Planning Commission

AGENDA CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2024, 6:00 PM CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL BUILDING 190 CHURCH STREET NE Welcome and Roll Call of Members 1. Minutes February 20, 2024 2. Public Hearings 3. Consent Agenda a. request by Thomas Taylor for approval of a preliminary plat for property located at Hardwick Street NE (also described as Tax Map 050I Group D Parcel 002.09) and located within the R-3 Multi-Family Zoning District. b. request by Jay Critz for approval of a preliminary plat for a proposed townhome development on property located at Parker Avenue (also described as Tax Map 057G Group F Parcel 011.01) and located within the R-2 Low Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning District. c. request by Casey Mitchell and Charlie Reynolds for approval of a preliminary plat for a proposed townhome development on property located at Henderson Avenue (also described as Tax Map 042P Group A Parcel 019.01) and located within the R-2 Low Density Single and Multi- Family Zoning District. d. request by Duane Goff for approval of a preliminary plat for a proposed townhome development on property located at Ohio Avenue (also  described as Tax Map 049C Group B Parcel 020.00 and 021.00) and located within the R-3 Low Density Single and Multi-Family Zoning District. e. request by Tom Cate for approval of a preliminary plat for property located at North Lee Hwy (also described as a portion of Tax Map 034F Group C Parcel 001.00 and 021.00 and a portion of Tax Map 034 Parcel 020.01) and located within the CH Highway Commercial Zoning District. 4. Old Business 5. New Business a. future Amendment to multiple sections of Article 7 Final Plat Requirements and Article 8 Requirements for Townhouse Subdivisions in the Cleveland TN Subdivision regulations concerning the platting approval process and requirements for administrative review as well as the process for submitting plats. 6. Chairman’s Report 7. Director’s Report 8. Adjourn  Minutes CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2024, 6:00 PM 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 6:00 P.M. Commissioners present included: Tricia Pennington, Blake Allison, Bill Estes, Jamie Creekmore, Tiffiani Sherlin, Maryl Elliott, Ben Berry, and Alma Dotson arrived late. Members absent included: Clarke Taylor Staff present included: Robert Varnell, Planning Director, Erica Bevis, Planner II, Joel Prince, Planner II/Codes Inspection Supervisor, Kathy Andrews, Redevelopment Coordinator, Taylor Koch, and Laura Duncan, MPO Billing Coordinator. Legal Counsel present included: John Kimball, Attorney for the City of Cleveland. Others present included: Hal Taylor of Cleveland City Schools, Tony Richmond, Emily Wampler and Ryan Wampler. The minutes of the November 21, 2023, regular meeting were presented for approval. Bill Estes made a motion to approve the November 21, 2023, minutes and Ben Berry seconded the motion. A Vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-0 Absent-2 The minutes of the December 16, 2023, special called meeting were presented for approval. Bill Estes made a motion to approve the December 16, 2023, minutes and Ben Berry seconded the motion. A Vote of 7—0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-0 Absent-2 The minutes of the January 23, 2024, special called meeting were presented for approval. Bill Estes made a motion to approve the January 23, 2024, minutes and Ben Berry seconded the motion. A vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-1 In Public Hearings, The City of Cleveland held a public hearing on February 20, 2024, to request comments from the planning commission and the public as it relates to the HUD CDBG 5-year Consolidated Plan for FY 2024-2029 and the 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan. Chairperson Pennington called the public hearing to order and introduced Cathy Andrews, Redevelopment Coordinator for the City of Cleveland. Ms. Andrews explained the CDBG program, and national objectives, and gave examples of past projects. Alma Dotson inquired about pursuing economic development activities in the future. Ben Berry discussed parking issues at the South Cleveland Community Center and asked for more parking spots and for a sidewalk to be put on 14th street. Alma Dotson agreed with Mr. Berry and stated that Sheppard Field, near the College Hill Recreation Center, would also benefit from more parking spots. Mr. Berry also requested the addition of more seating at the South Cleveland Community Center’s pool. Tricia Pennington: We are going to open a public hearing for anyone who would like to speak about something that is not on tonight's agenda. Is there anyone who would like to speak? OK, there are no further public hearings. We'll close the public hearing now, and move to the consent agenda, Robert. In the Consent Agenda, a. Request by Spears Holdings, LLC for approval of a preliminary plat for property located at eh corner of Minnis Rd. and Michigan Avenue (also described as a portion of Tax Map 050 Parcel 043.00) and located within the PUD 37 Zoning District. b. Request by Greg Calfee for approval of a preliminary plat for property located at Raben Drive (also described as Tax Map 041F Group D Parcel 001.06) and located within the PUD 30 Zoning District. Robert Varnell: Thank you. The consent agenda includes the Taylors Place subdivision, the preliminary plat from PUD 37. Six lots for future townhome construction. There were a few outstanding comments, but the primary issues are taken care of and there are landscape plans. You can see it as well. One of the things we did, if you remember when we heard this pod was get some extra right away at the corner of Michigan Ave. to Minis Rd. which is going to be utilized for future construction by the City of Cleveland. So that was a good thing you all did, and we did it together. And you can see kind of where it is right there. There's a couple of culverts that need to be labeled and that's primarily it. So, there's no questions on that one on. The other item on the consent agenda is from PUD 30. It's two lots, Greg Calfee development, for townhomes. Fairly straightforward, kind of goes back to the point that we talked about at our December meeting about having to bring town home lots to the List, 2 lots to the Planning Commission. That's actually written in our regs, but we'll get to that later. There's a little bit of a landscaping comment to be addressed otherwise in good shape, so there are no specific questions. Bill Estes: I have one, it's on Raben Drive. What's the city going to do with the rest of the road for Raben Drive? Robert Varnell: That's an interesting question. You know we approved the PUD on the opposite side of the road. That PUD had some infrastructure-related improvements, but they didn't extend much further. Bill Estes: I went and looked at it the other day. Robert Varnell: Right, it stops at where you turn in and. You know, we've, I know it's discussed that it's going to have to be improved getting back to those, I don't know however many, I think there's some duplexes. Back there. Bill Estes: There are some single-family homes. Robert Varnell: Single-family as well, and so it's in the discussion to widen it on out eventually. Bill Estes: Could you just keep that on your radar? It needs to be done. Right now, all this is going on. Let's just knock out that last few hundred feet. Absorb it into, we've got a little more paving money this year to go ahead and absorb it in, it's not a heavy lift. Robert Varnell: It's not a large distance. Alma Dotson: Are these single-family dwellings? Robert Varnell: They are townhomes, but they will be sold separately for individual ownership, yes. Bill Estes: They will sell better with Raben Drive finished. Alma Dotson: Right, I just know it's going to storm because I’m agreeing with him, but I agree we need to do something about the roads. Robert Varnell: Yes. And I know it's in discussions. I'll just make sure it's brought back up, so thank you for the comment. any other questions on the consent? Bill Estes made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda pending staff comments. Jamie Creekmore seconded the motion. A vote to approve the motion was approved. Yes-8 No-0 Absent 2 Recused-0 Old Business There was no Old Business In New Business,  a. Request by Eldredge and O’Neal families for consideration of a Plan of Service for about 91 acres, more or less, for property located at North Lee Hwy and includes Tax Map 027 Parcels 042 and 027.50 and Tax Map 034 Parcels 025.02 and 025.06. b. Request by the Eldredge and O’Neal families for consideration of a resolution to annex about 91 acres, more or less, for property located at North Lee Hwy and includes Tax Map 027 Parcels 042 and 027.5 and Tax Map 034 Parcels 025.02 and 025.06 c. Request by Eldredge and O’Neal families for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 102.7 acres, more or less for property located at North Lee Hwy from unincorporated County and RA Residential Agricultural to PUD and includes Tax Map 027 Parcels 042 and 027.50 and 025.06. d. Request by Ryan Wampler for consideration of a Plan of Service for about 17.5 acres, more or less for property located at Buchanan Road and includes Tax Map 065 Parcels 040.00 and 044.00. e. Request by Ryan Wampler for consideration of a resolution to annex about 17.5 acres, more or less, for property located at Buchanan Road and includes Tax Map 065 Parcels 040.00 and 044.00. f. Request by Ryan Wampler for consideration of an ordinance to zone about 17.5 acres more or less, for property located at Buchanan Road from unincorporated County to PUD and includes Tax Map 065 Parcels 040.00 and 044.00. Tricia Pennington: New business item A has been withdrawn. New business item B has been withdrawn and item C has been withdrawn. So that leaves us with item D, Robert. Robert Varnell: We've got annexation requests that will require a plan of service as well as the zoning. This body makes the recommendation to the Council and then they take it through that step-by-step process on each one. This is on Buchanan Rd. Tax map 65 040 044. It’s about 17.5 acres and their zoning request is for PUD for the construction of single-family detached units with approximately 5 to 7000 square foot lots depending. You can see the location here. This is Walmart on the South side, off Treasury Drive. Buchanan Road runs in, you know, you kind of snake in that. I think it's Spectrum offices right here. And we're coming back. And cities just a few blocks away off of 28th SE and the 17.5 acres right there is incontiguous, so it will require a county service agreement. Based on the plan of service that we're looking at there, you see the proposed site plan, and the preliminary site plan that goes with the PUD, those are individual lots for single- family construction. And an unopened alley, I believe it's unopened along there that could be utilized as well. So as far as the annexation goes and the plan of service, I'll group those together. You should have both of them. There was nothing within that document that stood out to me as an issue. The city is a couple of blocks away. We'll end up taking part on the 29th and possibly a fairly significant part of Buchanan Rd. Those discussions will be hammered out between city officials and county officials over the next month or so, but we likely will have it continuous that way in short order. But the annexation is, at this point, for the parcel. The PUD zoning has some stipulations in there about lot size and setbacks and things like that, but it mirrors a similar one we did on Westland Drive, which is in a geographically similar area not too far away, just kind of in regard to the types of construction, etc. Alma Dotson: So, if the city line is a couple of blocks away. And you want to pull this into the city, right? Robert Varnell: That's correct. The request is for annexation. Alma Dotson: So, would you adjacent to those two blocks? Robert Varnell: We will not take any parcels, other private property in the road rights of way will be absorbed between the city limits and this parcel, we don’t know which ones, there will be multiple. We don't know exactly which ones yet. Most likely Buchanan and 29th. And that that in that way it's somewhat contiguous, but because it's incontiguous at the moment, we go to the county and say we're going to serve it with police, fire, sewer, water, you know, all that stuff, there is no agreement, because we're agreeing to do everything. It's just something that we go to them and say bless it, you know pretty much. And they have traditionally done so. So that's how that process works when it's incontiguous like that, it would be separated. We have one off of Benton Pike that's similar right at the bypass that does not connect to the city in any way. It's just out there by itself, so this wouldn't be the only situation where it’s occurred. Bill Estes: My question is Cleveland Utilities have seven, or eight years to provide utilities? The developers are going to pay for it, will split the costs to speed it up? Robert Varnell: That's the way those agreements work you know, if, Jamie, if you have something to add after I run my mouth for a minute. But I have sat in those meetings where you know, developers say yes, we are not waiting, we're going to develop this next week. We'll pay you whatever and they come to that agreement. We pretty much are just there for moral support, but they are typically apt to make that agreement pretty quick as to offset any future costs down the road. Bill Estes: So, the 200,000 is not a big deal to me? Robert Varnell: It's fairly insignificant, especially considering some of the ones we've seen in other places. Jamie Creekmore: Historically, unless it's an enormous going underneath. Interstate, whatever else, historically, the developer bears 100% of those costs if they want it before. Robert Varnell: 90% of the time. But in a few cases where there's been certain unique situations. Blake Allison: If the sewer opens up a corridor that's gonna be beneficial. Robert Varnell: But as a city, we kind of let them get them. Them being Cleveland utilities take the lead on how they want to deal with that. That's We know their process and sit in with them. Jamie Creekmore: I would just say I can't speak in depth to that, but what he's saying I can confirm and what Blake is saying is true too. Robert Varnell: So, these are three separate items. I think you know the representative of the applicant might add a little bit to it, but any other questions for me, I'm happy to answer. Jamie Creekmore: I do have one quick question. This is a blanket and it's incontiguous like this. Do we have difficulties with there being a delayed response for, like emergencies and that sort of thing because people are not sure? I'm just curious, I'm not against this, but I'm just curious. Robert Varnell: Well, that's why I alluded to the fact that the roads specifically will be up for discussion between the county and the city as well as the emergency 911. When we do these annexations well before you get it, we've sent it to schools. We've sent it to Cleveland Utilities, we've sent it to emergency 911, and the county gets it. We say this is what's happening here. Tell us the complications when we put that into that plan service. So, there have been instances, yes, where there's been a level of confusion. But in most cases that gets ironed out pretty quick and if we take the roads when we do these annexations, that helps them a lot because the 911 call is based on an address and you know the only complications would be, you know, if it was Buchanan Rd. We didn't have the parcels on each side. Then there's a question, but we have a lot of mutual aid. You know, I would say agreements, but they're close to that anyway, so. Somebody's going to be there, but yes, those discussions have taken place and that's why we usually end up taking more of the roads. Jamie Creekmore: OK. And I've seen that in plans. I'm glad that you guys do that, I just don't know how much that really was an issue. Robert Varnell: It plays, it plays a big part in the infrastructure that and then and you know, future funding of road work and things like that. Yeah, yeah, good question. Anything else for me? Tricia Pennington: OK. Thank you. Robert, is there anyone here who would like to speak to this? Ben Berry: Yeah, Ben Berry. This is just on the PUD portion of it, so I guess when we get to that vote, or I can do it now? Robert Varnell: Go ahead and speak to it now. Ben Berry: There are a couple of things that we emailed about. There's a correction on the total number of units, it’s 300 in the packet, but it's just 90. Under miscellaneous standards, 7C this is architecture number 1 the architecture requirement. Robert and I talked about that being changed right now it says exterior facades, and front facades should comprise of a minimum of 50% brick or stone. We talked about this on the Westland Drive one last month and we changed that to just that the front facade would be brick, stone, or fiber cement siding and then vinyl siding on the three sides, so you know, this being in a similar area of town, hoping that it would be consistent of that. And the last one, we didn't talk about. There's a question mark under 7B, item 2, this is the open space requirement of the written into PUD’s open space. Community open space should be usable, yet natural area community open space will comprise of 20% of the total area. So, for this development, we didn't really have usable open space dedicated. We do have storm water open space, but that’s not really considered usable. We were seeing this as more just a straight R2 subdivision. Except the limited to single family. So that would mean its single family, but it's standard R2 lot sizes, 50 feet width. We didn’t reduce the lot width by 100-foot depth. Really, we're fine with the standard R2 setbacks. It might change that in here, but we're fine with the R2 setbacks. Really just want this to be more along the lines of what normal zoning would require for R2, with the limitation of taking out the multifamily part of it and having some architectural standards added to it. So, we would like that removed if. If you think it's worthwhile. Or at least changed. 20% is a lot of area. Unknown: Is what, three 3.4 acres? Ben Berry: Yeah, of usable space. Blake Allison: That would be quite a large area. I agree with you in that sentiment there. My question, I guess is why? I feel like we're a little bit in the weeds. Going into a PUD like. Ben Berry: Well, I think the first two things we agree on, they just made some changes to our architectural requirements. One was a typo with the number of units. The architecture I think the staff and I agree. If you guys agree with as well on that, and then the other is, I didn't mention to Robert in advance of this meeting is the Community open spaces. Robert Varnell: And you know one thing with our existing R2 zoning that a lot of people don't realize. Down the road, it allows for these homes to be divided into duplexes. We've got 5000 square foot lots. That's something that when we have to go to a PUD sometimes it shows the weakness within our straight-up zoning code. And it's something that I had a meeting about just a few hours ago in a different part of town. You know the goal is to build a nice neighborhood and so we look at it and we say the best thing we can do is put it into a PUD. That way we protect it. Because R2, everywhere else, we have ongoing issues there that we haven't dealt with yet. But I get your point. I think the original request was for R2 and I said I’m putting it in a PUD that was, but it may I know what you mean. It's like it's almost the same thing, but it's just guaranteeing it or protecting the investment that the single-family homeowner’s making. Blake Allison: Understand. As far as that 20% we need to look at that, that's way too much. What are you proposing again? Ben Berry: Nothing. You know that language comes from the cluster when you have an R1, and you want to take 75-foot lots and make them 40 and in exchange you dedicate 20% of your land area. Blake Allison: All right. Ben Berry: We are more trying to present this as an R2. It's smaller homes, they don't need 75-foot lots, they just need 50-foot lots and it's plenty of room. They'll have 10-foot setbacks. Plus, on the sides, so we would just like that removed. Bill Estes: 90 units, no open? Ben Berry: It will have open space just inherent in the development just not a zoning requirement. It would be a normal subdivision. So, every inch of length. So, if you go to the concept plan there instead of public open space everyone's property lines are shared, so you have your parcel, you have your backyard. You want to fence it in, you fence it in, as opposed to community space that’s HOA maintained and open. Blake Allison: Frankly, if you look at a lot of our other PUDs, it's no different. Bill Estes: But you know it's sitting in a 1960’s, 70’s all around it, you know, when I think about the neighborhood around it. I actually, drove the back way. Ben Berry: It’s pretty consistent with especially Bow Street, 29th St. And that it feels like it's similar. Similar density there. Tricia Pennington: Any other questions or comments? Blake Allison: Oh, when you go back to the you said the PUD, right? We need to have a motion on the. Bill Estes: Planning plan of Service 1st. Tricia Pennington: We haven't had a motion. Blake Allison: This one yet? Well, that's after the plan of service Robert Varnell: Plan of service and then annexation. Blake Allison made a motion to approve item d in New Business and Maryl Elliott seconded the motion. A vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-1 Recused-1. Blake Allison made a motion to approve item e in New Business and Bill Estes seconded the motion. A vote of 7-0 passed the motion. Yes-7 No-1 Recused-1.  Blake Allison made a motion to approve item f in new business with the change from 300 units to 90 units, eliminating section 7B item 2 and changing 7C number 1 requirements to front facade would be brick, stone, or fiber cement siding and then vinyl siding on the three sides and Jamie Creekmore seconded the motion. Bill Estes: I just for the record for the minutes. I would ask that city staff keep this in mind going forward as they put PUDs together. I understand R2 protecting it in a PUD rather than going straight R2. Because we copied in the 20% from somewhere else, we kind of looked back. You know it. I would rather this be sorted before it came to us. So, I'm just asking that to be in the minutes for city staff going forward. Let's not run into this again. Robert Varnell: No, absolutely, yeah. And I think one thing with these. I don't think it's wrong to ask for a small pocket park. One of the biggest priorities we look at is lowering trip time for people to be able to use park space and things like that. It's not necessarily a bad thing to ask for. Blake Allison: 20% is steep though, Robert. Robert Varnell: Oh, it's yeah. But it's also a common number. Blake Allison: And a cluster I get, but in clusters you're in 4-5 acres. You're talking about an acre or less, and I've looked at clusters to try to make it work somewhere in the city, but the 20% usable space absolutely ruins the deal. When you're looking at 80 K an acre. Robert Varnell: Yeah. And I'm not necessarily married to the number. I'm just saying This is why we do it. It has A purpose. Blake Allison: I think you could look at a 75 by 100 lot. You could have a phenomenal open space, playground, etc. whatever, giving up 1 1/2 lots as opposed to 17 lots. Of the of the 20% right, I think instead of a 20% maybe we start looking at in the concept plan, just idea but each PUD is individual, right? So hey, you have all these 50-foot lots. What if we did 75x100, 80 x 100 or whatever else? Show me a community space and I'm open to that. I just look at the 20% and I’m like no. So, seeing the intent, I see where you're coming from. Robert Varnell: Yeah, no. Bill Estes: I don't see this as I see this as somewhat tangential, but you put in the PUD there's got to be like a place for a community bus stop for Cleveland City Schools. Robert Varnell: Yeah, it typically we put that in, they like us to try, but I want them to coordinate where these kids are getting on the bus, but where it makes sense to the Bus driver. Bill Estes: So, it makes sense right here. Can the bus come around? The bus has got to come in somehow. So, where's the cluster box? Where's the bus stop? There's a nice lot for community something. Or another you know. Robert Varnell: Tied in with it, that's the intent. Bill Estes: OK, well that would have been great up on the front end rather than trying to piece it in here and trying to, you know, I'm not an architect, I'm not a developer, I'm not a lot of things. Robert Varnell: When you say better on the front end. What do you mean? Bill Estes: That you negotiate that in the PUD before it ever comes to us. So, you know, because a lot of what I'm sensing in the last year is there's communication up and down. We're in the middle. So, we communicate with you guys and the staff, what you guys ask us. “What do you want?” So, you know, you ask us, the City Council gives it down. We give it up, we give it down. We're kind of a middleman. So, I see us giving. I am giving as a member of the Planning Commission feedback to staff. 20% is probably too much. I understand protecting it with the PUD makes perfect sense. There needs to be something, and it could be sorted out before it ever gets to us. Robert Varnell: 90% of the time it is. Bill Estes: Yeah, well. Every month. Ben Berry: This one issue is on me; I'll say that because I did not give it. We talked about the number of units, we talked about architectural elevations, and I did not mention this as an objection, it just kind of came up like yesterday. As far It couldn't be met with 20% I kind of agree with what Blake was saying about as opposed to a land area, you know, being a little bit more strategic about where that is, I mean 50 by 100- foot lot could be utilized more than you know 3 acres behind in somebody's backyard, right? The land area probably isn't as important as the location. Bill Estes: You think about like a covered gazebo for a picnic table where you pick up your mail where the bus stop is because kids don't want to stand in the rain. You know, I see kids sitting in their parent’s cars or not even getting on the bus when it’s raining in our neighborhood, you know. I’m just throwing this out 28 kids got off the bus. Is Hal still here? Hal Taylor: Yeah, I’m here. Bill Estes: There you are. 28 kids got off the bus the other afternoon at Harrell and 8th. 28 off one bus, that's half a bus. You know, and I see them in the morning. There are two buses that get them in the morning. I don't know how that works. I don't know how you handle that Hal, but there was you know, 15 kids get on the bus, you know, the other morning when I was out there at 6:15, 6:20. It would help to have those kinds of things. And just think about it going forward. Ben Berry: The first lot on the right in the curve that you enter from Buchanan, that is probably not going to be built on. Bill Estes: The bus has to turn around somewhere too, you know. Maybe if you design. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah. Ben Berry: It could be at the top of the hill? Blake Allison: Since we're still in discussion, will the applicant be open in lieu of the 20% to work with city staff to get us some sort of community space? Ben Berry: We'll take one of the intent-wise, we’ll take one of the larger lots at the intersections. They’re larger because they have bigger setbacks. Take one of the larger lots at the intersection and make it a community space. Bill Estes: Awesome. I like that better than the first one because the bus does need to turn around. Blake Allison: While we're on the subject clauses. Several Voices talking. Alma Dotson: Where does he want the bus to go? Several Voices talking. Alma Dotson: Where does he want the bus to go? Bill Estes: I’ll let Mr. Taylor speak to that. Robert Varnell: They figure that out. I mean, they may not even pull in the neighborhood, that's going to be the question. That's why I say work it out with them because I'm not going to dictate what the schools do. Blake Allison: Right Bill Estes: Yeah, that's Mr. Mr. Taylor's lease here. Tricia Pennington: Would you like to speak, Mr. Taylor? Bill Estes: I didn’t mean to put you on the spot. Hal Taylor: No, actually since you asked, I would. Tricia Pennington: OK, please come to the microphone so Darla can make sure it's all in the minutes. Hal Taylor: I appreciate you, Mr. Estes, saying that. Tricia Pennington: Please introduce yourself. Hal Taylor: I'm Hal Taylor. I'm the director of operations for Cleveland City Schools. I handle buses and buildings. And I run the bus routes and so forth. I handle that department. We do have issues with these, a lot of subdivisions come in. It takes a lot of room to turn our bus around and turn our bus around safely, and we also have regulations we follow. We have best practices, we follow. We don't do anything that we haven't that hasn't been studied to death and we don't follow. But we do have problems. Some of the grades. Some subdivisions make it dangerous to run buses, especially in bad weather. The cul-de-sacs are often too small to turn the bus around, so we get parents complaining because we're making their kids walk to the road, but it's also unsafe to back a bus with 60 kids when it's pitch-black outside in the rain and you're trying to back up in a subdivision. Some of these subdivisions are expensive subdivisions. Benjamin Crest is one we have we don't go up into it because we've had problems with buses sliding on that hill. So, I would be glad to work with y’all if that would help. But we have a lot of places where we can't take school buses because we can't get in there safely and out. And so that makes us make children walk, and sometimes it can be good little ways so. Bill Estes: Thank you. I don't know the answer to this, but these are things that we. Robert Varnell: We have a lot of grades like steep grades. We have ridges, we have valleys, and developing on them is going to occur. So that's why I say put the bus stop pavilion covered area, if it's at the bottom of Benjamin Crest, then at least the kids who are going down there with their parents have somewhere to know this is where I go to get on the bus. And it's strictly just me saying, please work with them. I shouldn't have to say it, but I do because otherwise, the expectation is that the bus is going by every front door and then they can't do that. Hal Talor: No, we don't have the time. It's not like television. There's no way we can stop in front of every child's door, so it's just we have to set bus stops at certain areas. We would never be able to pick all the kids up in the amount of time between the school starting, especially with the shortage of bus drivers and equipment. Thank you for your time. I appreciate y'all. Tricia Pennington: Thank you for your input. Blake Allison: And Robert, most every new subdivision now is a PUD, right? To give the engineers more things to do, as a developer, we don't often think about that, so it's we know that we have to do cluster mailboxes, they're federal. We know we have to do a community space. Robert Varnell: We’ve talked like we should coordinate that they should that's why the language needs to be just put them together. Blake Allison: Right. And there's no hard and fast rule for everything. But since PUDs are so individualized, something to think about. Robert Varnell: Yeah, no, it's a good idea. Bill Estes: Last question, Mr. Berry, where will the sidewalks go on the cul-de-sac? Will they be all on that South side of the main road on the outside? Ben Berry: There’s only one cul-de-sac so they would come in and then they would stop at the cul-de-sac. So, like, if you live in this house, you would walk out of your driveway and get on it there. Bill Estes: So, it will be on the on the outside of the ring? Ben Berry: since there are only sidewalks on one side of the road it usually just stops at where the cul-de-sac flares out. Bill Estes: So, off the cul-de-sac on the rest of the development is it. Ben Berry: We determined that what generally happens is you go around the outside here and then there would be one crossing through here. Bill Estes: And will there and the sidewalk going back out if you put the put it out on Buchanan Rd. there would be a sidewalk to Buchanan Rd? Ben Berry: Yeah, all the way. Yeah. So, they connect this side and then you pick a side here to which wouldn't matter, and then pick a side here. Alma Dotson: Did you say that property slopes up? Robert Varnell: It does. Alma Dotson: So, you probably want to make that bus stop or someplace down on the other end, wouldn't you? It is something like Bill said, something to consider before we do this in the future. Blake Allison: All right. Can I take another crack at my motion, or do I need to take it? It It's already been seconded. Bill Estes: You've already made the motion. Robert Varnell: Yeah. I think it's good. We just had a lot of discussion after the second. Blake Allison: Right. We eliminated the 20%, but I'm trusting that you guys. Sounds good. Alright, we got a. Second, can we call roll? Tricia Pennington: Yes, we have a motion and a second. The motion was approved 7-0. Yes-7 No-0 Recused-1 Tricia Pennington: All right, there is no chairman's report. Is there a director’s report? Robert Varnell: Yeah, there is. But it's just real quick. The December meeting that December's meeting I think it was maybe it was January, we talked about the townhome ordinance, and I wanted to bring up a point. State law in regional planning. Which is not what we are. We are a municipal Planning Commission, so there's different types of planning commissions in Tennessee. There's regional, which means we actually have the authority to approve things outside of city limits within a certain region. There are probably other facets to it like legal stuff, but the Planning Commission can give staff the power to approve final plats up to five lots. Or if there's a preliminary flat done up to 25 lots. OK, that's we don't qualify to be able to do that. Why, I don't know. You know that that's the that's it's a legislative question to fix that problem. Some of it I can fix with our ordinance. For instance, the two-lot thing I can get that cleaned up and we'll put it 4. But I can't go more than 4. Actually, I'm not supposed to go more than 3. it's we are constrained as a municipal Planning Commission more than other planning commissions in the state. So, these are conversations we have to in turn go talk to our legislators about and say fix this for us because it's slowing us down now, there's other small things I can do with our internal ordinance about the process, but I'm not sure. That will make it any cleaner because at the end of the day, I still have to come back with these final plats by state law. Ben Berry: You said you can you do because so four would be a quadplex and that would check like that would solve almost every town home? Robert Varnell: But I think we're governed; John is 2 or 3? John Kimball: 2 Robert Varnell: So, the one that I had for Calfee, I didn't have to bring, I would not have to bring if our ordinance, didn't require it, but any four-unit townhome I still have to bring by state law, and you all have to approve it. Blake Allison: I'll get home builders on it we'll draft a bill if you want to help write it. Robert Varnell: Talk to Dan. It's already written. All we got to do is copy it from the municipal or from the Regional Planning Commission and stick it in there. Bill Estes: MTAS will help in that too, MTAS will support it. Robert Varnell: So, I mean it, it's written, we just need them to and there's probably a reason they only did, you know, whoever's a municipal Planning Commission in the state or a regional apologize Collegedale is one, it's regional, why? Who knows. Just wanted to kind of feed that to you. I'm still working on some changes that we can do locally, but the biggest picture, the biggest problem is the state law. I can't circumvent any of that without legislative help, so if you know a legislator, say something. That's all I got. Tricia Pennington: Thank you, Robert. Any other comments? Questions for tonight? OK. Planning Commission is adjourned. At 6:55.  Agenda Staff Report Case: SUB 2024-14 Taylor-Hardwick Street Townhomes Preliminary Plat (see Appendix for case materials) March 19, 2024 City of Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission Applicant: Thomas Taylor Site Address: Hardwick Street Tax Map: 050I D 002.09 Area: .30 Acres Current Zone: R-3 High Density Single and Multi-Family Request: Approval of preliminary Plat/site plan Sewer/Water: Yes Council District: District 5-Dale R. Hughes PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1. Analysis The preliminary plat shows a lot with a proposed 4-unit townhome that will be developed utilizing standards for R-3 zoning and the townhome requirements set forth in the Cleveland TN Subdivision Regulatins. 2. Staff Recommendation APPROVE PENDING STAFF COMMENTS The submitted version of the preliminary plat will meet the requirements of the City of Cleveland Subdivision regulations and R-3 Zoning Ordinance once comments are addressed. Outstanding Comments To be updated before the March 19th meeting.  Consent Agenda Staff Report Case: SUB 2024-15 1008 Smith Drive Townhomes Preliminary Plat (see Appendix for case materials) March 19, 2024 City of Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission Applicant: Jay Critz Site Address: 1008 Smith Drive Tax Map: 057G F 001.01 Area: .30 Acres Current Zone: R-2 Single Family Residential Request: Approval of preliminary Plat Sewer/Water: Yes Council District: District 1-Marsha McKenzie PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1. Analysis The preliminary plat in question shows 4 proposed lots to be developed utilizing standards for R-2 zoning and the townhome regulations set forth in the Cleveland, Tn Subdivision Regulations. 2. Staff Recommendation APPROVE PENDING STAFF COMMENTS The submitted version of the preliminary plat will meet the requirements of the City of Cleveland Subdivision regulations and the R-2 Zoning Ordinance once comments are addressed. Outstanding Comments Buffering-Please remove the comment about a 10-foot buffer. The variance is for plantings and the notarized document will suffice.  Agenda Staff Report Case: SUB 2024-16 Henderson Place Townhomes Preliminary Plat (see Appendix for case materials) March 19, 2024 City of Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission Applicant: Casey Mitchell Site Address: Henderson Avenue Tax Map: 042P A 019.01 Area: .46 Acres Current Zone: R-2 Low Density Single and Multi-Family 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 5 proposed lots (1 single family detached unit and 4 single family attached units) to be developed using the regulations outlined in R-2 zoning district and the townhome regulations outlined in the Cleveland, TN Subdivision Regulations. 2. Staff Recommendation APPROVE The submitted version of the preliminary plat meets the requirements of the City of Cleveland Subdivision regulations and the R-2 Zoning Ordinance once comments are addressed.  Consent Agenda Staff Report Case: SUB 2024-17 Ohio Avenue Townhomes Preliminary Plat (see Appendix for case materials) March 19, 2024 City of Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission Applicant: Duane Goff Site Address: Tax Map: 041F D 001.06 Area: .77 Acres Current Zone: R-3 High Density Single and Multi-Family Request: Approval of preliminary Plat Sewer/Water: Yes Council District: District 5-Dale R. Hughes PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1. Analysis The preliminary plat in question shows the proposed development of a 3 unit townhome using R-3 zoning standards and the townhome requirements set forth in the Cleveland, Tennessee Subdivision regulations. 2. Staff Recommendation APPROVE PENDING STAFF COMMENTS The submitted version of the preliminary plat will meet the requirements of the City of Cleveland Subdivision regulations and the R-3 Zoning Ordinance once comments are addressed. Outstanding Comments Stormwater-Please submit an erosion control plan that shows silt fence, construction exit, and other controls needed to prevent silt from leaving the site and details.  Consent Agenda Staff Report Case: SUB 2024-18 Northside Lots 4-8 Preliminary Plat (see Appendix for case materials) February 20, 2024 City of Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission Applicant: Tom Cate Site Address: North Lee Hwy Tax Map: 034F-E-001.00 (part) 034 020.01 (part) Area: 8.5 Acres Current Zone: CH Highway Commercial Request: Approval of preliminary Plat Sewer/Water: Yes Council District: District 5-Dale R. Hughes PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1. Analysis The preliminary plat in question shows 8 lots and a proposed road. The lots are to be subdivided based on the CH Highway Commercial zoning district requirements. 2. Staff Recommendation APPROVE PENDING STAFF COMMENTS The submitted version of the preliminary plat will meet the requirements of the City of Cleveland Subdivision regulations and the CH Zoning Ordinance once comments are addressed. Outstanding Comments Engineering- Show an approved street turn around ending on the preliminary plat and the site plan. Show the street cross section on the preliminary plat. Submit an engineered subdivision development plan that includes proposed drainage infrastructure along the roadway. For road construction, the plan should include the following for existing pavement surface to be accepted as a City Street (see full comment sheet). Planning- Shoe setbacks for existing structure which are to remain. Are lots 1 and 2 actually just one lot? Verify zoning…should be all CH. CU Electric- Please show existing electric utility lines on the plat to determine if easements are needed. Stormwater- Please change “30’ undisturbed stream buffer” to “30’ undisturbed stream buffer measured from top of bank.” Please provide a 30’ undisturbed buffer on the drainage feature to the east side or provide a hydrologic determination and concurrence letter for that feature.  Staff Report Case: ZON2024-11 Subdivision Regulations Amendment (see Appendix for case materials) March 19, 2024 City of Cleveland Municipal Planning Commission Applicant: City of Cleveland Request: Future Amendment to multiple sections of Article 7 Final Plat Requirements and Article 8 Requirements for Townhouse Subdivisions in the Cleveland TN Subdivision regulations concerning the platting approval process and requirements for administrative review as well as the process for submitting plats. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1. Analysis T.C.A. 13-4.302 includes the following language: (1) A municipal planning commission may delegate the responsibility for approval of a subdivision plat to the planning staff of the municipal planning commission by a majority vote of the municipal planning commission that is taken at a public meeting after being placed on the municipal planning commission's meeting agenda and notice being provided as required for other matters before the municipal planning commission. (2) This delegation may only include subdivision plats that include: (A) No more than twenty-five (25) lots and only if the development received preliminary plan approval through the municipal planning commission; or (B) No more than five (5) lots if the development did not require preliminary plan approval through the municipal planning commission; provided, that: (i) The subdivision complies with such regulations governing a subdivision of land as adopted by the municipal planning commission pursuant to § 13-4- 303; (ii) No request for a variance from such regulations has been requested; and (iii) A division of land requiring new road or utility construction is not approved by the planning staff under this subsection (d) unless the plan received preliminary approval by the municipal planning commission. (3) A municipal planning commission shall not delegate to its planning staff the authority to preliminarily approve, finalize approval of, or certify a subdivision plat, regardless of the number of lots proposed for the subdivision plan, consistent with the parameters of this section, unless the municipal legislative body approves such delegation by a majority vote of the legislative body. The City Council must approve the action before the Planning Commission can make a final decision on the number of lots to be administratively approved under the criteria listed above. The Planning Commission will need to make a recommendation to the City Council to give them the authority to delegate these tasks. 2. Staff Recommendation APPROVE