ZONING CODE ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION JULY 9, 2019
AGENDA Introductions and Opening Statements RPC Timeline and Goals Mr. John Greiner – Postmaster Centralized Delivery Presentation of Topics by RPC Staff Various Topics Open Floor for Discussion Closing Remarks An opportunity will be given to provide feedback via microphone after each question but also, please use provided feedback slips and leave them in the box in the back when leaving or email any feedback to rpc@cityofclarksville.com 2
RPC TIMELINE 2018 2021 2020 • Updated Subdivision Regulations • Finish 2045 Comprehensive Plan • Adopt Zoning Code Updates • 2045 Transportation Master Plan • Revisit Zoning Codes for updating • Begin 2045 Comprehensive Plan in line with the comprehensive • Growth Plan Updated [Exit 8] (after July 1) plan 2019 • Begin Neighborhood Plans • Growth Plan Phase II Update • Update Zoning Codes • Historic Survey RPC Vision and Mission Statements Vision Statement: To preserve and promote the unique characteristics of Clarksville - Montgomery County to provide for a diverse community with a dynamic balance of agriculture and commerce. Mission Statement: The Regional Planning Commission directs development in Clarksville and Montgomery County in a transparent manner that maximizes the use of valuable resources, ensures orderly land use, and guides infrastructure placement to support and sustain a rich quality of life for all citizens. 3
GOALS Bridge the gap of time from 2019 till the Growth Plan & Comprehensive Plan are finalized (late-2021) Provide flexibility in the zoning code to achieve more affordable options through greater density where appropriate, both for new construction or infill redevelopment, thereby slowing sprawl outside already developed areas. Update or clarify several underutilized zones. Have a 2-way dialogue with our customers and the public. Continue to improve the built environment of Clarksville & Montgomery County. 4
PUD REQUIREMENTS Issue: Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) are used for creative projects by allowing the developer to determine what the best density and setbacks are for their project. Requires RPC & Elected Body approval. PUDs currently require 25% open space which is more than a cluster subdivision (15%) and is the largest cited reason no PUDs are developed. Direction: I. Remove the density breakdown of 5, 7, 15, and 40 units/acre since all plans require approval the applicant can state why the density requested is appropriate. II. Adjust the spacing and setback minimums putting the onus on the applicant to ask for certain setbacks through the RPC with fire department and other department approvals. III. Reduce the common open space requirement from 25% to a more reasonable amount like 5% or allow for a combination of active or nearby (walkable) parks to be included as credit. 5
R-5 AS A NEW HIGH DENSITY ZONE Issue: R-5 is a very underutilized zone. It is basically R-4 for townhomes. It also has a requirement that the homes are only to be owner occupied, which cannot be enforced. There is one R-5 parcel totaling 9.5 acres in the entire city. Direction: With R-6 being our newer successful infill zone for single family homes on lots as small as 2,500 SF. There needs to be a higher density Multi-Family zone that meets the needs of a growing community. We would propose R-5 become similar to R-4 but with >16 units/acre maximum and a minimum lot size of 6,000 – 8,000 SF to accommodate “stacked quads” as opposed to “side by sides”. This zone, and R-4 should also check to make sure the flexibility of stacked multi-family units, townhomes, and garden apartments or patio homes is allowed. Minimum lot width and setbacks will need to be changed for R-4 and R-5 to promote parking in the side and rear. 6
6,000 SF lots are either 50’X120’ or 60’X100’ (or some combination in between) R-2 & CLUSTER IN THE COUNTY / UGB A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) could be introduced on lots Issue: The UGB should closely mimic the city zoning due to the <8,000 SF to avoid having 3,000 SF homes on 6,000 SF lots. A ratio of .40 - .50 (or 40-50% of lots size) is presence of urban services. R-2 was removed from the county appropriate for this area. zoning resolution 20 years ago. In order to promote better density, thereby slowing suburban sprawl, R-2 and R-2 6,000 SF Lots = 7.26 Units/Acre Gross clustering should be reintroduced into the UGB where water and sewer can accommodate it. The issue is lots <8,000 SF must have residential sprinklers (including attic) in the county. (5.6.3 (12) d). Direction: Working with the county building and codes and county fire (EMA) we would propose reducing the minimum to 6,000- 9000 SF Lots = 4.84 Units/Acre Gross 7,000 SF lots but keep the 10 foot (or possibly 8.5-9 foot side setbacks) to avoid fire spread side to side, which is the issue. The backyard of some lots could be reduced without any noticeable changes to the neighborhood. Some homeowners, especially retirees and single mothers, want a suburban single-family neighborhood lifestyle with lower maintenance lots. 7
STAFF LEVEL SITE PLAN REVIEW Issue: In the zoning code a staff level site plan only has to meet one of the following: I. one parcel in a platted subdivision II. Gross SF is less than 25% (but greater than 3%) III. Any new sign under 50 feet tall. The grey area of linking any development to a platted subdivision parcel is not clear enough. Direction: Update section 5.10 to make it clear what a staff level site plan is. The staff believes the following is a good benchmark to meet all of these requirements to qualify as a staff level: I. Must be a platted lot or lot of record II. <20,000 SF New Non-Residential Construction III. <9 Units of Multi-Family IV. <2 Acres Disturbed Land V. Additions <25% of a total building VI. Any sign under 50 feet tall In addition, the fee schedule will be updated to change the Multi-Family fee from $350 to $300. 8
LANDSCAPE BUFFERS Issue : Buffers are inflexible with some minor exceptions. Waivers can be sought from the RPC from some but not all requirements. The Cluster Development provisions require 25 to 35 foot buffers which are not always needed or conducive to surrounding development. This will provide for flexibility due to topographic constraints and allow for alternatives when active recreation or nearby uses (such as paths to schools) deem it necessary. Direction: Develop a process (with code updated language) to allow buffer requirements to be reduced with cause or alternatives by the Director of the RPC and Planning Commission Approval . Sample text: “For Preliminary Subdivision or Site Plan submissions, alternative landscape buffer methods or design acceptable to the Regional Planning Commission Staff and Director may be approved by the Regional Planning Commission”. 9
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU) Issue: Only “guest houses” are permitted upon review by the City Board of Zoning Appeals and cannot be rented. Direction: Also known as granny flats, backyard cottages, in-law suites, and basement/garage apartments, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) allow for affordable added density in legacy neighborhoods. ADUs provide flexible rental housing options for students, seniors, the disabled, and short-term workers. ADUs can be an income- generating use that is compatible with legacy neighborhoods. They are small in size and are a tool to prevent urban sprawl. They can help increase housing stock without additional land or strain on infrastructure. Propose the creation of an ADU overlay within the CBID to allow secondary units on lots meeting certain requirements. They would be limited in scale and could require parking or have compatibility standards for design. We could test them by allowing a maximum number per year & per person over a two-year period. ADUs are supported by the AARP, NAR, and NAHB, and have become increasingly utilized nationwide, including Tennessee, over the last decade. 10
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN STANDARDS Issue: There is a need for new multi-family dwelling units. Rezoning requests can be difficult to obtain in some places largely due to perception. Direction: Improving the built environment may reduce some of the public complaints when developing new multi-family housing. This would involve updates to the exterior and lot minimum design standards. Items to look at: exterior finishes and materials, landscaping, and site development. 11
OTHER CHANGES Issue: There are numerous typos, incorrect or outdated citations, and other minor changes that should take place if the codes are being updated. Direction: In some places in the codes it says “Lot” instead of “Unit”. We will be looking at the use charts and making minor changes or additions if needed – working with city / county building and codes departments. New state regulations involving hemp for instance. Further clarify the front (and side) setbacks for new construction on older neighborhood streets. Current calculation is difficult. It is intended to make new construction match existing neighborhoods. 12
Recommend
More recommend
