TUESDAY,
DECEMBER 9, 2008
PUBLIC
HEARING
6:30
P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING PROPOSED
DILEY ROAD
CORRIDOR STUDY AND PLAN
Mr. Bosch
opened the public hearing at 6:30 P.M., with the following Commission members
present: Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans, and Mr. Bosch. Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Binkley, Mr. Blake, and
Mr. Sauer were absent. Others present
were: Mike Sabatino, Lynda Yartin, Lance
Schultz, Joe Henderson, Mike Ebert, Chris Strayer, Emily Crow, and others.
Mr. Schultz
stated McBrideDale Clarion was retained in December
2006, to prepare the Diley Road Corridor Study and Plan. He stated further the non-residential design
standards were adopted last February and he is confident this plan will be
adopted in the near future. Mr. Schultz
also stated this is another component to the Growth Management Plan that was
adopted in 2005.
Mr. Schultz
stated with the widening of Diley Road to five lanes, which is anticipated to
be completed in August 2009, the City anticipates commercial and residential
development along this corridor. He
stated the purpose of the Plan is to be proactive rather than reactive for
likely future rezonings in this area where we can capture the anticipated
commercial revenue and to ensure the high quality of development for the
existing residential neighborhoods in the area.
Mr. Schultz
introduced Ms Crow, of McBrideDale Clarion, who was present the overview of the
Diley Road Corridor Plan.
Ms Crow
provided an overview of the Plan (Attachment 1 to these minutes) and then be
happy to answer any questions anyone might have.
Mrs. Evans
stated she felt this Plan was very impressive and a lot of work was put into
this. Mrs. Evans ascertained that the
largest income generator for the City, as far as a business is concerned, would
be professional office. Mr. Schultz
stated the City generates over fifty percent of its revenue from income tax and
medical offices and professional offices, which have higher incomes, are the ones
we want to target. Mrs. Evans questioned
if a study had been done of the potential income with regard to the different
businesses for the corridor. Mr. Schultz
stated the Growth Management Plan generalized that offices bring in the most
money, with industrial being the next, and retail would break even. He stated single-family homes are a net
loss. Mrs. Evans stated with this
corridor she would like to know the maximum that we could generate from
designated areas for the businesses that bring in the most income to the City,
totally respecting the fact that we must have a mix. Ms Crow stated that has not been specifically
done because this is a large land area and looking at what the market might do
over the next 20 to 30 years is a challenge, especially after the past eight
months or so.
Ms Crow stated
they have tried to take all of that into consideration in their
recommendations, and they have also tried to provide some alternative
recommendations if you cannot get all of that business development.
Mr. Sabatino
stated he thought another thing that must be considered is that our income tax
is at one percent and if we ever enhance that then residential would no longer
be a cost factor, it would be a slight contributor, and over time we will get
to that point.
Mr. Bosch
clarified the basis for access management used in this Plan is the Diley Road
Access Plan that Council adopted and updated a few years ago. Mr. Schultz stated that Plan did not address
parcels that are in the Township so when they annex into the City the
development plan would be looked at and traffic impact studies would probably
be required to determine the location for curb cuts.
Mr. Bosch
determined there were no further comments regarding the proposed Plan.
There being
nothing further, the public hearing closed at 7:15 P.M., December 9, 2008.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk
PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY,
DECEMBER 9, 2008
7:30
P.M.
1. ROLL
CALL. Mr. Bosch called the meeting to
order at 7:30 P.M. with roll call as follows:
Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans, and Mr. Bosch were present. Mr. Binkley was out of town, and Mr. Blake
and Mr. Sauer were absent due to illness.
Others present were: Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Joe Henderson, Mitch Banschefsky, Jack Khoury, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF November 11, 2008, Regular Meeting. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve; Mrs. Evans seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Nicholas, and Mrs. Evans voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.
3. SCHEDULED
MATTERS:
A. Review
and request for motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for an Outdoor Patio
for Don Patron’s Restaurant located at 1282 Hill Road North (TABLED
04/08/08).
B. Review and request for motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Automotive Service Regulations for Man on Detail at 1162 Hill Road North in the SR 256 Retail Center. Mr. Henderson stated the applicant is proposing a vehicular detail shop in one of the store fronts of the lower level on the east side of the building in the SR 256 Retail Center. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Bosch clarified staff had no conditions to be met. Mr. Jack Khoury stated he is the applicant and he would be happy to answer any questions anyone might have. Mr. Bosch clarified the business would mainly be by appointment only and Mr. Hackworth clarified this is not a car repair business. Mr. Khoury stated he did not plan on taking on more than he could handle and he would not have a large number of vehicles parked in the lot. Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Automotive Service Regulations for Man on Detail; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr. Nicholas, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Bosch voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.
C. Review
and request for motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Regulations for
Buildings with Non-contiguous Foundations and Storage Building/Garage. Mr. Henderson stated the applicant is
proposing to build a detached garage along the rear of the property that would
encompass 1,152 square feet (24-ft x 48-ft).
He stated the purpose of the detached garage would be for general garage
use and would be a pole barn building with metal sides on three sides and the
roof. He stated they are proposing
either a vinyl or cedar lap board on the elevation that is perpendicular to
Long Road, and it would be painted red with white doors and trim to have a
traditional barn look. Mr. Henderson
stated staff supports the request with the following conditions:
1. That
a maximum size on the detached garage shall be a maximum 960 square feet or a
variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be required.
2. That
the building materials and color shall be of natural wood color and/or match
any proposed house on the site.
3. That
the detached garage shall have a minimum of a five-foot setback from the
property line.
4. That
the height of the detached garage shall not exceed 15-feet or a variance from
the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be required.
5. That
a length and width ratio shall be a maximum of 3:2 or a variance from the Board
of Zoning Appeals shall be required.
Mr. Schultz stated these three variances are on the agenda
for the Board of Appeals on December 18th.
Mr. Hackworth inquired if any drawings for the house have
been submitted and Mr. Schultz stated the applicant is in the process of
getting septic approval from the County, and in the interim he would like to
build the garage for a staging area and then build the house when he gets
approval from the County. Mr. Hackworth
clarified this is R-1 zoning and is currently vacant land. Mr. Nicholas stated staff recommendations
include the requirement that the building materials be a natural wood color and
match the house. He further stated the
drawings depict two garage doors and the information on pole barn package
submitted depicts one 7’x16’ overhead garage door. Mr. Nicholas questioned if the barn would
meet our residential design guidelines.
Mr. Schultz stated it would not and the barn must be compatible with the
proposed building. Mr. Schultz stated Condition 2 states the barn shall be of
natural wood and/or match the proposed house on the site. He stated the applicant is in a bit of a
dilemma getting the septic and he did submit the house site and then found out
he had to work through the septic issue.
Mr. Schultz stated he is confident we can work with the applicant and he
will match what the house is. Mr.
Schultz stated it is likely this structure will be built before the house and
we can field check it and make sure it matches the house. He stated we would not approve the zoning
certificate of the house until it matches.
Mr. Nicholas stated the staff recommendation states the building
materials need to be of natural wood color and/or the same materials as on the
house. Mr. Hackworth inquired if this
met our current residential guidelines and Mr. Schultz stated this is a
detached garage and our guidelines do not apply to detached garages. Mr. Hackworth stated the recommendation is
that the house has to match the materials on the garage. Mr. Schultz stated it has to match the
color. Mr. Schultz stated the staff
recommendation should state that the building “color” shall be of natural wood
color and/or match any proposed house on the site. Mr. Nicholas stated he understood that our
guidelines do not address detached garages and architecturally that does not
make sense. Mr. Nichoals
continued that perhaps this issue should be addressed in the future. Mr. Bosch stated his understanding is that
most of the residential design guidelines are for subdivisions where there are
deed restrictions and homeowner’s associations and deal mainly with the small
buildings in the back of those homes. He
stated he felt it would be unrealistic to try to have someone build a 24’x48’
to our residential guidelines, and if we want to allow these types of
buildings, he did not feel we would ever be able to say they have to meet our
design guidelines. He stated you would
almost have as much invested in that building as you would in the house. Mr. Bosch continued that as long as we get it
to blend in so the barn doesn’t look like it was bought at Wal-Mart and stuck
in the back, that it does blend in and is harmonious in color and blends in
with the house, he felt that was more of the goal. Mr. Schultz stated that is the intent. Mr. Nicholas stated he still had a concern
regarding the quantity of doors. Mr.
Henderson stated the material the Commission has was for a 24’x30’ building and
then the applicant made modifications and just missed adding another garage
door to it. Mr. Henderson further stated
the applicant was looking to have the two 8’x7’ doors. Mr. Nicholas clarified that what was being
submitted for approval was the drawing with two doors. Mr. Bosch stated Condition No. 2 in staff
recommendations would need to be modified to read, “That the building “color”
shall be of natural wood color and/or match any proposed house on the site.”
Mr. Nicholas stated if this Commission approved the
Conditional Use Permit and then the building is a metal that is within a close
range or a shade or two of the house, that is fine, that is the intent,
however, if the property to the east develops what happens if those property
owners want metal buildings in their yards too?
Mr. Schultz stated there are no regulations as long as it matches the
house. Mr. Nicholas stated if the finish
is baked onto the metal at the factory it will last a long time and not rust,
and he questioned if this Commission could require that the colors that match
the building not be an after-market painted on, that it must be a factory
finish. Mr. Schultz stated he felt we
could request that, however, we cannot require it.
Mr. Nicholas moved to approve the
Conditional Use Permit with the following staff recommendations that includes
the modification to Condition 2; Mrs. Evans seconded the motion.
1. That
a maximum size on the detached garage shall be a maximum 960 square feet or a
variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be required.
2. That
the building color shall be of natural wood color and/or match any proposed
house on the site.
3. That
the detached garage shall have a minimum of a five-foot setback from the
property line.
4. That
the height of the detached garage shall not exceed 15-feet or a variance from
the Board of Zoning Appeals shall be required.
5. That
a length and width ratio shall be a maximum of 3:2 or a variance from the Board
of Zoning Appeals shall be required.
Roll call was taken with Mrs. Evans, Mr. Bosch, Mr.
Nicholas, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”
Motion passed, 4-0.
4. REPORTS:
A. Planning
and Zoning Director.
(1) BZA
Report. Mr. Schultz stated the BZA did
not meet in November and will meet on December 18th to discuss the
variance requests on the case that was just approved.
(2) FCRPC. Mr. Henderson stated the only agenda item
that is located near us would be the preliminary plan for the Sycamore Crossing
Subdivision that is located on Busey Road.
5. OTHER
BUSINESS:
A. Commission
Discussion. Mr. Nicholas stated he felt
this Commission should look at the Code regarding regulations on detached
garages sometime in the future. Mr.
Bosch stated he agreed that the issue of these larger buildings should be
looked at, however, he wasn’t concerned with the smaller storage buildings in
subdivisions since there are deed restrictions and homeowner’s associations
that look at that.
B. Planning
Report. No report.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Nicholas moved to adjourn; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch, Mr. Nicholas, Mrs. Evans, and Mr. Hackworth voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 4-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 8:20 P.M., December 9, 2008.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk