Planning Commission

AGENDA CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2023, 6:00 PM CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL BUILDING 190 CHURCH STREET NE Welcome and Roll Call of Members 1. Minutes October 17, 2023 2. Public Hearings 3. Consent Agenda None 4. Old Business 5. New Business a. request by Berry Development for approval of a preliminary plat for property located at Urbane Rd. (also described as 042 Parcel 058.00) and located within the PUD 46 Zoning District. b. request by CTC Developments for approval of a final plat for property located at Georgetown Rd. (also described as Tax Map 049C Group E Parcel 001 and 002.00) and located within the R-1 Zoning District. c. request by Ben Bradley for consideration of an ordinance to zone about .16 acres, more or less, of property located on Fair Street from CG General Commercial Zoning District to R-2 Low Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning District and includes Tax Map 058H Group C Parcels 027.00. d. request by the City of Cleveland for consideration of an ordinance to amend Title 14, Chapter 2, Section 1.7 Conditional Use Review to prohibit the transfer of a conditional use permit. e. request by Zane Harris for approval of a width-depth ratio variance for property located at 1431 Randolph Drive. (Tax Map 067F Group N Parcel 012.00) and located within the R-2 Low Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning District. f. request by the City of Cleveland for consideration of an ordinance to amend Title 14, Chapter 2, Section 3.8 Accessory Structures to amend standards for accessory structures and accessory dwellings. 6. Chairman’s Report 7. Director’s Report - December Meeting Date 8. Adjourn  Minutes CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2023, 6:00 PM CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL BUILDING 190 CHURCH STREET NE The regular meeting of the Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission was called to order by Clarke Taylor, Vice Chairman, at 6:00 P.M. Commissioners present included: Jamie Creekmore, Bill Estes, Alma Dotson, Clarke Taylor, Tiffany Sherlin, and Blake Allison. Members absent included: Tricia Pennington and Maryl Elliot. Staff present included: Robert Varnell, Planning Director, Erica Bevis, Planner II, Joel Prince, Planner II/Codes Inspection Supervisor, and Joe Fivas, City Manager. Legal Counsel present included: John Kimball, Attorney for the City of Cleveland. Others present included: Tony Richmond of Richmond Surveying, Rob Renner, John Norwood, of Norwood Surveying, and Tony Knight. The minutes of the September 19, 2023, regular meeting were presented for approval. Ben Berry made a motion to approve the September 19th, 2023, minutes and Blake Allison seconded the motion. A vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-0 Absent-2 In Public Hearings, Clarke Taylor stated there were no public hearings. There were no responses. In the Consent Agenda, a. request by Tony Knight for approval of a preliminary plat for property located at Cottage Stone Lane (also described as 042 Parcel Page 1 of 24  .24.02 and 024.00) and located within the R-2 Low Density Single Family and Multi-Family Zoning District. b. request by Riverstone Construction, LLC for approval of a preliminary plat for property located at Minnis Road (also described as part of Tax Map 058 Parcel 025.02) and located within the PUD 41 Zoning District. c. request by Pursuit Investments LLC for approval of a revised final plat for property located at Arbor Hills Drive (also described as Tax Map 066H Group B Parcel 025.17) and located within the CH Highway Commercial Zoning District. d. request by Pursuit Investments, LLC for approval of a final plat for property located at Cypress Lane (also described as a portion of Tax Map 066H Group B Parcel 025.00) and located within the CH Highway Commercial Zoning District. e. request by Pursuit Investments, LLC for approval of a final plat for property located at Arbor Hills Drive (also described as a portion of Tax Map 066H Group B Parcel 025.00) and located within the CH Highway Commercial Zoning District. f. request by 4 Star, LLC for approval of a preliminary plat for property located at Wilkerson Rd. (also described as part of Tax Map 043 Parcel 012.00) and located within the PUD 32 zoning district. Robert Varnell: Good evening, everyone. I appreciate everybody being here. I'm going to go through the consent agenda here. We've got several items. The applicant is Tony Knight. On this one, it's 11.4 acres. They're creating 3 lots, lots 5 through 7. You can see it there, it's preliminary plat. There are no outstanding comments remaining as of today. The second item is Riverstone Construction off Minnis Road, 2.98 acres. Part of PUD 41. It's a townhome section and they are doing the four primary lots. First, as you can see, sidewalks along Minnis Rd. are included. We're of course going through the site plan review process and those are those comments outstanding. The next item is for Pursuit Investments on Arbor Hills Drive and approval of final plat for lot 44 this is a four lot townhomes subdivision. At this point are no more outstanding comments. We have another one there on Cypress Lane, 1.13 acres, another four-lot subdivision as you can see here, part of Arbor Hills. Page 2 of 24 There are a few comments on this. One is [to complete] site work according to the approved plans and in reference to the setbacks on the plat itself. Those comments are fairly straightforward. We also have another six lots part of Arbor Hills 2.2 acres. You can see there are a few comments that mirror the ones before from Arbor Hills about the site work that I believe the intention may be to bond some of that as well. We also have one more. It's 148 lots as a part of PUD 32. This is Wilkerson Road and Michigan Avenue Rd. PUD 32, There are sidewalks only on one side of the road in this particular PUD, per the approved zoning stipulations, and they are included. It also includes an extra 10 feet of right away along Wilkinson Rd. that was asked for through the PUD process. Finish site work. Of course, this is a preliminary plat so the sitework will actually be done around the time of the final plat, but otherwise that is it for the consent agenda. If there's any questions on any of those items, we can pull it out. No Discussion was made. Bill Estes made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda subject to staff comments on each item and Blake Allison seconded the motion. A vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-0 Absent-2 There was no Old Business. In New Business, a. request by Big Buck Construction for consideration of an ordinance to zone about .52 acres, more or less, of property located on King Street from CH Highway Commercial Zoning District to R-2 Low Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning District and includes Tax Map 065D Group B Parcels 012.04. Robert Varnell: Yes, Sir. This is about .52 acres. There are two sections of the property. Originally, they requested or were thinking about requesting both, but this ends up being just one piece on King Street. I'm going to show the aerial, so you kind of get perspective. Dalton Pike runs along here. This is APD-40. I believe there's like a Bojangles in here and maybe the Huddle House and some other things that are in close proximity. The parcels to the north are all zoned commercial, but they are residential in use and have been since the 50s. They are wanting to utilize this piece. I believe they own both. This one Page 3 of 24 and that one and they are intending to use it for multifamily R2 type construction of…I don't know for sure yet if we're talking about townhomes or quadplexes, but it'll be one or the other at that location. They did submit this [site plan] kind of showing the property in in general, a very kind of general overview of what it might be. In this case it would be quadplexes. Ben Berry: Right there…you’ve got the front half highlighted. Robert Varnell: That’s correct. Ben Berry: Is the back half already R-2? Robert Varnell: It is not, it's zoned Highway Commercial as well currently. So the whole thing all the way through is Highway Commercial at this point. Ben Berry: But they just requested the front? Robert Varnell: They just, yes, they just requested the front. Originally, they were talking to us about both pieces and connecting a road through there. Then they started second guessing it. We asked them if they wanted to hold back. They said no. They want to move forward with just this front piece. The King Street section. Ben Berry: And residential is just, if you’re looking at that from the street, the big parcel to the north is residential? Robert Varnell: Yeah, that's correct. This is a church. And then there's houses all through this area and we recently rezoned some R2 just to the left on King Street. The bigger piece further northwest of this for townhomes and were recently constructed at that location. Bill Estes: Across the street is a bank and Miolen’s dentist office. Robert Varnell: You know this, this piece we've seen a couple of different options over the time, but nothing's ever pushed forward. These guys seem interested in doing the residential construction, which will, you know, create more housing opportunity in the area, which is a good thing. So we look at it knowing, yes, the zoning next to it is commercial highway but it's a residential use and it looks like this area may kind of shift that way as we kind of go back off of the bypass. Staff recommendation on this one is approval. I'm happy to answer any questions. There may be somebody here to represent the request as well. Clarke Taylor: Comments? No other comments were made. Page 4 of 24 Blake Allison made a motion to approve item “a” and Jamie Creekmore seconded the motion. A vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-0 Absent-2 b. request by Mitchell McClure for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 10.88 acres, more or less of property located on Old Tasso Road from IL Light Industrial Zoning District to R-2 Low Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning District and includes Tax Map 042 Parcels 026.00-028.00 and 022.05. Robert Varnell: Yeah, this is…so if you're on old Tasso going north, this would be on the left-hand side of the road. I'm going to go ahead and show the aerial to give perspective. It's outlined in red. Here you can see kind of a close up in the spot here. We recently rezoned this piece R2. I guess that was about six months ago. And when you look at this piece of property, it's been zoned light industrial since zoning was instituted in Cleveland and the elevation of the site does not lend itself to industrial use. It does start sloping uphill a little bit after you pass, kind of where the existing house is now. Like I said, it was zoned light industrial, but it has been residential in use, and they intend to do some type of residential development. I don't know exactly to what end that will be, but the request is for R2, which would allow, you know, townhomes or single family detached, or a combination of. It kind of…this side of the road does kind of lend itself more towards that type of use as opposed to an industrial use because most industrial properties are looking for a flatter, larger area. Staff recommendation is for approval of that one. That's consistent with the recent one we looked at in the same area. I'm happy to answer any questions if anyone has any, and there may be someone here to speak to it as well. I don't know. Blake Allison: With it being consistent. Excuse me. I move to approve. Bill Estes: Second and a question. The part we rezoned was to R2, correct? But we’re going CH here. Robert Varnell: No, it’s going to be R2. My apologies. Bill Estes: Then I feel a lot better but the parcels between them? Tell me about them. Robert Varnell: There is a church on one. Yes. And so let me…I'm going to… This is a church here. I believe there's a little church somewhere in one of these. There's like a retail type use on one and then residential kind of mingled in and there's multiple uses on a lot of these parcels. Page 5 of 24 Blake Allison: The grade matches Morrison Lane if not worse. Robert Varnell: Right. I apologize about the CH…I don’t know. It’s a simple thing. We read it a thousand times and it’s like…you know who knows. Blake Allison made a motion to approve item “b” and Bill Estes seconded the motion. A vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-0 Absent-2 c. request by Duane Goff for consideration of a plan of service for about 1.33 acres, more or less, for property located on Tennessee Nursery Road and includes Tax Map 049H Group D Parcels 012.00 and 012.01 Robert Varnell: Yeah. What I may do with this one…it's a plan of service, annexation, and zoning, so I'm going to kind of talk to you guys about each of those factors all at once and then you can kind of…if there's specific questions on each one, we'll talk about it when you vote. But I'll just kind of give it an overview. [This is] Tennessee nursery Rd. kind of right off of Harrison Pike, you can see the city limits right there. The houses to the east, which are behind it, are already in the city and then the neighborhood to the North and Fletcher Park, just to the northwest. These are two single family homes that are requesting annexation, I think primarily for sewer purposes long term. If you look at the plan of service, there is a sewer expense. If that sewer is not extended within an 8-year period, it will be up to Cleveland Utilities to make that extension and I believe they priced it in today's dollars at about $86,000. The two houses bring in city taxes, and once they do connect to the sewer, they will obviously be paying the sewer tap fees and what not that all city residents pay. Otherwise, it's not much of an impact on you know, schools, or any other services. We already service this area fairly heavily and even have park facilities in very close proximity so that's the plan of service. The annexation is just, you know, straightforward. It is contingent to the city limits and without any issues there. So, we're right up next to it and then the zoning, they're going for is one which is consistent with the neighborhood that they're kind of right with. If anyone has any questions, comments, discussion, I'm happy to… Bill Estes: Is there access to the parcel to the east of this? Robert Varnell: Yeah, this is interesting. Part of it is in the City. Yeah, so recently the county and the city had to sign a plat where these two parcels gave up the back of their lot and this person took it and at some point, I am going to try to clean that up with them, but you know. Page 6 of 24 Bill Estes: They’re just inaccessible, but they’re attached. Robert Varnell: It's part of the back of that lot. It's kind of a weird area and really not big enough to build on. It's not wide enough to be its own lot, so it's kind of lost in space, but that is something I'm going to attempt to clean up at some point, but yeah, that's a good question. Things like that, I stare at them, and it just bothers me. Jamie Creekmore: But it belongs to this area? Robert Varnell: It…part of the lot is in the city where the house is and then the back of the lot…I don't know how that happened. And when…I don't know. Any other questions, thoughts on? So, it’s three actions, the plan of service, annexation, and zoning. Blake Allison: Regardless of it being contiguous I completely understand the annexation and wanting to have the sewer. Completely understand that. From a business standpoint for Cleveland Utilities...it's $86,000. We're not a large…they haven't said anything, but for not a large area, that's not going to be a ton of customers and a tax revenue of $1000 a year at an $80,000- or 80- year payback…why are we doing this? Robert Varnell: Well, and the 86, I kind of did a little math. I was talking about this a little while ago. You look at the sewer rates and the sewer charges and you try to quantify that over a yearly period, and then it looked like it was a 25-to-30-year payoff on two homes for CU. For the city, we're not running that sewer. CU, you also can look at this, and they do, and they say…well, once we run that line, it's going to extend on down that road. All these houses are on the slope. They all have rocky soils and they're all probably going to have failing septic at some point. Blake Allison: Yeah, and I spoke to them as well and say hey if it opens up another corridor, then there is more room for growth there. It’s just…at what point…we’re a growing city. We need to have a round table discussion at some point. Some huge firm could come in and buy 50 acres, sit on it for eight years, and the sewer is going to be $500,000 to get there and they’re just going to wait and say…hey where’s my sewer? And they have no skin in the game. Robert Varnell: Yeah, and state law, you know, kind of dictates that we have so long to provide all services when we annex. They say, well, OK, cities, if you're going to. annex then you have to be able to provide services at your expense at some point and that's where that eight years comes into play. You know, I think, when we look at these things, there are some annexations that never made it to this room due to circumstances similar to what you're saying and those that will continue to happen. Yeah, it is a fine line for sure. And looking at it as a planner, I look at it and I say I know there's more connections Page 7 of 24 coming across the street, on top of that hill...and there is a private line that's a little…might be a little bit closer, but it's private. Blake Allison: It's not like it's a crate,,,this may be a poor scenario. It's just because of numbers, and it's so small. Robert Varnell: Yeah, but when you look at it on a finite, minute level it is a different…it’s eye opening. Blake Allison: Just what…What protects the city? Other municipalities may have…You could speak more elegant eloquently to this than myself, but…from the city or from Cleveland utilities being stuck with a $400,000 or $500,000 bill on sewer from something that’s south of Harris Creek Rd. or farther away and they…I don’t know. Robert Varnell: Well, I think the process that we’re doing right now is what mechanism of protection they have. If one comes that just doesn’t look right, then…I mean…that’s where that falls. Bill Estes: So, can I talk like a huge picture for my colleagues? So, I know we have talked at our level about from Tom Roland Interchange straight up to Harrison Pike and we approved 975 homes down there that got tanked with interest rates, right? So, CU had, so you would know this better than me, had a plan on improving the south side. This is…we’ve even used the word…this would be like a Paul Huff Blvd…thinking about Tom Roland Interchange to Harrison Pike…a new type of development. Maybe more residential than what Paul Huff would look like…but exit 20 is going to explode. It’s a gamble, but it’s a pretty safe gamble. And I’m just saying how we’ve talked about it with staff at our level. Blake Allison: This may be a poor example and meeting a dead horse on a small tract of land…fine…but looking at a bigger picture further out… Jamie Creekmore: I mean I think that's where part of the costs are factored in. I'm not saying that I understand all that. That's for the people at Cleveland Utilities who manage those pieces. I think that's one of the reasons they factor in the cost that they do with the expectation that these others are going to tie on when it’s there. Blake Allison: I just hope that if there is a scenario where this is going to be a huge burden in the future that they definitely communicate to whoever. Ben Berry: We’ve never denied an annexation…that I’ve been a part of. Jamie Creekmore: And I think a lot of that comes back to what Robert said earlier. A lot of times those that we don’t want to happen we don’t hear Page 8 of 24 about…is what I would say to that. Because I’ve asked them to definitely communicate with me if they’ve got an issue or something like that. Bill Estes: They’ve always been very up front with me. Robert Varnell: But it’s our job to look at that and say is this right? Take a gander and look at it and we do it from a staff level. Bill Estes: And even if they had to spend half a million, fine. It’s just going to open up so much more. They need to anyway. Bill Estes: We quiver at $86,000 I’ll quiver at half a million when you’re talking about developing almost a thousand acres…you know opening up a thousand acres. Ben Berry: Yeah, and it’s $86,00 for two single family houses. That’s a lot. Bill Estes: It’s a lot but it’s going to be absorbed in the next seven years, so I don’t think it’s going to be a lot. I don’t think it will cost anything. It will just be part of CU’s expansion. I would see it that way. No one’s said that to me but I would see it that way. Bill Estes made a motion to approve item “c” and Jamie Creekmore seconded the motion. A vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-0 Absent-2 d. request by Duane Goff for consideration of a resolution to annex about 1.33 acres, more or less, of property located on Tennessee Nursery Road and includes Tax Map 049H Group D Parcels 012.00 and 012.01. Bill Estes made a motion to approve item “d” and Jamie Creekmore seconded the motion. A vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-0 Absent-2 e. request by Duane Goff for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 1.33 acres, more or less, of property located on Tennessee Nursery Road from unincorporated county to R-1 Single Family Residential and includes Tax Map 049H Group D Parcels 012.00 and 012.01. Page 9 of 24 Bill Estes made a motion to approve item “e” and Jamie Creekmore seconded the motion. A vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-0 Absent-2 f. request by Bancroft Development Co. for consideration of a plan of service for about 2.16 acres, more or less, of property located on Georgetown Rd and includes Tax Map 026G Group D Parcels 024.00 and 025.00. Robert Varnell: Yeah. So…this is another situation where we've got a plan a service, annexation, and zoning. As you all may recall, a few…I believe it was at the previous meeting, we had an annexation request on Hwy. 60 at Eureka Rd. This is caddy corner to that piece. It's 2.16 acres. You can see it there. It's the Bradley County Veterinarian Hospital location and a parcel right next to it. From a plan of service standpoint, the Cleveland Utilities comments were everything we said about the previous one, except for they have to wait for that to happen and then it's going to cross the street. So, we put that specific language from the previous annexation request. You can see kind of highlighted and dashed caddy corner to this piece, just to make it clear, there's this piece here that is in the process now, and then this one will join it when the county reviews our Plan of Service that we're going to service all of it. It is contingent on that other zoning being finalized, but from this point forward they will travel together to a final reading. As we talked about, there was some considerable expense shown for servicing that one. And in that moment, I said as soon as we finish this, we're going to do another one and so forth and so on. And that's what's happening here. That expense now gets divided up among several people and what kind of agreements they have with CU moving forward. But I do not think the plan is to wait eight years. I'll say that. Any other questions? I'm happy to answer it on the plan of service. Their zoning request is to go highway commercial. They’re C1 in the county. So that's a mirror, and it fits their use. What they're doing is allowed by right in our CH. So that obviously works well. If it does redevelop, it would be for a commercial purpose. Jamie Creekmore: I think I already heard you say this but, just to clarify, It is contingent on that first. Robert Varnell: That’s correct. So, through the final process because we’re waiting on a few steps to take place with the other annexation…once that occurs, the city will finalize it and this one will be moving right along with it at that point. But it is contingent on that one. It is in the growth boundary and all of those things. Just we are kind of building off of the one we’re in the process of bringing in now. Page 10 of 24 Jamie Creekmore made a motion to approve item “f” and Bill Estes seconded the motion. A vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-0 Absent-2 g. request by Bancroft Development Co. for consideration of a resolution to annex about 2.16 acres, more or less, of property located on Georgetown Rd. and includes Tax map 026G Group D Parcels 024.00 and 025.00. Bill Estes made a motion to approve item “g” and Jamie Creekmore seconded the motion. A vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-0 Absent-2 h. request by Bancroft Development Co. to zone about 2.16 acres, more or less, of property located on Georgetown Rd. from unincorporated county to CH Highway Commercial and includes Tax Map 026G Group D Parcels 024.00 and 025.00. Jamie Creekmore made a motion to approve item “h” and Bill Estes seconded the motion. A vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-0 Absent-2 i. request by Joan Darnell to zone about .52 acres, more or less, of property located on Old Chattanooga Pike from IL Light Industrial to R-2 Low Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning and includes Tax Map 065B Group A Parcel 001.01. Robert Varnell: So about a year ago we got a plat to subdivide a piece of property that contained 2 single family structures on it. The lots when they went through subdivision did not meet the minimum requirements for light industrial. And so, in looking at it, we could see that they did meet the R2 standards almost and they are residential in use. This is another situation where the property was annexed in and when it was annexed, it was all annexed light industrial because of the industrial park on the other side of the train tracks. Across the street is R2 and that's what this request is for. Their single family, detached homes on 5000-ish square foot lots to get his plat approved so they can do some family estate stuff. Ben Berry made a motion to approve item “i” and Blake Allison seconded the motion. A vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-0 Absent-2 Page 11 of 24  j. request by the City of Cleveland for consideration of an ordinance to amend the Cleveland Municipal Code, Title 14 Zoning Ordinance, by adding Chapter 13 to Title 14 Zoning and Land Use Control, to provide regulations for short term rentals. Robert Varnell: So, this is in the same chapter as the zoning ordinance, but it is in the city code, where this is going to live. But because it's in that same chapter and it does reference zoning, we're bringing it here for discussion just to get y'all's endorsement or recommendation or thoughts on it regardless. What this ordinance does, and we've talked about it a little bit in here, it does not tell anybody they can or cannot do a short-term rental. We're not dictating on where these go or what. Some cities have said you can only do it in this zone or you can only do it in this neighborhood or you can only do it right here. We're not saying that. But we are saying…If you do it, you're going to let us do life safety inspections to the structure, like any kind of hotel would have to go through or other establishment and we put stipulations in there if there's ongoing nuisances, whether it's sound, partying, parking…all these things so if there are issues, we can bring it to their attention. Bill Estes: Can you speak to the parking? Because I know I send you a picture of… Robert Varnell: Yes, so when we look at…so in the historic neighborhood, which is where that picture came from, is the only neighborhood in the City of Cleveland where we have something called the yard parking overlay which means you can’t park in the yard. So, that’s the only place we could really do something about parking outside of saying… Bill Estes: Sidewalks? What is someone parks on a sidewalk? Robert Varnell: Well, they’re in the yard too because one tire is in the grass. Bill Estes: No, road. Sidewalk. Robert Varnell: Well, I consider that oof of not yard overlay. I would. Bill Estes: Forget the historic district, just the city in general. Robert Varnell: Citywide so this is treated as a commercial establishment. They have to do, you know, site plan and they have to submit parking for the number of bedrooms and things like that. Bill Estes: Good. I didn’t see that so… Robert Varnell: So and then the other thing it does…is if there are nuisances and we get a number of complaints we could take it to City Council. They have the ability to revoke the permit for short term rental if they’re what we say, Page 12 of 24 “abusing it” based on the criteria we put forth. We don't want to dictate where they go necessarily, but we do want to have a mechanism if we have a problem to deal with it and we want them to be safe. If there's any thoughts on that or questions, comments. We also require that they do pay the hotel/motel taxes. Most of the online sites require that anyway, but there's a few that don't. In this case, we're going to make them prove that they've…they have to prove to us with their permit application that they have submitted that paperwork and it's been accepted by the state. Blake Allison: Naively, how do we enforce whether they are pulling their permit or not? How are you finding that this is happening? Robert Varnell: Well, it's not a perfect science. We have, obviously, a couple of tools that are…that you search the websites for the available places in Cleveland, you reference the addresses, and then you check it versus the inventory we have. Blake Allison: Would that fall under code enforcement umbrella of duties? Robert Varnell: It is. Yes, it is. Yeah, zone…this would actually be under code enforcement because it's not in zoning ordinance. So, it's…there is a small kind of caveat there, but that's how we'll do it and you have to check all the open dates and do these things. We've already kind of started building that inventory up of because we’ve got a good number of them. Some which probably won’t be able to continue once we get to this point because of where they are or what they use. But again, we don’t want to dictate rentals and how you rent your property and things like that but… Ben Berry: Is this ordinance modeled after some other municipality? Robert Varnell: I originally wrote this at a different…when I was in Collegedale. So, it’s a little different. We kind of…they go a little bit different with things, but it is modeled after… Bill Estes: Where does it speak to the site and parking? Robert Varnell: Well, it should be in there that it’s required. If not, I'm missing one small section. It would be under the requirements. I have to borrow your glasses. Let me turn to it now. Yeah, I think it's missing from this paragraph. It would have been under B. Bill Estes: Yeah Page 90. That’s wicked important. Robert Varnell: I will make that adjustment. It’s supposed to be in there under that section where we require a site plan with parking consistent with the number of bedrooms, etc. Page 13 of 24 Blake Allison: What is that ratio? Robert Varnell: Well if you look at what it is it's two and a half spots for a townhome, something like that. So that's kind of how we'd look at it. It's supposed to…and I've had different iterations of these things over the course of about four months, so I will make sure that the right paragraph is there on the one I sent out. Ben Berry: It’s just going to be normal parking requirements. Robert Varnell: Yeah, we’re not going to make them more drastic. It’ll be consistent with the neighborhood it’s in. Ben Berry: Basically, two spaces. Robert Varnell: But we’re going to make sure that your health…so this gives us the ability to say that’s how many cars you can have. If that makes sense. Ben Berry made a motion to approve item “j” subject to the addition of the parking requirements per code and Bill Estes seconded the motion. A vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-0 Absent-2 k. request by the City of Cleveland for consideration of an ordinance to amend Title 14, Chapter 2, Section 3.8 Accessory Structures to amend standards for accessory structures and accessory dwellings. Robert Varnell: We talked about this a little bit last month. I kind of came up here and mentioned how Code Enforcement and Police and City and City Personnel have been dealing with an ongoing, consistent problem with the accessory dwelling units as a whole. How big they can be versus the primary structure on the site. Where they can be. What kind of requirements they have, things of that nature. The ordinance that was passed…I think it was about six years ago that kind of details, now they can be this size ,or accessory dwellings, accessory units (like storage, pool house) things like that. So, we start getting a number of these people saying, well, we're just…they're in R1…we're just doing a pool house, but then they put in bedrooms and kitchen. And all these things start happening, and then there's nowhere for these people to park. They rent it out to two people. The house is rented to four, so they've got six people living in a house and lot that's, you know, not meant for that. And so, we started discussing different ways to manage that address it. And then you say, well, how do you let this person do it and that person not? And it's based on lot requirement…size requirements…parking. Well, you get real quick where…then Page 14 of 24 we also have the historic district which doesn't allow them at all, you know, by their own kind of standards. So, the city looked at options. What we ended up doing is breaking up the accessory buildings into two different kinds of formats. You have your smaller one under 200 square feet. They can have the five-foot set back. It's small. You can have a shed sitting in the corner. That's fine. But once you start getting over that 200 square feet, it’s going to need to meet the same set back as the primary structure, but it still has to be no greater than 40% of the primary structure’s size. So, you can have a storage room, an office, a pool house that's…if your house is 1000 square feet, then it could be 400 square feet. The ability to do an accessory dwelling is something that a lot of cities do not allow. Some do, but for the most part it's…if you want to do a mother-in-law suite, it's going to be in the primary structure of, part of the primary structure. You can do an addition. But it's going to be inspected, reviewed as a part of that primary structure. It's going to meet those setbacks. It's going to follow all that process. It's not going to be a completely separate structure that can end up being rented out because that is what is happening. And when we look at protecting our existing neighborhoods, whether they're R1, R2…half of Cleveland's R2, but it's single-family homes. Ok so, then we start building accessory dwellings behind the home, they're rented out, there's nowhere to park, and you start getting code enforcement issues and police calls. And those are the things that we look to avoid. So that's kind of where this ordinance comes from…is an ordinance that was adopted about seven years ago. I think it was 7. And through the process over the past few years, we've seen how that has caused issues and this is where it's led us. I'm happy to answer any questions or hear any thoughts. Ben Berry: I’ve got thoughts. I don’t know that they’re all coherent. I know .the City of Chattanooga just went through an emphasis on making it easier to build accessory dwelling units, and they saw it as a small…very small part of…a tool in the tool belt to help affordability of housing. And I've seen even new construction on the market, and this is Chattanooga, but new construction that is advertised with a primary home and an accessory dwelling unit and it's advertised as…you can buy your home… you have your unit…you can rent it out or do whatever you need to and it’s a new construction marketable product even with a primary home. You know, the trend of Cleveland it tends to lag behind some of those other things, so you almost see…when you see things in bigger cities…it’s almost just a matter of time before some of that comes to our area because of the need. I mean, because of the need to have another tool in the tool belt for housing affordability. When you reference four people in this house…2 people in this house…I mean, they don’t choose that. They were probably that way because they can’t afford anything else. I don’t know…I mean you don’t know. Page 15 of 24 Robert Varnell: In that case they were students. Ben Berry: So, they definitely couldn’t afford anything else. And moving on from that…one thing that doesn’t make sense to me is to outlaw it completely when you can have…So you have R2 that allows you to build a duplex or a triplex or quadplex. I mean, my first house, I built a duplex. I lived in one side, and I rented the other. What is the difference in that versus…and I did that for affordability. Robert Varnell: Was it R1? Ben Berry: The duplex? No, I mean, so this outlaws it in every district. So the consistency doesn’t make sense. Robert Varnell: Well and that kind of relates to what I mentioned before. When we look at the R2…half of our single-family neighborhood are R2. Ben Berry: So you could tear town a house, put a duplex, but you can’t keep the house and add an accessory dwelling. Robert Varnell: If your lot size is correct yes. Many of those lots are smaller than that. Ben Berry: And when we mentioned this last month, my thought was that this discussion would be centered around accessory dwelling units within R1 zoning. But the fact that this proposes removing it completely in R2 and R3 when you can build a 12-unit apartment building, but you can’t take a house and build an accessory dwelling unit by right that doesn’t make sense. Robert Varnell: Well and it’s all dependent on the lot square footage and what you can do with it when you talk about all the zones. So, when you look at R2, how many of our R2 lots are actually 7500 square feet versus the 5000-6000 square feet? I don’t know that answer but just based on the level of work we do and the new construction we’ve got going on, especially in some of our older neighborhoods where we have a fairly large sum of existing empty lots that were never built on that are R2 5000 square feet, they get a house. That’s it. So if I say you can have an accessory dwelling unit in R2, that becomes a bigger problem for these smaller lots than a 7500 square foot R2. Blake Allison: Simply put a stipulation around the lot size then. Ben Berry: Well, it already has to meet setbacks and there is a size restriction (inaudible) it self-regulates. Robert Varnell: Probably not. The site itself will dictate that but, you know, I think that while we let them happen because of, I guess the reasons that were you were kind of referencing and I don't know what the discussion was seven Page 16 of 24 years ago when they were brought in…they didn't foresee some of the problems we have now. So, is there a middle ground somewhere? Possibly. But I think at this point, until we get control of the problem, we’ll have to protect our single- family neighborhoods whether they’re R1,R2, and remarkably, R3, it's a difficult process. Blake Allison: I just don’t think I see it as much of protecting as, I mean, we can…to Ben’s point, I once had someone tear down a perfectly beautiful 1800 square foot house today because they wanted to build something else on it. At some point we are going to get to the point where we are doing infill, and they are going to tear down these single-family homes and put-up duplexes and triplexes. Ben Berry: I’d rather a house with an ADU than a duplex or a triplex. If I lived in the neighborhood. Blake Allison: So, I think there would be a way, even to allow it in R1 with even stricter…there’s going to be a long description of what’s allowed. Robert Varnell: Yeah. Well, so one of the things that we thought about was, OK, well, we start requiring surveys for every single construction. We don't have enough surveyors. I mean, we'd never get a house built. You guys who are in the building…we know that these people who don’t do it every day…they aren’t going to get the call back from surveyors because they don’t have time. We have like two or three. That’s not the answer right now. I can’t do that because we don’t have the resources to do it. If I’m going to dictate what the setbacks are, I’m not going to take a pencil drawing on a napkin that the building department is going to take. Blake Allison: Building department is taking it on houses. Robert Varnell: That’s what I mean. Ben Berry: I think this is a very hard discussion for R1 zoning but, to outlaw it in R2 and R3 makes just zero sense to me. Zero sense. Robert Varnell: I’ve worked in municipalities, you know, where we didn’t allow them. Period. They never were allowed. So, people would call and say hey I want to do this. Well, you can’t. you have to do an addition to your primary structure. Blake Allison: I’m not saying it doesn’t exist out there either but, to Ben’s point, if my neighbor put up an accessory dwelling unit, I’d rather have that than a triplex if I lived in an R2 zone location. Robert Varnell: With a triplex we get a site plan, and we make sure there’s parking. Page 17 of 24 Blake Allison. I don’t think we have a huge amount if you go pull the building permits…because they still have to get a building permit right now. I’d like to see the numbers of how many ADU’s were applied for in the past year. I bet you it’s under 20. Robert Varnell: I’d say it’s probably less than 10 but the number of accessory structures we got that are actually ADU’s is probably a lot higher. Because they don’t tell. Ben Berry: So I think your problem is with the existing ones not necessarily…(in audible). Does this change the existing ones? Robert Varnell: Well there’s nothing we can do when it’s existing. Ben Berry: They’d be grandfathered in. There’s nothing we can do about it right? Robert Varnell: Now if they were to tear them down, they wouldn’t be able to rebuild it but nobody’s going to do that. Ben Berry: So it feels a little bit overreactive to a problem that currently exists as opposed to trying to do something to still allow it but address the problem that’s the underlying problem. I stated that completely terribly. Alma Dotson: Are you wanting to tax it? Robert Varnell: Well, it would be taxed anyway. I mean the assessment is going to be based on the valuation of the property. But what we do at this point…what this ordinance does is remove the dwelling possibility out of the accessory section. So, you can do an accessory workshop or office or a studio or whatever. You just can’t live there. Blake Allison: I I think there could be some sort of oversight too, because when we have any sort of building permit they come out for the inspections, and it's supposed to be essentially a workshop with a bathroom, right. And then they start to see that, uh, this isn't a workshop with a bathroom. There needs to be some way to where, Josh, any of those inspectors can report that and that will curb a lot of this. Robert Varnell: Well, we had on in the historic district recently that was putting in a kitchen and so I got a call and they said…they are putting a kitchen in. And I said, “well stop work.” And that’s what happened. Blake Allison: So would that not stop the… Robert Varnell: They ripped it out. But they can go back in right now which will happen anyway. I mean, we know that. Page 18 of 24 Blake Allison: And there’s no amount of anything that we write in the zoning ordinance that’s going to stop that. Period. Jamie Creekmore: We run into this sometimes on structure that are built on the property where they are going to be charged commercial rates on that meter because unless we go out there and check to see that it’s not a livable type of situation…which we’ve tried to basically say it has to be a livable situation…but nothing’s to say that they won’t go back and change it back after we’re done looking at it. I’m just saying we deal with some of that stuff. Alma Dotson: So does that structure have to be in some type of way, adjacent to that main structure? Robert Varnell: Well, right now the structures for dwellings are allowed, which they're accessory. I think they're allowed to be 50% of the square footage and, they have to be…which if you consider what this sentence means…It has to be “Subsidiary” to the primary structure. Smaller than the primary structure in nature. That's somewhat my perspective versus somebody else's. And so they can be 5 feet from the property line where a primary structure in some cases would be 10…depends on the zone. It could be 5. Depends on what we're doing. But what this ordinance that the city is proposing at this point does is remove the ability to do that at all. So, if you wanted to build an accessory dwelling for Vashti to come home and live in a separate house, you couldn't do that anymore. Tiffany Sherlin: Well yeah coming at it from a different angle, I know they’re probably mostly used commercially or for extra income. But, you know, we’ve got aging parents, and we have individuals with developmental disabilities that are living longer because of medical care. And yeah, you could attach it to the house, but knowing people love their independence, they might want some of that separation. So I mean I think that they’ve got several uses that aren’t just commercial too. Bill Estes: Ben, is it an overreaction for R1? Ben Berry: I think R1 is a harder discussion. Bill Estes: All my problems come from R1. I mean multiple, multiple. Some Lee. Some not. I don’t see it as a problem with R1 and on the R2 side I agree it’s a square footage thing of the lot. Because I’m thinking of people we’ve had to run out in certain neighborhoods. I don’t see it as an overreaction for R1 and I see R2…I think it can be mitigated with lot size. Beyond that… Ben Berry: And setbacks. Bill Estes: Yeah lot size, setbacks, and inspections. Page 19 of 24 Ben Berry: When you build something new it meets primary setbacks. Ben Berry: R1 is harder. I haven’t processed it. I lean towards not removing options. Housing options. And I’ll say, the thing about R1 is that R1 is single family but its not one single family on one lot. You can have a tract and you can have multiple houses on that tract as long as that tract…each house has to have 7500 square feet, right. So, if you have half an acre lot and you have a house and you want to build an accessory dwelling unit, as long as its 15,000 square feet then that’s two single family houses on one lot. That is allowed by code now. I don’t really see it. Bill Estes: But there are other instruments to do that. If this is in place, they could split the lot. Blake Allison: A lot of private restrictions you can split but you can do an ADU. Bill Estes: But then if it’s a private restriction they’re not going to allow… Blake Allison: They do. Ours do. Bill Estes: So new development, I think about Chattanooga, and I think about my nieces and nephews who are doing this in Tulsa. That’s all kind of new stuff. It’s not R1 traditional, old school, R2 smaller lots. The problems are in Chapel Hill, Chicago, Wheaton, IL, Lee. They are around heavy, dense areas. Ben Berry: Yeah, because people try to squeeze in as much out of the land as they can. Bill Estes: So, you know, it may need to be nuanced and lot size seems to be the best option. I deal with this a lot. This is a problem. Robert Varnell: That’s real difficult to me. Dictating it based on lot size, regardless of zoning, to me is…the problems I see with it is…if you’re 10 feet away or whatever, we’ve got variance, all of a sudden… Robert Varnell: If you’ve got half an acre, you can just make another lot and put a structure on it. Bill Estes: They just said you can’t do that under certain restrictions, so I said just attach it with a portico. Blake Allison: Just flat out disallowing it…I think we can get a little more creative. Bill Estes: It’s funny. I have people look at me and say, “oh no I’m not doing it.” Page 20 of 24 Jamie Creekmore: That’s the reason I use the example I do with Cleveland Utilities. They will say that they are and then they will change it because they just want that rate. Robert Varnell: If they rent it out, they are paying commercial rates. Ben Berry: I think it’s hard to regulate that. I mean one of my clients had a house on Georgetown Rd. that she grew up in. She put 4 electric meters in because she rented to 4 different people. There are things…there’s outliers but what we’re approving here really just applies to new construction. I don’t know that it fixes the problems that currently exist. Robert Varnell: That’s new construction of ADU’s. Yes, that’s correct. Ben Berry: I feel like if there’s underlying problems, lets identify those and try to fix those as opposed to just mixing it all together. I know it’s a harder thing to do. It’s easier to just say “Nope. Not going to allow it.” But I don’t know. That, in my opinion, I don’t think it’s the correct thing to do. Blake Allison: Alot of times when things are completely disallowed, it breeds non-permitted construction completely which we can’t stop regardless. But it does. Ben Berry: I mean it’s on the agenda. I guess I’ll make a motion. And I’m really going to do this because of the fact that it’s not going to be allowed in R2 and R3 and then there’s a bigger discission on R1 but because it’s removing the ability to build these in R2 and R3 I’m going to recommend that this not be approved. Clarke Taylor: I’ve got a motion to deny. So motion to deny from Ben. Jamie Creekmore: I make a second to deny. Clarke Taylor: We’ve got a second by Jamie. Bill Estes: Would you consider just tabling it and letting Robert bring something back. Because I’m going to vote against that. Ben Berry: Oh, that’s fine. Bill Estes: Rather than us just deny it. Blake Allison: I mean you can bring it back and get rid of R1. Bill Estes: Or finagle it. Or if you don’t want to do it then it can go to the council as is. Ok. Alright. I’m good. Page 21 of 24 Ben Berry: I mean I would love a revised version. But if it’s going to go to council as is…I don’t know what….I would love to table it and have a new version. That’s my preference but if the choice is one or the other… (Inaudible) Robert Varnell: It will go to council. Once it leaves here it will go to City Council. Alma Dotson: Then I would rather table it then with another idea. Blake Allison: Are we going to get a revised version? Or are we going to get the same thing? Robert Varnell: I would just prefer just based on situations that if….if this body denies it and the Council denies it….then I’ll know I need to start over. Ben Berry: I think it’s worth addressing. Let me put that with my motion. I think it’s worth addressing and worth working on. Robert Varnell: Yeah. No, that’s absolutely. And they may look at the way this is broken down and these discussions and they may say well…why don’t you kick it back and actually look at it and that’s the way I would like to process the work. Blake Allison: And Bill if you could kind of deliver some of the sentiments for those at the council that don’t necessarily read the minutes because we had some great discussion over here that brought up some points that I didn’t think about. Bill Estes: Happy to and I do that….I am not necessarily in agreement with the way the vote is going to go. They need to see my bias. Robert Varnell: They will get the information. Bill Estes: Yeah, I think….let me say this. Mr. Fivas is always very good at explaining everything to us prior and walking us through the nuisances. Ben Berry: I guess I will just kind of restate the motion. Ill just give some reasons so it can be really concise. Because this recommends removing this as an allowable use in R2 and R3…I’m going to make this motion because of that. I do wish…I do think its important to address the issue. I’m going to recommend denial in hopes that there is a revised version that figures out a way to not completely eliminate accessory dwelling units as a permitted use. So that’s my motion. I recommend denial. Jamie Creekmore: And for the record I just want to say that I echo a second based on that sentiment as well. Page 22 of 24 Ben Berry made a motion to deny item “k” and Jamie Creekmore seconded the motion. A vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-6 No-1 Recused-0 Absent-2 Joe Fivas: Yeah, I didn't want to get in the middle of your conversation. I don't know if we necessarily disagree with Ben's thoughts on the R2 and the R3. We'll look at that. What we're seeing out there are older neighborhoods that have houses that are built with small lots that have very small parking and then you put in another house in the back and the people that live around them, that like living in their R1 family-oriented neighborhood all of a sudden have 10 people living in their 10,000 square foot lot size. Well, what we’re seeing is very upset homeowners surrounding it because that’s not what they purchased. They didn't purchase next to a high-density neighborhood and have eight cars in that in the driveway and having people in and out all the time and the noise associated with that. I think that's what we're really trying to accomplish. What we’re doing is what the historic district is essential doing right now. Really the nuisance is people are taking advantage. We have people coming in and saying, “hey I’m going to build a pool house.” Then they come and switch it and say well, it’s now a dwelling. And then you have very frustrated neighbors with the six cars parked in their neighborhood and in the front of their car. But then you have some people coming in and buying three or four houses on the street and doing this multiple times in the neighborhood. And you are taking the fragile ecosystem of that neighborhood and all of a sudden, the population has quadrupled. That’s the problem we’re trying to address. Bill Estes: It also happens in the historic district. Its not…just drive down Harle on your way home. Multiple Discussions. Inaudible. Alma Dotson: So, then we need to come up with a way that if they’re building…I don’t know if you have inspectors that do things like that…but there needs to be some penalty or something…Something has to be written that’s going to….if you want that penalized that’s going to financially hurt them to do that. Joe Fivas: And the second piece going along with what Alma is saying too, is different. From an enforcement standpoint it’s easier to just have a zero- tolerance policy. Because we know that if someone’s living there, they’re out of compliance. If it’s kind of a hodgepodge, you don’t necessarily know what it is. It’s very difficult to follow and track. Is there someone living back there or is there not someone living back there? Page 23 of 24 Robert Varnell: It’s next to impossible to prove that this is happening unless I sit there all night which I’m not doing. Joe Fivas: And so I just wanted to give context of what we’re seeing. Outraged neighbors, furious at the City for allowing 10 people to…or someone to build a little 75 square foot house in your back yard. And you can do that. It just has to be attached. I mean if you’re going to do a mother-in-law thing. But anyway. I didn’t want to get in the middle of your conversation. I agree actually, with a lot of what was said. But I wanted to give that context that we’re not just going rogue trying to figure out, you know, solutions to problems that don’t exist. But we’re trying to solve some potential future problems as lots diminish and as people are trying to find and get/make more money. You start taking single family neighborhoods and you have four or five of these on the block and all of a sudden it operates and feels like a commercial neighborhood. Alma Dotson: Is it a single developer doing that? Joe Fivas: It’s several of them. Alma Dotson: Yeah, I mean….one per each guy then or something. I’m just throwing out ideas. If you already got five houses here and you built that one and put an addition in the back…that’s all you get. That’s just an example. But you’re going to put one for every five that you have? No. Joe Fivas: I just wanted to make sure you understood that we weren’t going rogue trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. I probably agree with what Ben was saying about the R2 and the R3. I think we can look at that. Our focus is probably more on the R1. Robert Varnell: Or the R2 that acts as R1. Bill Estes: Maybe you can look at size. Robert Varnell: I do want to say just one thing real quick. We’re without Darla this evening so everybody keep her in their thoughts. She’s not in bad shape or anything, but she’s dealing with a little something. She’ll be back soon but we miss her. Thank you. There was no Director’s Report. There was no Chairman’s Report. The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 P.M. Page 24 of 24  Agenda Staff Report Case: SUB 2023-45 Belcourt Landing Preliminary Plat (see Appendix for case materials) November 21, 2023 City of Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission Applicant: Berry Development Site Address: Urbane Road Tax Map: Part of 042 058.00 Area: 13.50 Acres Current Zone: PUD 46 Request: Approval of Preliminary Plat Sewer/Water: Yes Council District: District 4-David May Jr. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1. Analysis The preliminary plat in question shows 91 lots for proposed townhome as well as community lots for development and other infrastructure for the development of PUD 46. The property was officially annexed and rezoned to PUD 46 on November 13th, 2023, Council Meeting. 2. Staff Recommendation APPROVE PENDING STAFF COMMENTS The submitted version of the preliminary plat meets the requirements of the City of Cleveland Subdivision regulations and the PUD 46 Zoning Ordinance. Outstanding Comments Stormwater- “Obtain site plan approval.” Engineering- “Obtain site plan approval.”  10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 PROJECT: DEVELOPER: CIVIL ENGINEER: DATE: DRAWN BY: SHEET NUMBER: PROJECT NO.: CHECKED BY: SHEET NAME: BERRY DEVELOPMENT REVISIONS 63 BROAD STREET 23047 CMB BMB HARDWICK WAY CLEVELAND, TN 37311 63 BROAD ST NW TEL: (423) 790-5880 L-01 CLEVELAND, TN CLEVELAND, TN 37311 LANDSCAPE PLAN 10/27/2023  Agenda Staff Report Case: SUB 2023-46 Hickory Bend Revised Lots 5- 7 Final Plat (see Appendix for case materials) November 21, 2023 City of Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission Applicant: CT Properties Site Address: Georgetown Rd. Tax Map: 049C E 001.00 and 002.00 Area: 1.53 Acres Current Zone: R-1 Single Family Residential Request: Approval of Revised Final Plat Sewer/Water: Yes Council District: District 5-Dale R. Hughes PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1. Analysis The final plat in question depicts 3 lots to be subdivided using standards for R-1 Single Family Zoning. 2. Staff Recommendation APPROVE PENDING STAFF COMMENTS The submitted version of the final plat meets the requirements of the City of Cleveland Subdivision regulations and the Zoning Ordinance once comments are addressed. Outstanding Comments Stormwater- “The ditch shown on the plat has indicators of being a stream and will require a HD study.” Engineering- “Under NOTES, please provide total number of acres.” Planning- “Finish notes 1 and 5” Transportation- “Provide note restriction access from Georgetown road to lot 6. Access is permitted from Hickory Drive only.” Agenda Staff Report Case: ZON2023-45 Fair Street Rezoning (see Appendix for case materials) November 21, 2023 City of Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission Applicant: Ben Bradley Site Address: 295 Fair Street Tax Map: 058H C 027.00 Area: .16 acres Current Zone: CG General Commercial Request: Approval of Rezoning from CG to R2 Sewer/Water: Yes Council District: District 2 – Bill Estes PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1. Analysis The request considers the rezoning of approximately .16 acres from CG General Commercial to R-2 Single Family Residential. Currently the lot is vacant. This neighborhood is comprised of single-family homes and commercially zoned lots are not consistent with the use of the neighborhood. In addition, the lot sizes are too small to house a commercial business. The property owner would be able to build a single-family residential home on the lot with R2 zoning. No multifamily would be permitted due to lot size restrictions. Staff Recommendation APPROVE  Zoning Ordinance No. 2023- BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Cleveland, in regular session assembled that the portion of property described herein be, and the same is hereby, re-zoned from CG General Commercial to R2 Low Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning District. Approximately .16 acres, more or less, located at 295 Fair Street as shown on the attached map. For reference, same property is being shown on Tax Map 058H Group C Parcel 027.00, in the Assessor’s Office for Bradley County, Tennessee BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all Ordinances in conflict herewith are repealed to the extent of said conflict. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this Ordinance shall take effect from and after its passage on final reading, the public welfare requiring it. APPROVED AS TO FORM: John F. Kimball, City Attorney SIGNED: Kevin Brooks, Mayor Shawn McKay, City Clerk Exhibit A  Agenda Staff Report Case: ZON2023-46 Conditional Use Review Amendment (see Appendix for case materials) November 21, 2023 City of Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission Applicant: City of Cleveland Request: Approval of ordinance to amend Title 14, Chapter 2, Section 1.7 Conditional Use Review to prohibit the transfer of a conditional use permit. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1. Analysis The issuance of a Conditional Use Permit within certain zonings is intended to be granted to the specific owners’ proposal requesting approval. This intent is not clearly outlined within the Conditional Use Review criteria therefore, a section has been added to clarify that the transfer of the permit is not permitted, and each new owner must apply for a new Conditional Use Permit. Staff Recommendation APPROVE  ORDINANCE # AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE PROVIDING THAT THE CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL CODE, AMEND CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 14 ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROL, BY AMENDING SECTION 1.7 CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW TO PROHIBIT THE TRANSFER OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the existing Code should be revised to prohibit the transfer of a Conditional Use Permit. WHEREAS, the requirements, restrictions, and permitting of conditional uses are set forth in The Cleveland Municipal Code to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the public. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Cleveland, Tennessee: Section 1: The Cleveland Municipal Code, Title 14 Zoning and Land Use Control, Chapter 2, Section 1.7 Conditional Use Review is hereby amended: 1.7 CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW 1.7.1 General Conditional uses must be listed as a conditional use in the zoning district, and they require approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. This section establishes a process for the review of conditional use requests. The applicant for a conditional use shall supply information adequate for a review and decision regarding the proposed conditional use. The information to be supplied by the applicant is to include a survey and site plan identifying existing and/or proposed property boundaries, adjacent roads and properties including the buildings and uses thereon, the proposed building footprint and site features, proposed indoor and outdoor uses on the property, proposed landscaping and buffering, proposed outdoor lighting, proposed parking and traffic circulation including site ingress and egress, proposed areas for shipping and receiving and waste disposal, proposed hours of operation including shipping and receiving, proposed special conditions for truck routing, and descriptions of any local, state and federal permits required for the proposed use and location. The Planning Director (Community Development Director) shall prepare a staff report addressing the considerations described below. The review of these  considerations shall be used to identify any concerns with the conditional use proposal. Pursuant to any identified concerns, possible mitigating conditions, or limitations in the approval of the conditional use shall be discussed. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall approve or deny the conditional use request based upon its findings in the review process described herein. The approval of a conditional use request shall include any conditions or limitations of the approval based upon the review. Once approved, the conditional use permit cannot be transferred to another property owner or another individual. A change in ownership would require another conditional use permit issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Operation and maintenance of a conditional use in violation of any conditions or limitations stipulated for its approval is unlawful and a violation of the zoning regulations. NOW, LET IT BE FURTHER ORDAINED, that this ordinance shall take effect following final reading by the City Council of the City of Cleveland, Tennessee the welfare of the City requiring it. PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage on second reading, the public necessity requiring it. APPROVED AS TO FORM: John F. Kimball, City Attorney SIGNED: Kevin Brooks, Mayor Agenda Staff Report Case: ZON2023-47 Randolph Drive Variance (see Appendix for case materials) November 21, 2023 City of Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission Applicant: Zane Harris Site Address: 1431 Randolph Drive Tax Map: 057F N 012.00 Area: .84 acres Current Zone: R-2 Low Density Single and Multi-Family Request: Approval of request for depth to width ratio variance for final plat Sewer/Water: Yes Council District: District 1– Marsha McKenzie PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1. Analysis This request is for a depth to width ratio variance for the following plat based on the hardship the topography of the land has caused. The property owner would like to subdivide the lot into two legal lots within the R-2 zoning district. Each lot has 50 feet of road frontage and the minimum amount of square footage for the zoning district. The depth would exceed the 5:1 ratio in relation to lot width once the lot is subdivided, leaving each lot at approximately 50 feet wide and 378 feet deep. The land is only buildable within the first 75-100 feet from the street. The lot elevation becomes very steep (approximately 30% slope), leaving the back portion unusable. The depth-width ratio requirement is located with the Cleveland, TN Subdivision regulations, requiring Planning Commission to approve the variance. Staff Recommendation APPROVE  Agenda Staff Report Case: ZON2023-42 Accessory Structure and Dwelling Amendment (see Appendix for case materials) November 21, 2023 City of Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission Applicant: City of Cleveland Request: Approval of ordinance to amend section 3.8 accessory structures PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1. Analysis Accessory structures have increasingly become a desired asset for property owners in Cleveland, TN. The current ordinance is somewhat evasive when it comes to ensuring that an accessory structure is clearly subordinate in use, size, etc. to the principle structure. The purpose of this amendment is to isolate accessory structures into 2 parts (minor, major,), give more specifics in terms of size, setbacks, and other requirements. This amendment will additionally add specific terms for accessory structures in appropriate zoning designations. Staff Recommendation APPROVE  ORDINANCE # AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE PROVIDING THAT THE CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL CODE, AMEND CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 14 ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROL, BY AMENDING SECTION 3.8 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES TO REMOVE ACCESSORY DWELLINGS AND DELINEATE BETWEEN MAJOR AND MINOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND AMENDING TABLE 3 BUILDING SETBACKS, HEIGHTS, AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the existing Code should be revised to regulate accessory structures and provide requirements for accessory dwellings in specific zones. WHEREAS, the requirements, restrictions, and permitting of accessory structures are set forth in The Cleveland Municipal Code to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the public. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Cleveland, Tennessee: Section 1: The Cleveland Municipal Code, Title 14 Zoning and Land Use Control, Chapter 2, Section 3.8 Accessory Structures and Uses is hereby amended: 3.8 Accessory Structures and Uses 3.8.1 General Provisions: A. Accessory uses and structures are permitted in conjunction with a permitted principal use. B. Accessory uses and structures are permitted by district as listed in table 1 in Subsection 2.1 Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures by Zoning District. C. Accessory uses and structures shall be subject to approval by the Department of Community Development. D. Accessory Dwellings are not permitted. 3.8.2 Accessory Uses: A. Clearly incidental and subordinate to a permitted principal use in terms of area and function; B. Located on the same lot as the principal use; and C. Owned or operated by the same person as the principal use. 3.8.3 Major Accessory Structures: Accessory Structures such as large Storage buildings, Garages, Pool Houses without Bedrooms or Kitchens shall: A. Comply with the maximum number and setback of the principal structure in the applicable zoning district; B. Not be within platted or recorded easements or over underground utilities C. Have a building footprint no greater than 40% of the primary structure footprint; D. Have a building square footage no greater than 40% of the primary structure or 750 square feet, whichever is greater; E. Not be located within platted or recorded easements or over underground utilities; F. Be subordinate in area and size to the principal building (except for agricultural structures approved by the Community Development Director on parcels larger than 2.5 acres); G. Meet all other applicable standards of this Ordinance when taken together with the principal building or use; and H. Not to be constructed prior to the time the principal building is constructed (except for community gardens and agricultural uses). I. May not be used as an accessory dwelling. 3.8.4 Accessory Dwellings: 1. Accessory Dwellings may be permitted in R-2 and R-3 zoning designations where lots exceed 10,500 square feet only. No Accessory Dwelling units may be permitted in any other zoning designation. 2. A maximum of one accessory dwelling is permitted on a lot. 3. May not be within platted or recorded easements or over underground utilities 4. The detached accessory dwelling shall maintain a proportional mass, size, and height to ensure it is not taller than the principal structure on the lot. The detached accessory dwelling height shall not exceed the height of the principal structure as measured to the eave line. 5. Comply with the maximum number, setback, and height requirements of the principal structure in the applicable zoning district; 6. The building footprint shall not exceed 25 percent of the building footprint of the principal building. 7. The building’s square footage shall not exceed 250 square feet. 8. Accessory dwellings shall comply with the principal building type standards for materials, material changes, colors, and roof elements and must be placed on a permanent foundation. 9. Any dormers shall be set back a minimum of one foot from the exterior wall. 10. Exterior stairs, decks, entry doors, and major windows shall face the principal building, the alley, the street, or the interior of the lot, and away from adjacent properties. 11. Accessory dwellings may be converted from an existing accessory structure, as long as the conversion does not increase any dimensional nonconformity and meets all applicable codes. 12. Off-street parking shall be provided pursuant to Subsection 3.4.4 Table 5 “Minimum Parking Spaces.” 13. Parking spaces shall be included as part of the primary driveway unless alternate road frontage is utilized for a second driveway location to be approved through site review. 14. Permitting is required with a full survey displaying primary structure, square footage, parking, impervious, and all other applicable requirements. 15. If the Accessory Dwelling Unit is co-located within or as a part of an Accessory Structure as defined in subsection 3.8.3, the maximum square footage shall apply as described for accessory dwellings for the entire structure. 3.8.5 Minor Accessory Structures: Minor accessory structures, such as storage or potting sheds, workshops, or greenhouses, shall: A. Comply with the maximum number and setback in the applicable zoning district for accessory structures; B. Have a building footprint of less than 200 square feet; C. Not be within platted or recorded easements or over underground utilities; D. Not to be constructed prior to the time the principal building is constructed (except for community gardens and agricultural uses). E. May not be used as an accessory dwelling. Section 2: The Cleveland Municipal Code, Title 14 Zoning and Land Use Control, Chapter 2, Table 3 Building Setbacks, Heights, and Impervious Surfaces is hereby amended: Table 3 Building Setbacks, Heights, and Impervious Surfaces Zoning Minimum Setbacks (feet) Maximu Minimum Maximum District m Green Impervious Buildin Space Surface Front Yard Side Rear g Yard Yard Height R-A 25 ft 10 ft 15 ft 35 feet 0.65 0.35 (principal (principal & & Major Major Accessory) Accessory) 5 ft (minor 5 ft ( Minor accessory) accessory) R-1 25 ft 10 ft 15 ft 35 feet 0.40 0.45 (principal (principal & Major and Major Accessory) Accessory) 5 ft (minor 5 ft (Minor accessory) accessory) R-2 25 ft 10 ft 15 ft 35 feet 0.40 0.50 (principal (principal & Major and Major Accessory) Accessory) 5 ft (minor 5 ft ( Minor accessory) accessory) R-3 25 ft 10 ft 15 ft 70 feet 0.25 0.70 (principal) (principal (principal) 5 & Major ft (accessory) Accessory) 5 ft (minor accessory) R-4 Sec 4.6 Section 4.6 Section 4.6 Section Section 4.6 Section 4.6 4.6 NOW, LET IT BE FURTHER ORDAINED, that this ordinance shall take effect following final reading by the City Council of the City  of Cleveland, Tennessee the welfare of the City requiring it. PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage on second reading, the public necessity requiring it. APPROVED AS TO FORM: John F. Kimball, City Attorney SIGNED: Kevin Brooks, Mayor