Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey bud. Yeah. Sounds good. Nice to meet you. Was good to see you, too, bud. Hey, did did you know that I know her at uh Cedar City? She said that. Yes. She was there as a friend of hers. Yeah.

Good stuff. How are you?

Good. How are you? Stay warm. Tough. It is tough. Definitely tough. How you doing? I'm doing good. How was that? I survived. Hey, that's not fun for me. Tell you what, next week's not going to be fun. I just read there that we have this much chance getting we may get somewhere between a half an inch. You can do it. You think You think I'm a professional heater or something? Yeah.

It take a decent amount. Oh, really? Uh-huh. Oh yeah.

Hello this morning. me. Yeah. Oh, the gym, too. But there's two new talents in there this morning. Oh, really? That I haven't seen before. Yeah, they were talented. I guess I'm on this chair. Hey, take a picture just so I can prove it. But I realize how creepy that is. You'll be on that other list. It makes any difference anyway. This kind of stuff I like

in a big screen. Real foot or Arkansas? Real foot. On the big screen. Arkansas pissed me off last year, so I didn't go back this year. Oh, I like these are all ready for consent. Do they be done? Four of them are ready. Call the meeting to order. Uh, are there any public comments at this time? There none. Any changes to the agenda?

All right. Well, new business. No business. How about that?

New business item number one is a request by DRPTN1 LLC for final plat approval for Waverly phase 15, a 31 lot subdivision on about 6.2 acres at underressed property on Martha Leval Road. It's zoned RS9 in Ward 4 and staff has no open comments. Number two is a request by DRPTN1 LLC for final plat approval for waverly phase 16, a 25 lot subdivision about 5.46 acres at unressed property on Martha Leval Road. It's zoned RS9 in Ward 4 and staff has no comments.

Okay. New business item number three is a request by Clean Harbors Environmental Services for site plan approval for Clean Harbor's bulk storage distribution terminal, a non-residential development on about 1.75 acres at 234 Knoxville Avenue. It's zoned heavy industrial in Ward 2. And there are no remaining comments for this project. Okay, good. Number four.

Number four is a request by Stuart Nullles Construction for site plan approval for Alhamumber Drive HPR, a 5-unit residential development on about 0.79 acres at 1416 Alhamra Drive. It's zoned RD9 in Ward 1. Just some minor corrections and no corrections are needed. And that's it.

Okay, five and six. We get to an interesting New business number five and six are requests by Dwey Limeberry for future land use plan amendment approval from rural preservation open space to light industrial and reasonzoning approval for about 10.82 82 acres at unadressed properties on Central Pike from A1 to I1 in the urban growth boundary. The properties to the north, east, and west are zoned A1 in the county and to the south as an SP. The properties to the northeast, and west are indicated as rural preservation open space and to the south as light industrial on the future land use plan. This property is indicated as rural preservation open space on the future land use plan which would not support this reszoning request. The requested future land use designation of light industrial would support this request. Proposed use for the site is a truck washing facility. This industrial use would require connection to sanitary sewer and for that it would need to be annexed into the city. City opposes this request because it will require sewer access and it is not within the city limits and does not follow the future land use plan. The reasonzoning is a recommendation to the county commission and the future land use plan amendment is a recommendation city council. The expected city council readings for this ordinance and all subsequent ordinances on the agenda are as follows. First reading and public hearing are March 3rd and second reading is March 17th. So before I ask if they want to speak this one is a little strange because it's in the Josh it's in the county uh or Christie whomever it

absolutely u has to have a way of treating sewage. Uh so what are our options? What what should we do? What where does this go from here? Prove or deny?

So they would need to request the annexation. So they have uh requested the reszoning in the county and to accommodate that reszoning in the county they had to ask for the future land use plan amendment. So that's the process that they've been following. But from our from our standpoint, if it in is industrial or commercial um zoning that they want and they want to develop as that, we would ask for them to make that recommendation to um request the city the annexation into the city.

So without that, this cannot go anywhere. Is that correct? Our our utilities department is not going to add on to the sewer unless they're in the city. Okay. Anybody want to speak to this?

Hello, I'm Chad Keelin. Do I need to give my address? 607 Ridgerest Lane. Um what we're proposing here is an a commercial truck wash facility. We as a county and city have invited a million trucks a year to come into this county but we don't service them. Um the closest one is in Smyrna. So I actually own trucks as well and so does many of my friends and we send all of that revenue to Smyrna whether that's cutting through Providence to get there or not. The closest one is um actually right next to Family Leisure. So, we have a million trucks coming into this county, in the city, uh, and they have nowhere to go. They have nowhere to get washed. We have dump trucks. We have everything. As far as tying into the sewer, I believe that could be engineered through. We only need um, you know, restrooms for the employees that'll be working there. Estimated around six or seven per shift. Um, and the holding tanks are something that the state has approved. We pump it out. 510 Hartman's right across the street from uh the sewage plant and it's on a holding tank. So that's not something that we believe has to happen day one in order for this facility to run. Also the water used for

we don't make those kind of decisions. We're going to depend strictly on the recommendation from city engineering. So it doesn't make much

it's not the best use of your time to try to convince us of that argument. use that seemed to be the reason that they didn't want to recommend was because of sewer infrastructure. And I don't I don't believe that is is a reason. Now, the the the zoning proposed for the future land use doesn't really fit since 840 came into existence. I mean, I I don't know anybody that's going to raise alpacas out there for the cost of money that that that property cost. So, it's convenient. It's right off. It's not going to add any more real traffic. It's right at the widest points uh of the the intersection there off the interstate. It keeps trucks from going inside the city and it's right off the interstate. I mean, all the all the facilities that the trucks are going to are right there. So, I don't know that there's a better spot in this city or county for it.

All right. Good. Thank you. Anybody else want to speak?

Questions, thoughts? Okay, it's on the agenda. 78 business items number seven and eight request by Steve Moore for future land use plan amendment approval for residential two units per acre to residential 16 units per acre and reszoning approval for about 17.78 acres at 478 and unadressed west old Laguardo Road from A1 to R3 in the urban growth boundary. The properties to the west are zoned commercial mix use. To the north, east, and south as A1 in the county, properties to the west are indicated as residential 16 units per acre. To the north and east as residential 2 units per acre, and to the south is interchange commercial on the future land use plan. This property is indicated as residential 2 units per acre on the future land use plan, which would not support this resoning request. The requesting designation of residential six units per acre would support this request. This type of residential development would require sew sewer access and would need to be annexed into the city. Staff opposes this request because it will require sewer access and is not within the city limits and does not follow the future land use plan. This is the reasonzoning is a recommendation to the county commission and the future land use plan amendment is a recommendation to the city council. speak.

I'm Steve Moore. I'm the representative for the land owners, not not a developer. Address. I'm sorry. My address is 919 Hart. I'm out of Gallatin. Um, but they have they want to change the future land use plan to be consistent with the property to the west. Uh, that's all we're asking of this this body. Um, and not asking for a plan of services at this time. I'm not the developer. I'm just representing the the land owners.

Thank you. questions, thoughts. All right. On the agenda, nine and 10. Nine and 10 are requests by Brad Henderson for future land use plan amendment approval from residential three units per acre to office medical and reszoning approval for about 67 acres at 4517 highway 109 north from A1 to CO in the urban growth boundary. The properties to the north are zone A1 in the county, to the east and south as interchange commercial, and to the west as RS20 with the Spence Creek PUD overlay. The properties to the north are indicated as residential three units per acre, to the east and south as interchange commercial, and to the west as residential four units per acre on the future land use plan. This property is indicated as residential three units per acre on the future land use plan, which would not support this resoning request. The requested future land use designation of commercial medical office would support this request. Proposed use for the site is a commercial office. If the commercial office would require connection to sanitary sewer, it would need to be annexed into the city. New commercial uses near the city limits should request annexation instead of county commercial zoning. Staff opposes this request because it might require sewer access and is not within the city limits. does not follow the future land use plan and new commercial near the city limit should be annexed if approved. The reasoning is a recommendation the county commission and the future land use plan amendment is a recommendation city council.

You want to speak?

Curry Curry surveying. I'm a survey on the project 427 Park Avenue. Uh nothing really to say. Uh just here. Thank you. Very good. Questions, thoughts. Okay. On the agenda,

I mean 11 through 13. New business items number 11 through 13 is a request by Sunrest Real Estate and Land for future land use plan amendment approval from residential four units per acre and residential 8 units per acre to downtown mixeduse and residential 8 units per acre. A South Hartman overlay amendment approval from autosuburban single family detached and walkable urban single family attached and detached to walkable urban single family attached and detached and walkable urban town center mixeduse town center residential and reasonzoning approval for about 7.92 acres at 541 Barton's Creek Road from Rural Preservation Open Space to Barton Village North Southeast Hybrid Pacific Plane in the South Hartman overlay in Ward 3. Properties to the north and west are indicated as downtown mixed use to the east as commercial medical office and to the south as residential four units per acre and residential 8 units per acre on the future land use plan. The properties to the north and west are zone Barton village north specific plan to the east as commercial service and the south as RS6. This property is indicated as residential four units per acre and residential 8 units per acre on the future land use plan which would not support this resoning request. The request of future land use designation of residential 8 units per acre and downtown mixed use would support this request. So this is an SP request. This is not technically part of the full Barton Village SP that surrounds it. It's going to be a separate SP and they are asking for a hybrid SP type of application. Here in this SP they're asking for uh 30 single family lots and a self storage building along with some usable open space. There are two different subdists within this SP document. First on the west side where the residential is, they're going off the RS6 district with the walkable urban single family attached and detached subdist of the Hartman overlay

standards. And on the east side, they're going off the commercial mixeduse district with the walkable urban town center mixeduse subdist of the Hartman overlay in place as well. They should though limit the uses uh because this is in the direct flight path of the airport. So single family self storage and possibly some other limited commercial uses would be appropriate, but right now it's listed with the full list of of uses within the commercial mixeduse district, which would not be u allowed within the airport flight path anyway. So we should limit that now. so it's not confusing down the road. The airport commission did look at this new layout and they were supportive of this use with the self storage and the single family. Previously, they had issues with higher density residential plans for the site, but have said this is okay as it's shown. There are still multiple instances throughout the language of the SP text that do not reflect changes to this uh layout uh that have been made since the SP committee looked at this. uh the layout is is more in line with what the committee wanted to see, but the text of the SP has not been updated to uh do that as well. Let's walk through this SP a little bit, see what they have changed. Again, for the residential side, they're going off the RS6 district with the walkable urban single family attached and detached uh overlay on it. They have increased the parking requirement from one space per unit to two spaces per unit. So we see that as a benefit and they have decreased a few of the standards as well for the minimum lot size that's decreased from 4,000 square foot minimum to 3,200 square ft. This is due to the lot width also being decreased from 40 feet to 32 feet. We think this should remain at 40 feet and decreasing it to 32 feet would only allow for a 22 foot wide home. We think that's a little too narrow for this context. in a more urban setting that would make make more sense. But out here um across from other single family homes then that would not make sense in this location.

The single family lots are being allowed to front on open space. This is not really a concern as long as the utilities can serve them and we haven't heard any issues with that so far. Uh they have also have put Ephus as a primary building material. This is written in the Hartman overlay that Ephus was allowed to be a primary material on the upper stories of single family houses. We have since updated the citywide zoning code to not include Ephus in that. So that would trump uh the Harbon overlay document now since it's a more restrictive list. So we think they should remove that from their SP to uh not allow that for single family homes. For the commercial subd district, they're going off the commercial mixeduse district with the walkable urban town center mixeduse overlay. Here they are allowing non-glass materials such as decorative brick and decorative ephus to meet the transparency requirements. They have not decreased the percentages. They're just allowing those to be counted towards the same percentages that you'd find in this district. Doesn't really fit the code, but kind of given the location with the airport, this is probably the best use we're going to get there. And we're not really opposed to that change given it is a storage building and that's probably as nice as it's going to going to look with those there. Uh we do have a few amendments to the SP that staff would recommend if the applicant does not uh change these. We'd ask for planning commission to do so at their meeting next week. The first one is uh to limit the allowed land uses like we mentioned before to the single family residential self storage and possibly some other like commercial uses maybe some uh you know convenience commercial um some personal services those sorts of things could could still work there but nothing with a high volume of people. You can see the full list of currently permitted uses there on the bottom of the screen. So, it's quite an extensive list for of commercial and residential uses. So, those would would definitely need to be cut down uh given the airport's proximity here. Uh the second amendment we'd recommend is requiring 40 foot wide lot minimums for the single

family homes. That would be consistent with the Hartman overlay. These are all rear loaded lots, so we're not really concerned with the parking in this case, but we just don't think going smaller than 40 foot wide would be appropriate in this location. So we'd asked for that to be maintained. We do think that if all stays the same and nothing else changes, that would reduce the the unit count probably about six or seven units would would be lost with with making that change. And then number three would be removing Ephus as a primary building material for single family. Otherwise, staff supports this SP reasonzoning request with those stated amendments.

Want to speak? Good morning. I'm Josh Roland with Kimley Horn representing the applicant. Um just a couple of comments based on uh staff's comments. First I just want to mention we did hold a community meeting. We issued about 15 notices. A couple of those were residents in the Dell web communities. We had two people show up. They were generally supportive of the project. It was a a positive community meeting. Um, we're fine with staff's comments to uh limit the SP uses. That's something we've we've discussed and we can provide that with our resubmitt this week for the planning commission meeting next week. Uh, Josh provided clarity, I think, today in his comments about the Ephus. It was a requirement that we did not change in the South Hartman, but it sounds like the city ordinance has changed that. So, we're happy to change the Ephus requirement. uh some of those minor SP text edits. I think that's reflective of a few of staff's comments. We're happy to make those. And I think the last comment, the lot widths, you know, previously we had brought forward a a proposal for town homes and understanding the need to reduce density here. We're trying to find a kind of a a middle ground for, you know, town homes are 18 feet wide, single family is 40. We're just trying to get a reasonable amount of uh single family detach density here, which is why we're requesting uh the 32- foot wide lot, but we're open to planning commission's recommendations on that. Thank you.

Thoughts, questions? I think he marked it up. Mhm.

Okay. On the agenda. New business item number 14 is a request by Mid10 Powersports LLC for site or specific plan amendment approval for about 5.47 acres at 6050 Leville Pike zone Leville Pike commercial specific plan in Ward 4. This is a request to amend the existing Leville Pike commercial specific plan to include language in the SP for quantity and dimensions of requested signage. This request has been re reviewed by the sign code administrator and staff is not opposed to this request if no neighbors opposition is expressed. This is a recommendation of city council.

Very good. It can't be consent because it has to go to city council. So, anybody want to speak to this?

Good morning. David Isaac, owner, Midton Powers Sports, 6050 Leolf Pike. No comments. I just uh here to listen today. Thank you. Thank you. Thoughts, questions? I don't have a problem.

All right. 15 through 17. New business items number 15 through 17 are a request by Elizabeth Johnson for plan of services annexation and zoning approval for about 5.04 acres at 1544 Rage Lane zoning to RD9 in Ward 1. The properties to the north are zoned RS6 in the city and R1 in the county to the south, east, and west as RD9. These properties are indicated as mixed housing on the future land use plan which would support this resoning request or the annexation request and the zoning request. This is a request for annexation to add 5.04 acres and zone to RD9. This request follows the future land use of mixed housing. There are no future development plans for this parcel. However, staff supports this annexation request because the adjacent road connection will benefit the city. This is a recommendation of the city council.

Would you talk a little bit more about the public benefits?

Yes. So, this uh this property that's 5.04 acres in size. It's adjacent to our uh city line. As you can see, it's kind of filling a in a gap in our city line. So, it also follows the future land use plan. Then they are requesting RD9 which follows a lot of the adjacent properties within the city. Um it's compatible with the surrounding area and it also adds the public benefit because uh the city has been on our um thoroughfare plan. This connection that's outlined in red is one of our main thoroughfares that we have been working on to increased traffic thoroughfare within the city. And this would allow for the Hartman Drive to extend and we we would request that the right of way become become come into the city as well for um that extension. So we will need the right away from this property.

Good. Thank you. Anybody want to speak? Not thoughts, questions on the agenda. That does it. Any staff comments? All right. We are journed there for a minute. You made up. I made a fort. Oh, I have to beg for a call. There you go.

You want to take like 10 minutes now?

We're training today. Hey Josh. Yeah. So, so this is just the preliminary meeting. So, they'll vote planning commission will vote on it next week and Tuesday. They're just