Cleveland planning commission discusses recreational-vehicle court ordinance, accessory-building rules

Cleveland — Members of the Cleveland Town Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed draft language and outside templates Oct. 1 as they continued work on a proposed recreational-vehicle (RV) court ordinance and related accessory-building rules. The commission discussed definitions, parking and circulation standards, on-site services such as bathrooms and trash receptacles, lighting restrictions to limit impacts on neighbors, and whether hotels and motels should be addressed in a separate ordinance; no formal vote or adoption occurred.

The discussion matters because a local ordinance will determine where and how RV courts, small cabins and similar temporary lodging may operate in Cleveland, and it will affect property owners, nearby residents and emergency response access. Commissioners said they will focus next month on the ordinance purpose and definitions before drafting final regulatory text.

Most of the meeting reviewed existing language from other Utah municipalities as models. Commissioners cited a one-acre minimum lot size used in an Orangeville template and discussed a density provision from another model that caps unit counts at 15 spaces per acre — a figure that translates to roughly 2,900 square feet per space before accounting for internal roadways. They discussed setting a lower cap than 15 units per acre to allow room for drive aisles and emergency access. Commissioners also discussed several specific dimensional and operational controls drawn from the templates: - Parking/space dimensions: commissioners noted Saratoga Springs uses a 9-by-18-foot parking stall dimension; Orangeville’s template specifies an RV space at least 20 feet wide by 40 feet long. Commissioners debated whether to require two designated 9-by-18 spaces per unit (to accommodate a tow vehicle and an RV) or to treat a single larger space (for example, 8-by-40 feet) as the unit’s combined parking area. - Roadway and circulation: Orangeville-style language was discussed that would require internal court roadways to provide access to each recreational space, forbid direct access from each RV space to a public street, and set minimum widths (one-way internal roads at least 12 feet, two-way at least 20 feet); some members recommended requiring forward-only entrance/exit movements at court exits. - On-site services and site amenities: commissioners favored requiring a flush toilet facility accessible to occupants within the court, sufficient trash receptacles, and exterior lighting that provides safety without interfering with neighboring property owners. - Definitions and scope: the commission discussed defining ‘‘recreational vehicle’’ (examples: travel trailer, park trailer, truck camper, motor home, van) and whether temporary cabin rentals, motels and hotels should be included in the same section. Members agreed to remove hotels and motels from the RV-court section and draft separate language for larger-scale lodging to avoid unintended interpretations that would allow dense clusters of small rental buildings on a single lot. - Safety and emergency response: several commissioners emphasized spacing and maximum density to ensure ingress and egress for emergency vehicles, and recommended minimum separation between structures and a review of driveway/entrance design.

Commissioners also reviewed Cleveland’s existing accessory-building rules as they relate to containers and sheds. The commission noted the current code records setbacks and a height limit (a maximum of 20 feet or two stories, and a minimum of 8 feet in some accessory-building provisions) but that permit thresholds for containers and prebuilt sheds were not clearly identified in the materials they had on hand. Members referenced Price City as an example where small accessory structures below a fixed square-foot threshold may not require a building permit, and asked staff to locate the comparable language in Cleveland’s “big book” of ordinances.

No ordinance language was formally adopted. The commission set the next step: members will prioritize work on the purpose statement and definitions, highlight model language they want copied into a working draft, and bring marked examples to the next monthly meeting so staff can begin assembling ordinance text.

Meeting notes: commissioners present included Tyler Rowley, Lowell Gardner, Dylan Horrocks, Kristen Vose and Nancy Livingston (participating by phone). Two agenda adjustments (moving the Sherman item) and approval of the prior meeting minutes were handled early in the session; the Shermans did not attend. The commission adjourned after the work session portion.

Next steps — The commission will return at its next regular meeting to refine the purpose and definition sections and to produce a draft ordinance for further review and public hearing scheduling.