco Bell located on Pleasant Grove Road. This property comprises Tax Map. Robert Varnell stated this item was coming to us new. A rendering is in your packet which you can see the brick, the stone…. the structure is wrapped in brick. There may be slight modifications in the structure size, but they still have the intent in providing the brick, being above the minimum threshold we’ve ask for in these gateway areas. Our staff recommendation is for approval. There were some outstanding comments for the site plan, and we will see that later. Ben Berry made a motion to approve the request and Bill Estes seconded the motion. A vote of 6-0 passed the motion. Yes-6 No-0 Absent-3 Tricia Pennington stated Ben Berry will be joining the audience for the remainder of the meeting and recuses himself from any voting. b. Request by CT Properties for consideration of a resolution to adopt a Plan of Service for about 23.4 acres, more or less, for property located on New Murraytown Road and Freewill Road (also described as Tax Map 40 Parcel 78.00). Robert Varnell stated this annexation request Is by the property owner. The parcel is not contiguous currently to the city limits. Our anticipation based on the requests of the Bradley County Road superintendent, Sandra Knight, that we should annex Freewill Road from the current edge of the city limits all the way out to the edge of this property. Out to this point here, we will plan on annexing Freewill Road. On New Murraytown Road, we will plan on annexing this section of the road just in front of the development. The only comments he received are in the plan of service. This process will go to County Commission after we for their approval after we do ours as well. Ben Berry of Berry Engineers representing the property owner. He stated that this is the second development to take advantage of the Cleveland Utilities multimillion dollar sewer project that went under the interstate. Bill Estes made a motion to approve the Plan of Service and Maryl Elliott seconded the motion. A vote of 5-0 passed the motion. Ben Berry recused himself. Yes-5 No-0 Absent-3 Recused-1 Page 3 of 33 c. Request by CT Properties for consideration of a resolution to annex about 23.4 acres, more or less, for property located on New Murraytown Road and Freewill Road (also described as Tax Map 40 Parcel 78.00) Robert Varnell stated Ben Berry had spoken of the sewer line that was extended to this side of the interstate. We will be annexing the portion of the road making a contiguous connection that they were looking for from a county level. Staff recommends approves the annexation. Bill Estes asked John Kimball if it was legal to annex even if the road was not annexed, even though it does not have the road annexed first? Is it ok to annex without the interlocal agreement? John Kimball stated if you recall on noncontiguous annexations, the city and county are required to do an interlocal agreement to address the maintenance of county roads between the existing city limits and the property to be annexed as well as roads and bridges and also potential the use of emergency services. That’s the purpose of the interlocal agreement. That’s why Mr. Varnell stated before this goes to our legislative body, it should go to Bradley County legislative body. Yes, because this is just a recommending body. It’s a legislative action. It’s not final until it’s vote on by the city council. Robert Varnell stated the maps that we move forward with will reflect a contiguous Freewill Road to the city limits. Bill Estes made a motion to approve the request and Tiffani Sherlin seconded the motion. A vote of 5-0 passed the motion. Ben Berry recused himself. Yes-5 No- 0 Absent-3 Recused-1 d. Request by CT Properties for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 23.4 acres, more or less, from the unincorporated County to PUD Planned Unit Development Zoning District for property located on New Murraytown Road and Freewill Road (also described as Tax Map 40 Parcel 78.00). Robert Varnell stated they’ve been working on the PUD (Planned Unit Development) document with the applicant that gives them some flexibility on the homes they will provide. This will provide both single-family detached and attached townhomes. There are two (2) distinct types of areas, one being townhomes and the other is a single-family area. There’s approximately one hundred twenty-four (124) units on the conceptual plan. Eighty-four (84) will be townhomes and will be accessed from Freewill Road. The remainder will be accessed from New Murraytown Road. There Page 4 of 33 will be completely separate entrances. There’s ample stream buffer that they have worked to preserve here. That’s where our sewer line is located. There’s another stream buffer that divides the two (2) pieces of property. Instead of trying to cross with a bridge, there are two (2) separate entrances. Bill Estes asked if there were any ingress/egress off Freewill? The last few PUDs (Planned Unit Development) we’ve done have had turn lanes, stacking lanes etc. Robert Varnell stated to do a proper turn lane, we would be getting into other people’s property and that starts creating a different situation. We are reserving the right of way in the front so we can make some upgrades at some point. We’ve done a Freewill Road study recently. Bill Estes stated someone else owns that property. So, if you let eight four (84) units in without a turn lane, you are devaluing their property. You don’t have the property, so we can’t do it just doesn’t hold with me. Robert Varnell stated he understood. You all have the ability to talk about this thing. Bill Estes stated there’s a school that causes traffic problems there every day. Jonathan Jobe state you all can recommend it. That would be fine. Robert Varnell stated we can see where that discussion would lead. Bill Estes stated as a member of the city council, he gets hammered about traffic. We are going to annex this. We got Prospect (school) and four (4) miles away we have Hopewell (school). To sneak over to Exit 25 from Harrison Pike, this is the line. Robert Varnell stated there are different types of discussions on turn lanes and what they look like. We’ve got Interstate 75 right of way that this road is completely within practically. On the other side we’ve got the fence and we are not going past that. There are different thought processes on how to make that work Bill Estes stated that’s not my area. Robert Varnell stated I know. The perspective is the point is valid and you all can bring it and put it in this. That’s the benefit of being here. Page 5 of 33 Jonathan Jobe stated we are fine with adding it. Bill Estes stated but if there’s no room….. Robert Varnell stated I think we could find some way to work it. We’ve got a thirty (30) foot setback off Freewill Road that’s part of the PUD (Planned Unit Development). That gives us room going that direction. Jonathan Jobe stated Freewill Road is actually in the Interstate right of way so we can make that work. We will have to talk to TDOT (Tennessee Department of Transportation). Robert Varnell stated neighborhood itself is like most of the other PUD’s (Planned Unit Development) you’ve seen. There are some architecture details, some amenities details…. One thing that we’ve put in here is section on whether it’s a single-family home or townhome unit identical elevations being right next to each other…that needs to be broken up and that’s something we are looking at to add to things…… Tricia Pennington stated is that for both single family and townhomes. Robert Varnell stated we are looking for a bit of change and design thought put in it. Tricia Pennington stated when there is a cluster of townhomes…when they are consistent with one another it gives a much more uniform look. It gives them a hodge-podge look if every building is different elevation, different designs…..when you have so many close together, it’s actually going to get the opposite result from what you are wanting. You want something that looks clean. I can understand you saying that you can’t build two (2) houses exactly alike. In approving this, are we approving that? Jonathan Jobe stated what we are looking for is each townhome is split with a different color like what you did in Bellingham. Like a group of four (4) could have that same building but different colors. Tricia Pennington stated I just want to be careful about regulating what choices a builder has on the job site. Robert Varnell stated what we are trying to do is have something that looks really nice. A new development that looks good. And we can’t judge it based on who’s Page 6 of 33 doing it. That’s where this stuff comes from. We are trying to protect the overall…. On the lot widths, the townhomes will follow the townhome ordinance. We are looking for a minimum of a forty-six (46) lot width for single family homes. We done this before with the three (3) feet and the ten (10) feet (side setbacks) so you have room to get to the back yard between these homes. We are looking for amenities to be mixed into these neighborhoods such as playground equipment or a painted pavilion something they can enjoy. We put in here that they (the townhomes and single-family homes) both have access to it. Bill Estes asked if all units would have sidewalk access. Robert Varnell stated that was correct. Tricia Pennington asked if when they went outside of the PUD (Planned Unit Development) was there a sidewalk. Robert Varnell stated not currently. It’s currently a county road and as we bring it into the city, we do quite a few projects as we can. We’ve done a study of Freewill Road that calls out to certain things. Bill Estes stated so it’s going to have the one big mailbox. Robert Varnell stated that was post office thing if they require it… Bill Estes stated that would change our drawing substantially. Robert Varnell stated the kiosk isn’t shown at this point. I don’t think that it takes up so much space that they are going to lose anything. And there would be two (2) parking spaces. Once you go above fifty (50) units, you go to two (2) parking lots. Bill Estes stated some of our side discussions on the standards we have R2, R3…and how to keep that consistent when we do PUD’s. Robert Varnell stated part of the PUD (Planned Unit Development) is that we can adapt a little bit. Bill Estes stated yes but keeping it equitable and then the rest of us over the last eighteen (18) months to be consistent. Do the townhomes have side walks or do they not? Does everybody have sidewalks on both sides or do they not? Every PUD is unique. Is this really the way Cleveland wants to go where you have not all Page 7 of 33 R1 but have all R1 and more of a cluster development. We don’t have to be consistent, but we have to make sense and defend this when I have people call me, whether on the planning commission or city council, after it passes here. Clarke Taylor stated people want to know what’s in the PUD (Planned Unit Development). Not knowing discourages people. Robert Varnell stated we try to include everything we can think of that might be impactful. Getting uniformity is the direction we are headed. Ben Berry with Berry Engineers stated he would pass out and did a redline…. And he did read every word. There are some changes. We have three (3) agenda items that are similar in the text of PUD (Planned Unit Development). Have some similar issues although each site is different. He stated he passed out picture of townhomes. (No copy is available for the minutes). This is an R2 property with sewer on sites and has mobile homes on this property and accesses Freewill Road. This is a big improvement. This is one (1) property but two (2) separate developments. A townhouse development on Freewill Road and a single-family subdivision New Murraytown Road. The intent was not to have any interaction between the two (2) developments. This is dictated by topography and streams. The townhomes set on a hill and then it drops off to a stream buffer that’s a natural separation between the single family and the town homes. There’s not an opportunity or desire to have common amenities, or links between the two (2) completely separate developments that will subdivide that way, one the zoning is in place. Ben Berry stated he wished to go over the language in the PUD (Planned Unit Development): It’s consistent with other PUD’s (Planned Unit Development) we’ve approved with single family homes. It’s not applicable for townhomes. You get into aesthetic opinions. I passed out pictures of townhomes in The Grove on Old Tasso Road. These would not be allowed with this language. And that’s backward in my opinion. I think these are some of the better ones in the city. What I’ve proposed in this redline, is to remove these requirements from the townhome and just limit it to the single family. It has the statement that vinyl siding is prohibited. On the side note, “on the front elevation except were used as accents.” The first red line would apply to single family homes and the second red line would apply to all of them. Robert Varnell stated on the front. Page 8 of 33 Tricia Pennington stated she was not a fan of vinyl siding, but she used it when she builds because it makes it affordable. If we are concerned about affordable housing, we may be setting up something here to say all vinyl siding is prohibited. We may be setting us up to continue to price people out of the market. Cleveland is a town that needs more affordable housing. Jonathan Jobe stated this is just for this PUD (Planned Unit Development) and just for the front. Wes Robbins of CT Properties stated this PUD (Planned Unit Development) is off Freewill Road and is blocked by a mini storage facility that’s in front of it on Freewill. That’s what you see. After you get into the entrance, it’s kind of private on the townhome side. We’ve built several townhomes and change the colors as we go. We normally use twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) per cent of stone or block on the front with hardie backer the rest of the way. They only vinyl you have on the front is the soffet or facia. Robert Varnell stated staff’s intent was more vinyl siding in place of the cement fiber. We included the cement fiber on one to use. We’re talking about the front of the structure. If we need to make a small notation on soffits, that’s not a major drawback. Tricia Pennington stated she did not have any concerns if this is strictly on this one property and owner is happy with it. Ben Berry stated going down the second to last paragraph, it states, “Each single- family home must include a minimum of 2 (two) car garage..” That’s the first time I’ve seen this introduced in a PUD (Planned Unit Development). I don’t think this is something we want to require in a zoning document for a subdivision off New Murraytown Road. We would like that sentence removed. That’s why we marked it out. On the next page, it goes over the amenities. He stated he had marked out the first sentence, “A high quality playground…..” The developments are physically separated by topography, streams…there’s not going to be anything between the two (2). For this PUD (Planned Unit Development), the natural amenity is natural. There’s lots of streams, lots of open area, lots of tree preservation around those around the streams, especially in the single-family. In the townhomes, there open space in the middle of the townhomes and space a the end of the cul-de-sac. We Page 9 of 33 are looking for the natural amenities on this site to be sufficient for the amenity requirement that we usually have with PUDs (Planned Unit Development). They can form a homeowner’s association later and they can decide what to build later. They can make their decisions once they get established based on who lives there, what they want and what they want to maintain. Bill Estes stated that it’s his understanding that Ben Berry, Wes Robbins (owner-CT Properties) and staff have met and did not come to an agreement on these issues. So, staff, Robert, you’re recommending what’s in print and Ben you’re asking for what’s in red. Robert Varnell stated correct. Ben Berry stated yes. Bill Estes stated he was asking to see the egress and ingress for both ways and the mail kiosks. There’s a lot to hammer out. Those three (3) issues for me and the four (4) issues that you are asking for. Page 10 of 33 Red-Lined Handout for Freewill Road from Ben Berry of Berry Engineers Page 11 of 33 Page 12 of 33 Robert Varnell stated he understood the comments on the amenities because we are building tight lots, amenities are more of a thing now. When you give someone more density, they are able to build more homes. He would like some amenity of some description included. It’s a benefit for the residents. He did not think we should pass it off to them to do the work later. As a city, we think let’s provide a quality development while we are doing this. For a single-family home, he thought a garage was essential. They are not going to have basements. He thought the type of development, if you are going to have a PUD (Planned Unit Development), that expectation, he would think what they are planning to build would have a garage. I think that it’s important to have off street parking either for storage or the kids to park. Jason Farmer, owner of Riverstone Construction, stated that he had the third case tonight. I feel that you are about to vote on something that’s similar to my case. We have a number of subdivisions here in the city and in the county. We have also developed in a lot of other municipalities. The beauty of a PUD (Planned Unit Development) is very attractive to the builders and to cities and there is a set of rules. When I put a site under contract, I know what those rules are. I’ve looked at that and evaluated that site. I’ve met with my engineer here. I feel that this is a bit of changing those rules midstream. When we’ve evaluated developments before, we’ve never looked at design standards, materials and elevations. I have a beautiful development in Bellingham Phase 3. We have four (4) different colors, and the elevation is the same for all the townhouses. We have people waiting in line and I am super proud of them. I’ve never built anything in Bradley County that does not have hardy board and brick or stone on the front and three (3) sides vinyl. But I would like to have the ability to do so. If I find some property that fits and I can build some affordable housing that may not have a garage or carport or that types of things, I would be proud to do that. As somebody who puts a lot of property under contract, develops and builds, it feels like it’s a little bit late in the game to be changing the rules that I made decisions on six (6), eight (8), ten (10) months ago. Clarke Taylor stated that he agreed. Are we promoting free enterprise or are we promoting hold my hand in this? Bill Estes stated that when we don’t follow R1 and R2, and then we go with a PUD (Planned Unit Development), and everything is negotiable. Everything is on the table. Page 13 of 33 Jason Farmer, owner of Riverstone Construction, stated that he had read the PUD (Planned Unit Development) language in your subdivision regulations, and that’s what he made his decisions on. Bill Estes stated it’s a starting point for negotiations cause each piece of property is unique and we are trying to work with…. this is my opinion, not speaking for anybody else…. I don’t know how late in the game this is. I don’t know when your discussion with the city started on this item on the agenda. But it seems like this is the process. It’s come here. The city apparently can not agree with Mr. Robbins, so we got to hash it out here. And this is process. Jonathan, Am I wrong on this? Is that what we are for, Mr. Kimball? Jonathan Jobe stated yes. John Kimball stated you are correct. Bill Estes stated of the seven (7) items we disagree with with…. two (2) car garages, and playground amenities. Those are the two (2) things as well as ingress/egress, no drawing for the mail kiosk, Tiffani Sherlin asked if they were takeout the minimum of two (2) car garage, are you still planning on one (1)? Ben Berry stated he did not know what they were planning on building.. They may be planning on building a two (2) car garage, but it’s just one of those things, he didn’t it was the place for the city to dictate that requirement. He thought that was a builder and market driven thing. Parkstone Village, Tom Cate’s redevelopment of a mobile home park at Westland Drive and Norman Chapel Road, it has townhomes but on the single family…the house plans that Tom is planning to use is a thousand (1000) square feet, two (2) bedrooms and a carport. There’s a list of people waiting. It's small lots and small cottage style homes. I trust them to make those decisions more than I trust myself. It’s just another thing I don’t want to see in another PUD (Planned Unit Development). I just don’t think it’s our place. You mentioned requirements and the negotiation. This PUD (Planned Unit Development) is just as requirements. The single family would meet the cluster subdivision regulations and the PUD (Planned Unit Development) only adds to those. So, the developer is not getting any flexibility back from normal code. They only gave. Same thing with the townhomes. This only adds to the requirements of R2. There is no give and take. It was only adding to. So, he thinks if it’s approved as a PUD (Planned Unit Page 14 of 33 Development) here with the markups here, its more stringent here, than what’s require in normal R1 or R2 code. Wes Robbins of CT Properties stated to answer Ms. Sherlin’s question, our intent would be two (2) car garages on each house that we build, but you may have a lot the way lots lays, the house footprint, setbacks…. We may be in the position of putting a one (1) car garage. That’s things we figure out down the road. It’s not our intent to build a house without a garage. But being handcuffed to a two (2) car garage is very difficult. It changes the whole property. I was involved in the annexation with the Hensley Road project with Pratt (Builders) and I don’t recall that we were forced to put in a playground or anything like that. In making decision on this piece of property, those decisions were no made with a playground or pavilion in mind. Bill Estes asked Mr. Robbins, did you get to read this before you came tonight? Wes Robbins stated he read the one that came out Friday. I’ve not seen the red lined. Ben Berry stated you asked about process. Bill Estes stated that’s important to me. Ben Berry stated In January he drafted this plan and the text of a PUD (Planned Unit Development). We had an in-person meeting. I submitted both to the city. The city drafted their own text of the PUD (Planned Unit Development). It came out with the packet. He redlined it and sent it to Robert. He and I worked through issues that we agreed upon. And Robert issued the new document today. Some of the things we agreed upon he fixed. Some of the things we didn’t agree up on, Ben redlined. This is kind of the steps it took. Clarke Taylor made a motion to approve the request with Ben’s recommendations. They are the following items in the redlined: 1) The identical elevation language not to apply to townhomes, 2) clarify where it says vinyl siding is prohibited to only on the front elevation, 3) to strike the comment on two (2) parking garage requirement 4) to strike the high quality play ground because this has ample open space and 5) language about the rear garage, clarifying that it’s parking behind the structure. Tricia Pennington, chairperson, ask John Kimball is she could vote. Page 15 of 33 John Kimball stated yes. Tricia Pennington stated she would second the motion. Bill Estes stated he wanted to make three (3) substitute motions separately. He would like to vote out three (3) separate issues as substitute motions. First, Bill Estes would like to make a substitute motion that two (2) car garages be required on single-family standalone units in the PUD. (Planned Unit Development). And if there is a lot needing amending, you can come back, and we can amend the PUD (Planned Unit Development). This is my first substitute motion. John Kimball stated you have to have a second before you vote. Tricia Pennington stated so we have a substitute motion by Mr. Estes to have a mandatory two (2) car garage. Do we have a second? You can come back if there are lots that needs amending? Robert Varnell stated absolutely. Tiffany Sherlin seconded the motion. John Kimball stated now that you have a first and a second, you can have discussion and vote on the substitute motion. Tricia Pennington stated this motion to keep the two (2) car garage in the PUD (Planned Unit Development) document. Darla Jenkins asked if this motion overrides the original motion by Clarke Taylor. John Kimball stated you will come back when this is done to vote on the original motion. A vote of 4-1 passed the substitute motion to keep the two (2) car garage on single-family standalone units in the PUD (Planned Unit Development) document. Ben Berry recused himself. Voting yes included Bill Estes, Tiffani Sherlin, Clarke Taylor and Maryl Elliott. Voting no included Tricia Pennington Yes-4 No-1 Recused-1 Absent-3 Page 16 of 33  Second, Bill Estes made a substitute motion that the playground language from the city staff’s proposal be accepted into this PUD and required. The motion dies for lack of a second. Third, Bill Estes made a substitute motion the city staff work with the developer to develop some type of stacking turn lane, ingress/egress particularly to the front of Freewill Road to the townhomes, not to the back of the PUD. Maryl Elliott seconded the substitute motion. A vote of 5-0 passed the motion. Ben Berry recused himself Yes-5 No-0 Recused-1 Absent-3 John Kimball stated the original motion to approve with the red lined changes (in the document above) with the exception of two (2) substitute motions that have passed. Clarke Taylor made the original motion. Tricia Pennington seconded the motion. A vote of 5-0 passed the motion. Ben Berry recused himself Yes-5 No-0 Recused-1 Absent-3 e. Consideration of a request by Kings Den JMINV, LLC for rezoning of approximately 12.42 acres or property (Tax Map 34 Parcel 29.00) located at King Den Drive and from R1 Single Family Residential Zoning District to PUD Planned Unit Development Zoning District. Robert Varnell stated this subdivision is a platted subdivision zoned R1 currently. They would like to develop townhomes construction in a PUD (Planned Unit Development). This one does not require a playground but does require a picnic pavilion on one of the open spaces. There are two or three options of where that may be. The setbacks are significantly the same. No signage was required as this is already part of the neighborhood. Although if they do build one, it has to be a monument style. There are five (5) townhome lots with four (4) units each and one (1) with two units. The rest is single family detached. Ben Berry of Berry Engineers handed out a redlined labeled. King’s Den. Page 17 of 33 Red-Lined Handout for King’s Den from Ben Berry of Berry Engineers Page 18 of 33 He stated this is an approved subdivision, permitted, ready to start construction, single family homes, cluster subdivision. The PUD is to change some of the single- Page 19 of 33 family lots to incorporate townhomes to the interior of the development. The townhomes are placed strategically on the east side of the property that directly abuts a three (3) story apartment complex next door. There will be little impact to the original King’s Den subdivision and the townhomes will not be seen as you drive by this cluster subdivision. The redlines are the same as in the item before regarding the townhome elevations Secondly, removing the sentence on the first page, fourth (4th) paragraph, starting with “A landscaped berm of 2.5’ in height…” We don’t want to separate this subdivision from the other King’s Den subdivision. Thirdly, the next is the same language as in the previous item about the picnic pavilion. We would want this sentence removed. The common amenity is a lot that was purposely left undevelopable in the middle of the circle and in front of the townhomes. The lot is $50,00-$60,000 just to leave vacant. Bill Estes asked how do you know the homeowners have control over this parcel? Is every PUD (Planned Unit Development) having an HOA (homeowners association)? Ben Berry stated I am not sure of what you mean. Robert Varnell stated that it’s deeded to the HOA (homeowners association). Ben Berry stated every PUD (Planned Unit Development) that we’ve approved required an HOA (homeowners association). Bill Estes made a motion to approve this based on the three (3) changes. Each of the red changes, specifically that we change what the city has presented to us…that all single-family units not the townhomes…that the final elevations only with accents. No berm be required, and no picnic or amenities be required. Clarke Taylor seconded the motion. A vote of 5-0 passed the motion. Ben Berry recused himself Yes-5 No-0 Recused-1 Absent-3 Page 20 of 33 f. Request by Donald Haney & Melba Lilligene for consideration of a resolution to adopt a Plan of Service for about 5.7 Acres, more or less, for property location on Michigan Avenue (also described as a portion of Tax map 50 Parcel 014.01) Robert Varnell stated the portion of the property in blue is in the city limits and is zoned R1. The applicant is requesting the remainder of the parcel a total of about 7.68 acres to be annexed. So, the plan of service is in reference to the annexation. Most of the city services we can provide right away because we already do at that location because this property is just continuing back. The property next to it is also in the city and is a PUD (Planned Unit Development). Chad and Jennifer Grisham stated there is a large sink hole on the property. We are health care providers and for the past two (2) years our home has been our refuge. If this development can’t be stopped, we request that significant barriers be in place for privacy. Michigan Avenue will be more populated, more traffic with townhomes in our back yard. John Bratcher stated that he had visited the sink hole. He is not for this annexation. He only had two (2) days’ notice. It’s on the ground and very low. This is a very small road, windy, hilly and with no traffic signals and stop signs would make this a bad move. If this does happen, he asked that a wall or big trees be put up in between. Would you want apartments behind your house? Clarke Taylor asked what is the standard for notice, running in the paper? It’s more than two (2) days. Robert Varnell stated the sign has been out for several days and the public hearing itself will be at city council. It’s to be out fifteen days before the public hearing at city council. There was a picture taken the day it was put out and it’s time stamped. Clarke Taylor stated the sink hole will be engineered. Bill Estes asked Jonathan Jobe to help him with stormwater questions. The city thinks there is possibly a stream under that site…possible hydric soils? And it has to go to TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation). Can you explain that process to me? Page 21 of 33 Jonathan Jobe stated the engineer will have to submit all his…..because there’s on the map there’s hydric soil which is -----sink hole area. TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation) determines if it’s a wetland. The rules that TDEC set would apply. We would have to mediate that process and get the engineer to submit all the drawings to TDEC. (Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation) They would give him their approval to then go ahead and fill the site. And, if it’s a sink hole, which is a natural drainage feature, I think they have a permit for that. But all those things go to TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation) because we are not allowed. We are a QLP (qualified local program) which means we can issue the grading permit on behalf of TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation) but can’t issue wetland permits or…. those will have to have a ARAP (aquatic resource alteration permit) permit from the state. All of that would have to go to the state. Before they get their first building permit, before they get their land disturbance permit all that would have to be done. Bill Estes asked to explain the buffers to the north what the city would negotiate. Robert Varnell stated the zoning in the neighborhood to the north in the county is, he believed, R1. If it’s not spelled out in the PUD (Planned Unit Development), then it goes back to the landscape ordinance. There is some relief that can be provided. Landscape screening is required, and it falls in the greenspace at the back of the structures. Bill Estes stated at previous things in here before we have enhanced the buffer and we could. We used Target and Kohl’s as an example. Jonathan Jobe stated yes we could. You could with a berm or the additional requirement of a fence or a certain species of tree if you want to…on top of the other buffer requirements. Tricia Pennington stated there is a standard that’s required already between the single-family homes and multifamily homes. Ben Berry stated it’s the same in the city and the county. It’s twenty-five (25) foot in width landscape area evergreen trees every ten (10) feet, deciduous trees, like maple trees, he believed every thirty (30) feet. There are provisions to reduce the width if you add a fence. Page 22 of 33 Robert Varnell stated these trees are typically a two (2) inch caliber. This is matured enough to be four (4) to eight (8) feet tall depending on the type of tree. Jennifer Grisham stated they had planted thirty-five (35) unknown words and they can see straight into the field now. In the field, she had seen it flood so many times. In fact, my neighbors, the brick was taken off the back of a detached garage from the flooding. There were large trees that was floating down, It was like a great four (4) rapid. That was one April a couple of years ago. There’s a detention pond next to our house. Most of the time it’s full so there’s not much more that it can handle. Clarke Taylor stated the development would actually help that. The geo and TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation) will have to be to a standard that will addressed to that…. with TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation) you do as they say. Jennifer Grisham stated she had three children and a pool in their back yard. I can only imagine that there are going to be two (2) story townhomes looking at my children. My children and their privacy is utmost importance. I don’t care if they are nice townhomes or not. Nice townhomes don’t always bring in the best people. And that’s in my backyard. It’s very frustrating and disappointing because of a dollar. My husband who owns Cleveland Plywood is not making a dollar either. Somebody from Texas as we understand is having all of the supplies shipped here. We’ve done our research and we built that home ourselves. Chad Grisham stated he knew it would take time for the trees to grow, Clarke Taylor stated that I know we’ve known each other. Your children have every right to their privacy. Your private property is first and foremost. It’s your property yourself. This is found upon. Unfortunately, you tell somebody no, you can’t develop a piece of property that is following a standard. You are taking somebody else’s private property rights away from them just as much. Chad Grisham stated he understood that. And he argues for the future neighbors. The sign from DR Horton states homes with a meadow view. He did not know what meadow view they will be buying, and they look out their back yard and they see townhomes. Clarke Taylor stated that with people buying a home that’s public record for real estate. Everybody has access to it. Everybody can see who owns it, what it’s zoned Page 23 of 33 for and see what can be done in it as it is. Everybody that buys a piece of property knows. That’s why rezonings are controversial and we always err on the side of what was there then. This thing has always been able to be developed. I’m just trying to explain why it’s hard to take property rights away from the landowner. Chad Grisham stated he understood that patients have their rights taken away all the time by insurance companies. There are tons of patients that have their rights taken away unknowingly because they thought they were getting a better view. Clarke Taylor stated that’s a whole different thing. Jason Farmer, owner of Riverstone Construction, stated that we have Bellingham subdivision, Bellingham Phase 3, we bought it, developed it and are building every unit in there. Greywood Subdivision on Old Charleston Road, we bought it, we owned it, and built every single house in there. Harvest Grove subdivision in the city off if Mouse Creek, we bought it, we own it, we are building every house in there. He currently has other projects in Cleveland, working on building and buying. This is Wickestone Project. We are buying it, going to build the infrastructure, and we are going to build the townhouses. These are going to be a bit different that the Bellingham product. There’s going to be some one (1) car garage and two (2) car garage units. It’s going to be a little bit higher end. Currently, the sight we have under contract touches three (3) residential properties. We don’t always make neighbors happy, but we try to when we can. He will be happy to put a condition on themselves to build an eight (8) foot privacy fence along the border that borders all three (3) of the neighbors. The addition part of this site closer to Michigan Avenue is the gentleman’s brother whom I am buying it from and we did not get that. Further, we’ve already hired Geo Services and they have already been out there. We are aware of the hydraulic soils on the site. We are aware of the wetlands. This is just part of the development. We did not know about the sink hole, but those things can be remediated. Clearly we don’t want to buy something that is an inferior site or build on something that’s an inferior site. So, maybe this helps clear anything up. Thank you. Vanetta Bratcher stated we’ve been concerned about traffic and the development at Michigan and Powhatan. I am hearing townhomes and apartments. Page 24 of 33 Robert Varnell stated these are about forty-eight (48) townhomes. Vanetta Bratcher stated even with the single-family homes that are coming in with DR Horton, that’s a lot in that quadrant that’s being added for traffic. We were concerned even before this happened for getting in and out of neighborhoods. What will be the plan for that? Bill Estes stated we talk about Michigan Avenue at least every month for the last four (4) to five (5) months. But half of that road is in the county. Jonathan Jobe stated some of it but not where this is. We are looking at the whole corridor. Bill Estes stated if we annex this and the Horton property, we will have control of both sides of the road. We have a very vested interest in cleaning up Michigan Avenue and making it safer. It is not lost on city council that it’s a priority. Vanetta Bratcher stated is there a timeline? Joe Fivas stated I think everything that Dr. Estes is correct. We brought to the city council a couple months ago to do a comprehensive study on the traffic along Michigan Avenue. He believes there were many projects that are planned in the next year at some of the intersections and turning lanes That’s one of our areas that’s growing and will continue to grow. He thought they were responding in the appropriate manner to correlate and respond to that with transportation program. Maryl Elliott asked if this request needed to be vote on before TDEC (Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation) looked at it? Bill Estes stated if someone wants to be in the city, ok. Clarke Taylor stated that their risk. It doesn’t change anything. TDEC will come back and dot the I’s and cross the t’s. Maryl Elliott asked so there’s a chance that we annex it and TDEC says you can’t build on this property. Clarke Taylor and Bill Estes both stated yes. Page 25 of 33 Robert Varnell stated remember this is a plan of service for the annexation. It’s not the annexation itself. This document requires all the departments do their due diligence. Clarke was mentioning that there’s environmental review that any development would have to go through. There are steps. When it comes to annexation, he thought a lot of these questions are move specific to the zoning as opposed to the annexation. He did not want to revisit the same discussion…. Bill Estes stated what matter to him was item h. Jennifer Grisham stated this goes back to potentials who could come in and live there. We have to think about the people who already live there. My husband and I will not be staying in a house that we built with land behind us where not on the property owned by the Haney’s but on our own property where our son rides his four-wheeler and shot his BB gun. With townhouses coming, he will not be able to do that anymore. The privacy that we once had is completely gone. We will be leaving. John Bratcher stated that when it happens, road projects take a lot of time. There are not stop signs or stop lights. Nothing in the whole area. There are over seven (7) subdivisions that feed into Michigan Avenue. Can’t something be done to slow down that traffic? Cars go way over the speed limit. Jonathan Jobe stated we would make note of it and review it. Robert Varnell stated that it was not a state road. Parts are owned by the city and parts are owned by the county. John Bratcher stated that he just wanted to hear that they are going to do safety for that area. Tricia Pennington stated planning commission would not be able to put up a stop light. Bill Estes stated city council would say that to you. And it’s in the city council minutes for the last six months. Janet Hutson stated loved her neighborhood when she first moved in there. It was a perfect place to live. I hate to see my neighborhood disrupted by putting this in. And I am totally against it. I want it to go on the record like that. And I am also deeply Page 26 of 33  afraid of the traffic. She had seen school buses trying to get out of the neighborhood and have to set for ten (10) minutes, especially the afternoon buses. Something has got to be done about the traffic. She knew the guy who was killed. She worked with him. Where 20th Street come out on Michigan Avenue, that’s a horrible place. We are going to have more deaths out on that road if something isn’t done about it before we infuse all these new people on Michigan Avenue Road. She came to support her neighborhood and neighbors. But she personally wants to be on the record saying 1) she is against it and 2) the traffic situation has to be changed before we put anymore properties on that road. Thank you very much. Clarke Taylor stated that we need to put more emphasis on the traffic situation as it will continue to get busier. We need to look at ten (10) years, twenty (20) years. At 20th Street, that is a quirky pull out there. Tricia Pennington ask Bill Estes if he could relate the concerns here tonight to the city council. Bill Estes stated yes, and it will be part of our minutes that we get. We pay attention to what happens here. It will be certainly in our minutes. I think this is the city’s fourth district who is David May, It’s the county’s third district. Avery Johnson, Ken Webb and David May are the city councilmen who represent that area. And if you call them on the safety issue, it also makes it up here. And, Chairman Mull, it will take the county’s help in the short term, right? In time, it’s going to be in the city. It’s in the Urban Growth Boundary. People are going to want to be annexed. They want sewer. It’s going to be in the city. In the short term for safety on Michigan Avenue, it will be in the third district. It will be Milan Blake and right here, you don’t even have to leave tonight. County Commissioner Johnny Mull, stated that’s why I am here tonight. Clarke Taylor made a motion to approve the request for the plan of service. Bill Estes seconded the motion. A vote of 4-1 passed the motion. Voting yes were Clarke Taylor, Bill Estes, Tiffani Sherlin, and Tricia Pennington. Voting no was Maryl Elliott. Ben Berry recused himself. Yes-4 No-1 Recused-1 Absent-3 g. Request by Donald Haney & Melba Lilligene for consideration of a resolution to annex 5.7 acres, more or less, for property located on Michigan Avenue (Tax Map 50 parcel 014.01) Page 27 of 33  Bill Estes made a motion to approve the request for the plan of service. Clarke Taylor seconded the motion. A vote of 4-1 passed the motion. Voting yes were Clarke Taylor, Bill Estes, Tiffani Sherlin, and Tricia Pennington. Voting no was Maryl Elliott. Ben Berry recused himself. Yes-4 No-1 Recused-1 Absent-3 h. Request by Donald Haney & Melba Lilligene for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 7.35 acres, more or less, from the unincorporated County and R- 1 to PUD Planned Unit Development Zoning District for property located on Michigan Avenue (also described as Tax Map 50 Parcel 14.01). Robert Varnell stated there were some components of this item that have been discussed before. He thought there was discussion about one (1) car garages. That’s not a sticking point for the city. We just want to make sure there’s some parking provided as we’ve seen congestion with people parking on the roads. This PUD (Planned Unit Development) does not require a playground, but it does include the pavilion. And it has open space field that is actually quite sizable. The facades is in question as well. The same criteria is included in the PUD as well. Bill Estes stated he would love to see a right turn in for safety purposes. He did not know if there is enough room for a right out, for a merging lane. But we’ve been talking about traffic. What ever is the safest that you can do within the PUD (Planned Unit Development). Jonathan Jobe stated an acceleration and decel lane. Bill Estes stated he wanted the city to protect all the citizens not just those in the PUD or the owner…. Robert Varnell stated absolutely. Jonathan Jobe stated we are asking for additional right of way on the front because of drainage ….. it in your paperwork…..they will require right of way to the city to at least twenty-five (25) feet of the center line Michigan Avenue Road. So, I’ll have enough to add….. Robert Varnell stated if the right of way isn’t fifty (50) feet, then you make sure you get that. If it needs to be more, that’s something… Bill Estes stated do that after the fact after we do our studies. Page 28 of 33 Jonathan Jobe stated planning commission, you may want to add the fence mentioned by Mr. Farmer. Robert Varnell stated yes we will get to that…The landscape Mr. Farmer has offered to improve landscaping burrow and an eight (8) foot high fence primarily on the parcels that are the residential he referenced. I’ll let the applicant confirm…I think that does some enhancing. They are going to upgrade the stormwater system in the PUD (Planned Unit Development) in place. Those all go through considerable review by city staff. It’s a process and we go through it thoroughly. Traffic concerns. If we have the right of way width there then obviously, that’s something that we will look at. Mail Kiosk is in there if required by the post office. Two (2) parking spaces. And sidewalks are included. The points of conversation will be about the facades and the garage point of view. We would like there to be some garage that’s enclosed. I don’t really think that it’s a sticking point with the garage whether it’s one (1) or two (2). Tricia Pennington asked if there was an HOA (homeowners association? Jason Farmer of Riverstone Construction stated yes. Ben Berry stated the redlines (copy attached) on this item is pretty simple. There’s just the two (2) things previously discussed with the elevations. A change to the elevations and to the amenities where it doesn’t have the picnic areas. The amenities on this one is quite nice. You go to the end of the cul-de-sac and it’s all open space. That’s where the flooding that’s been mentioned is a problem. We’ll use that area, leave it low, leave it natural. Leave all the trees along the stream. Mr. Farmer has offered to have the eight (8) foot screen fence along the northern property line against the single family residential. Add it to these markups, of course. Page 29 of 33 Red-Lined Handout for Michigan Avenue from Ben Berry of Berry Engineers Page 30 of 33 Chad Grisham stated he was curious on this enhances this area. Tiffani Sherlin stated first of all, thank you all for coming out tonight. That’s awesome that you all came together. I think I relate a little bit. I also work in healthcare. So I just want everybody to know how I am going to vote tonight….kind of my thought process. In health care you have to get everybody to fight for their rights. I appreciate you advocating for yourself. The position I am in, I think as Mr. Taylor said, we are looking at somebody who has their own private property and who is entitled to do something with their property. The way that he is willing to work with you guys, and do the eight (8) foot fences, I think that, again just to clarify the way that I am voting, rather have somebody that’s willing to work with the neighborhood, than someone not willing to work. Clarke Taylor stated that he agreed. A lot of good will. That just shows I put a lot of faith in that… Jennifer Grisham stated that our feelings will not change. They won’t agree with you. Clarke Taylor stated well that’s your right. Chad Grisham stated I appreciate that. Can I have my question answered? As the other two were talked about giving enhancements to the city, I am curious…. Clarke Taylor stated enhancing is making it go above and beyond. It’s building a home in our zoning standards…under a PUD the city government controls it to a higher standard. It’s better. The material has to be a higher…it won’t be the minimum, bare to get by. He has the right to do this, but we are making him to a little bit more. Tricia Pennington stated I am going to equate this to Paul Huff Parkway. People ask why are we allowing another restaurant? It’s allowed by law. If the neighbors don’t want them behind them, that’s not a legal thing we can say. We can say you have to follow these rules and you have to be willing to take responsibility for the sink hole that you bought. We live in a free market economy. Clarke Taylor stated private property rights is rule number one (1). This is clear cut and public for everyone in the world to see. Page 31 of 33  Unknown person stated they had lived all around. The problem with Cleveland and Bradley County is just exactly that. Yes, it is free market. People should be able to buy, However, what are the guidelines for zoning that prevent us from having trailers next door to our homes. And multiunit developments next to private home developments. I guess I don’t’ know where to find that for the city. But Bradley is not as good at that as some other neighborhoods have been. I know you’re working toward that. This is an example of very thing. Unknown conversation. Unknown person stated that she was not angry. I am at the mercy of this. I am just saying that is part of why Cleveland Bradley is where it is. Robert Varnell stated he wanted to answer to the point, the current zoning on the front of the property is R1. Unknown person stated even when it was farmland. Robert Varnell stated even when it was annexed originally. It was zoned R1 which would give the ability to put a trailer on there or a mobile home of some kind right now if they wanted to…. more than one because it’s a big enough piece. I think to the point that Clarke was referencing, we have property rights in this country, and we are walking a fine line trying to do the best we can and provide the best product we can. The city is committed to upgrading the road. When we’ve got the study done, the …it’s not like we can go out and do it. These are massive projects, and they need to be done. They cost a lot of money and they are hard work. As to what Dr. Estes said, when the council talks about it, it comes all the way down to people like me. And we are working on that as well. Unknown person stated a better planning plan, twenty-five (25) thirty (30) years ago, we might not be where we are with some of what we have in this community. We are trying to catch up. I get that. This is an example of what we’ve inherited here. That’s our concern. Thank you. Clarke Taylor made a motion to approve item h. with an eight (8) foot fence and per the redlines on Michigan Avenue 6.C on this page. (attached). Tiffany Sherlin seconded the motion. Page 32 of 33  Bill Estes stated to be clear, Mr. Varnell, it is elevation is taken away, vinyl siding is prohibited on the front except for accents, and there is no required high quality picnic pavilion. Is that your understanding of the motion? Robert Varnell state he believed that’s what he got. John Kimball stated and the addition of the eight (8) foot fence. Bill Estes stated thank you. The addition of the eight (8) foot fence to the north side. A vote of 4-1 passed the motion. Voting yes were Clarke Taylor, Bill Estes, Tiffani Sherlin, and Tricia Pennington. Voting no was Maryl Elliott. Ben Berry recused himself. Yes-4 No-1 Recused-1 Absent-3 There is no Chairman’s Report. In the Director’s Report, Robert Varnell explained the new submittal deadlines to benefit the planning commission and staff. He will get information on training hours The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M. Page 33 of 33