PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY,
APRIL 14, 2009
7:30
P.M.
1. ROLL
CALL. Mr. Blake called the meeting to
order at 7:30 P.M. with roll call as follows:
Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer were present. Mr. Binkley, Mr. Nicholas, and Mrs. Evans
were absent. Others present were: Lance Schultz, Lynda Yartin, Joe Henderson,
Mitch Banschefsky, Paul Woodruff, Don Selan, Michelle Griffis, Paul Ramsay,
John Roush, Jeanette Castoe, Jack Berry, Bob Burman, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF March 10, 2008, Regular Meeting. Mr. Bosch moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.
Mr. Blake stated if there were no objections he would like to review agenda items 3.F. and 3.G. after item 3.B. as our architectural consultant is here to answer any questions. There were no objections.
3. SCHEDULED
MATTERS:
A. A
Public Hearing and review and request for motion to approve a rezoning at 77
West Church Street from R-4 (Residential) to PC-2 (Planned Central
Business/Mixed Use) for Winstead’s Gallery.
Mr. Henderson stated the applicant is proposing to convert the existing
single-family house into a custom framing and floral preservation shop, which
is permitted in the Planned Central Business/Mixed Use District. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to
the Commission members. Mr. Henderson
stated staff supported the rezoning request as there are commercial uses to the
north and south of the property and just down the street to the east, and the
proposed use would likely be compatible with the surrounding environment. Mr. Henderson further stated the proposed
custom framing and floral preservation shop apparently would have limited
amounts of visits per day and, therefore, traffic would likely increase
minimally in this area. Mr. Blake stated
at this point in the public hearing he would entertain any questions or comments
regarding this proposed rezoning. Ms
Jeannette Castoe stated she resides in the property just south of this property
and her main concern is parking on the alley.
She stated the alley is riddled with potholes and there are children in
the area. She stated it is her
understanding the plan is to carve out a large chunk of the back yard for a
parking lot and she has concerns about drainage since they have had flooding
issues in the past. Mr. Blake stated he
would ask Mr. Schultz to explain any alterations or changes to the property and
the City’s stance on taking care of the alley.
Mr. Schultz stated he would forward the alley issue to our Service
Department for review. Mr. Schultz
further stated if the property owner were going to require parking, they would
be required to submit a drawing for our engineer’s review and the City’s
approval. Mr. Hackworth clarified that
Ms Castoe resides at 84 W. Columbus Street and is directly to the south of the
property being considered. Ms Castoe
stated other than the drainage issues she was fine with everything else. Mr. Schultz stated the City is currently
doing a stormwater project in the old downtown area and it is likely that would
address some of these issues. He stated
he would discuss that with the City’s engineer.
There being nothing further, Mr. Blake closed the public hearing.
Mr. Blake inquired if there were any comments or questions from Commission members. Mr. Schultz stated he would like to clarify that this item was the rezoning of the property only; it did not identify any additional parking or other issues at this time.
Mr. Blake clarified that the most recent rezonings in this area were Planned Office and that does not allow any retail or other type of use. Mr. Blake further clarified this proposed rezoning does meet the criteria for this District. Mr. Sauer clarified that typically the applicant would expect to have no more than one or two customers at a time. Ms Griffis stated most of their business is conducted by appointment. Mr. Hackworth inquired if a coffee shop could be put in at this location and Mr. Schultz stated this zoning would allow that. Mr. Hackworth inquired if some restrictions could be put in this and Mr. Schultz stated that is why he suggested a planned district. Mr. Schultz stated when he reviewed this he could not think of any restrictions to put on the property. He stated this is a small house on a small lot and there are not a lot of retail type uses that would likely go in there. Mr. Schultz stated this Commission could recommend any type of conditions to apply to this case. Mr. Schultz further stated our Code does not require off street parking for uses in the old downtown area. Mr. Hackworth stated if there were a chance of this being retail in the future, he would like to have some type of language prohibiting high traffic. Mr. Banchesfsky stated he had the same problem that Mr. Schultz did in trying to come up with some type of limitation that would be enforceable. Mr. Schultz stated this zoning would allow any type of commercial use, however, he felt the limitations may already be based on the size of the house today and the upgrade it would require to make it a viable retail use. Mr. Sauer moved to approve the proposed rezoning of 77 W. Church Street from R-4 (Residential) to PC-2 (Planned Central Business/Mixed Use) based on staff’s recommendations; Mr. Bosch seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.
B. Review and request for motion to approve
an amended Comprehensive sign Plan for Ground Signage for Shoppes on the
Parkway at 152-196 Clint Drive. Mr.
Schultz stated the applicant has requested this item be tabled this
evening. Mr. Bosch moved to Table;
Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll
call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer voting
“Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.
Review and request for motion to
approve a Conditional Use Permit for C3 Church building expansion located at
200 Hill Road South. Mr. Henderson
stated C3 Church is proposing a 5,700 square foot addition to the north side of
the existing church. Mr. Henderson
reviewed the staff report provided to all Commission members. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the
Conditional Use Permit with the following two conditions:
1. That the church expansion shall comply
with Certificate of Appropriateness requirements.
2. That the church expansion shall comply with City Engineer’s
requirements as it pertains to traffic.
Mr. Schultz stated the next agenda item will review the site
plan, architectural, landscaping, and lighting.
He stated this item is strictly dealing with the use of land.
Mr. Jack Berry stated he was the architect on the project
and he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve the
Conditional Use Permit for C3 Church building expansion with the two conditions
stated; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken
with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Bosch, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.
Mr. Blake stated with no objections, he would take Items 3.F
and 3.G. at this time.
Review and request for motion to
approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate of Appropriateness for Site
Plan, Architecture, Landscaping, and Lighting for C3 Church building expansion
located at 200 Hill Road South. Mr.
Henderson stated the applicant is proposing a 5,700 square foot addition to the
north side of the existing church, and will be maintaining their existing curb
cut on Hill Road South. Mr. Henderson
reviewed the report provided to the Commission.
Mr. Henderson stated the city engineer is reviewing the existing and
proposed services, programs, etc., proposed by the church to determine if a
traffic impact study is required. He
further stated the bike path easement is requested per the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan, and a dumpster elevation and enclosure has not been identified. He stated staff would like to see what the enclosure
would look like and it should match the building.
Mr. Paul Woodruff, the city’s architectural consultant,
stated he has reviewed the addition and he found it generally acceptable. He stated he was not able to review colors
and he would need to review those before commenting. Mr. Woodruff stated the only other item he
would like to address would be the windows.
Mr. Woodruff stated the proposal does not meet the building fenestration
section of the Code, however, blanks have been provided to create rhythm and
represent windows along the side of the brick façade. He stated he recommended acceptance of this,
it looks fine, and considering the specific use of this structure as a chapel
for religious services, it does not require them to have windows. Mr. Henderson stated staff supports the
Certificate of Appropriateness request for Site Plan, Architectural,
Landscaping, and Lighting with the following conditions:
1. That the church expansion shall comply
with City Engineer’s requirements as it pertains to traffic.
2. That a bike path easement shall be
dedicated to the City per the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
3. That color samples shall be submitted
and reviewed by the City’s Architectural Consultant for compliance.
4. That the streetscape trees shall be
located outside the drainage ditch area.
5. That the dumpster and mechanical
equipment shall be screened from public view.
6. That the site plan shall be in
compliance with the tree preservation ordinance.
Mr. Henderson stated the following waivers for the
Architectural Standards compliance in Appendix IV would be required:
1. That the building windows for this
building as proposed does not meet Chapter VII.F.5.a.i.(a), fifty percent (50%)
of wall area between two and ten feet above grade shall consist of windows
unless waived by two-thirds (2/3’s) of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Mr. Schultz stated he would like to add that the staff
engineer has indicated that she would require a survey to ensure the site is
not within a flood plain as she is concerned that the dumpster and shed may be
within the flood plain. He stated if
that is the case they would have to be moved outside the flood plain. Mr. Bosch stated this is not a flood way, it
is a flood plain, and, therefore, as long as they do not add anything new in
it, they have not changed anything. Mr.
Bosch stated the dumpster may have to be moved, but he felt the shed was an
existing structure. Mr. Schultz stated
the City could not require the shed be moved out of the flood plain, however,
we would request it.
Mr. Jack Berry stated he was present representing the
applicant. He stated he would be happy
to answer any questions. Mr. Blake
stated with regard to the first condition, it appeared the engineer was
concerned about the impact on Hill Road South during services. Mr. Schultz stated the concern was if there
were increased services, such as a day care, etc. He stated a letter from the church depicting
their programs, hours of operation, and services was forwarded to the engineer
last week and she will determine if that will trigger an impact study. Mr. Schultz stated if they keep everything
similar to what they have today, it might not require a study. Mr. Schultz stated until the engineer reviews
this issue and signs off on it, he has placed this condition on the Certificate
of Appropriateness. Mr. Bosch stated he
felt there should be a caveat so that if nothing is needed at this point that
is fine, but if at any time the operation of the church changes the city would
reserve the right to require a traffic impact study. Mr. Berry stated he had brought some color
samples tonight and Mr. Woodruff stated they looked generally acceptable and
would fall within our guidelines. Mr.
Berry stated the dumpster and mechanicals would be screened with the same
materials. Mr. Bosch stated he believed
our code required the screening be of stone or brick, and in this case they
would want the brick to match. Mr. Berry
stated the owner would prefer to have the screening out of material that is
similar in scale, texture, and color as the main part of the existing
building. Mr. Blake clarified we have
required a masonry material for the dumpster enclosure because of the
structural integrity of the enclosure for the dumpster. Mr. Schultz stated in checking our Code, it
does require the dumpster enclosure be of brick or stone with wood doors. Mr. Berry stated they did not object to the
enclosure, they just wanted to make it out of fiber cement board as opposed to
masonry. Mr. Blake stated with regard to
the windows, he would agree with our architectural consultant that what they
have done to give it the aesthetic look of windows is appropriate. Mr. Bosch clarified the windows would be
either an efis or a stucco panel of some sort that will be trimmed out like a
window and would appear to be a dark stained glass. Mr. Blake stated he did not want to deviate
from our requirement for the dumpster screening and Mr. Bosch stated he agreed
as this Commission has worked to get these standards in place. Mr. Sauer stated he also concurs with Mr.
Blake and Mr. Bosch regarding the dumpster screening. Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Certificate
of Appropriateness for Site Plan, Architectural, Landscaping, and Lighting,
with staff conditions and the waiver for architectural standards compliance in
Appendix IV as stated in the staff report; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Blake, Mr.
Bosch, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.
C. Review
and request for motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building
Signage for the Circle K Shopping Center located at 29-35 Hill Road South. Mr. Schultz stated this is for the wall
signage for a four tenant spaces. He
stated the applicant is requesting the Circle K sign and three box signs. Mr. Schultz stated in September the applicant
renovated the roof and during that time the signs were removed and in
replacement they must be in compliance with our Code. Mr. Schultz reviewed the report presented to
the Commission and stated staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan for
Building Signage with the following conditions:
1. That
all signage shall have three colors and have a matte finish.
2. That
the signs shall have channel letters.
Mr. Bob Burman stated he was present representing the
applicant and he would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Hackworth stated the first condition states that all
signage shall have three colors and have a matte finish, and Mr. Schultz stated
that was in error, the sign shall have a maximum of three colors.
Mr. Bosch moved to approve the
Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building Signage with the conditions recommended by
staff, but modifying Condition 1 to state that all signage shall have a
“maximum” of three colors and have a matte finish; Mr. Hackworth seconded the
motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr.
Sauer, Mr. Blake, and Mr. Bosch voting “Yea.”
Motion passed, 4-0.
D. Review
and request for a motion to approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate
of Appropriateness for Landscaping for Moo Moo’s Car Wash located at 1410 Hill
Road North. Mr. Henderson stated the
applicant is constructing a 2,867 square foot car wash and is proposing
landscaping for the site. Mr. Henderson
reviewed the report provided to the Commission members and stated staff
supports the request with the following conditions:
1. That
all mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.
2. That
Cross Creeks Boulevard and Clint Drive shall have mounding and landscaping that
complies with the Nonresidential Design Standards. This includes the Clint Drive temporary curb
cut when it is relocated per the Site Plan approved in July 2008.
Mr. John Roush stated he is the developer of this property
and with regard to the mounding; the fence on the Cross Creeks side does not
leave enough room to put mounding between the fence and the curb. He stated he did not want to put the mounding
under the fence because it would hump the fence up and down and he felt a nice,
clean, smooth fence run would look better.
Mr. Roush stated there are only six to eight feet between the actual
fence and the curb line on Cross Creeks Boulevard so it is a tight area, and
they tried to put the mounding in but it is just too tight there. Mr. Blake clarified that any time you are
adjacent to a public or private road our Code requires mounding and
landscaping. Mr. Blake stated he felt
there were places for mounding and places where it is not appropriate. Mr. Schultz stated this would be the first
instance where we have a fence along a streetscape. Mr. Sauer stated he felt that we should not
pick and choose where we apply the mounding requirement. Mr. Schultz stated our streetscape standards
do not identify fencing; that is not an option, and the applicant is requesting
fencing in lieu of mounding. He
continued that to allow fencing you would have to waive our mounding
requirements at that location. Mr. Bosch
stated with the design of this building, he felt fencing would look appropriate
at this site and he would support waiving the mounding requirement along Cross
Creek Boulevard. He continued that when
the back is closed off and there is the appropriate area, he would support
putting the mounding in there. Mr. Blake
clarified this Commission would have to modify staff’s condition two by having
it read “That Cross Creeks Boulevard shall have mounding and landscaping that
complies with the Nonresidential Design Standards unless waived by two-thirds
(2/3’s) of the Planning and Zoning Commission per the site plan submitted, and
that the Clint Drive temporary curb cut shall comply with the Nonresidential
Design Standards when it is relocated per the Site Plan approved in July 2008.” Mr. Bosch moved to approve the Certificate
of Appropriateness for Landscaping with the following conditions:
1. That
all mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view.
2. That
Cross Creeks Boulevard shall have mounding and landscaping that complies with the
Nonresidential Design Standards unless waived by two-thirds (2/3’s) of the
Planning and Zoning Commission per the site plan submitted, and that the Clint
Drive temporary curb cut shall comply with the Nonresidential Design Standards
when it is relocated per the Site Plan approved in July 2008;
Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Blake, and Mr.
Bosch voting “Yea.” Motion passed,
4-0.
E. Review
and request for motion to approve a Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building and
Ground Signage for Moo Moo’s Car Wash located at 1410 Hill Road North. Mr. Henderson stated the applicant is
proposing building and ground signage for a 2,867 square foot car wash. Mr. Henderson reviewed the report provided to
the Commission members. Mr. Henderson
stated staff supports the Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building and Ground
Signage with the following conditions:
1. That
all signage shall be limited to three colors; red, white, and black.
2. That
all signage shall have a matte finish.
3. That
the wall signage shall be channel letters.
4. That
the stone columns shall extend up at least 75 percent of the sign face area.
5. That
the height of the ground signs shall not exceed nine feet above the sidewalk grade
adjacent to the sign.
6. That
the ground sign shall be located a minimum of five feet from the property line
and outside the site triangle.
Mr. Roush stated he was present to answer any questions the
Commission may have. He stated, however,
he was asking the Commission to approve the building signage out of a matte
finish vinyl. Mr. Blake stated as he
understood it, this would be more of a flush mounted, external illuminated
sign. Mr. Bosch stated the sign as
requested looked like it would blend in with the signage on other buildings
around it. Mr. Sauer stated he thought
there had been a problem with other signage like this that had bubbled in the
heat and he would like to make sure the sign would not be impacted by the
weather like that. Mr. Roush stated he
would speak to his sign person to make sure that would not be an issue. Mr. Bosch stated he thought this would be
more of a PVC material and Mr. Roush stated if this could be approved the look
on one of the routed PVC signs, that would be what he would like. Mr. Bosch stated he had some concern with
requiring the stone columns extending up at least 75 percent of the sign face
area because he thought extending the columns 75 percent on this sign would not
look right. Mr. Schultz stated this
Commission could amend the condition if they desired. Mr. Sauer moved to approve the
Comprehensive Sign Plan for Building and Ground Signage with staff
recommendations, but deleting Conditions 3 and 4; Mr. Bosch seconded the
motion. Roll call was taken with Mr.
Hackworth, Mr. Blake, Mr. Bosch, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.
F. Review
and request for motion to approve a Conditional Use Permit for C3 Church
building expansion located at 200 Hill Road South. Mr. Blake stated this was dealt with earlier
in the meeting.
G. Review
and request for motion to approve Nonresidential Design Standards Certificate
of Appropriateness for Site Plan, Architecture, Landscaping, and Lighting for
C3 Church building expansion located at 200 Hill Road South. Mr. Blake stated this was dealt with earlier
in the meeting.
4. REPORTS:
A. Planning
and Zoning Director.
(1) BZA
Report. Mr. Schultz stated the BZA did
not meet in March due to the lack of a quorum, but would meet on April 23rd to consider
a fence variance and the setback variance for Violet Limousine.
(2) FCRPC. Mr. Henderson stated the Commission approved
a plat for Winding Creek.
5. OTHER
BUSINESS:
A. Commission
Discussion. Mr. Blake stated he had
noticed a neon sign in the business next door to Blockbuster and Mr. Schultz
stated he would check into it. Mr. Blake
stated further he has had some concern on the patios being requested
lately. He stated the Commission
recently approved the nonferrous chairs at Don Patron’s and although he had
voted to approve this, he was now questioning the deviation from what has been
approved in the past. Mr. Blake further
stated we do not have good guidelines for patios and what is appropriate for a
new building is not always appropriate for an existing structure. Mr. Bosch stated he understood Mr. Blake’s
concern, but he did not know what the Commission could do other than take the
standards that we have and apply them to each individual request. Mr. Schultz stated Mr. Banschefsky would do
some research and see what restrictions other communities are applying to these
patios, however, it might take some time to revise our regulations.
6. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Bosch moved to adjourn; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Mr. Bosch, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Blake voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 4-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 9:40 P.M., April 14, 2009.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
___________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk