Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

interior roadway, that type of stuff. Uh, no advertising signs are permitted on the property other than identifying the business in use. And it does allow one dwelling unit permitted on site as an accessory you use. And the dwelling unit shall be occupied by an on-site manager of the mini warehouse self- storage business. All right, sounds good. Are there any edits or changes or suggestions for discussion?

All right, then uh so there being none, if there could be a motion to recommend the uh text amendment change is reflected on the screen uh and read Mr. Paradise with the for conditional use in industrial zone edition. I move to approve RZT25-00002 and recommend um sending that text amendment in its entirety to city council for approval. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion or questions? All those in favor, please say I. I opposed.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Paradise. And we could move to the next text amendment recommendation please with regards to halo lighting.

This is halo illumination in a text minute a text amendment to allow halo illuminated signage in the downtown mixed use one and downtown mixed use 2 zoning districts. Um it also provides for a recommendation for a definition what halo signage is. Um I tried to capture what the um this is halo signing as we had discussed it. Um the halo signing would be have um the recommendation has certain conditions and one of those conditions is u it be between 4,000 and 6,000 K. That would be getting that white light. It would have to be white. Um, and it's not allowed to change colors or temperatures or give the appearance of changing colors. That's downtown mixed use. Th this is what I'm recommending for definition. Give y'all a chance to read that. And then this would be amending section 9.6.3B. Right now it says sign shall not be internally illuminated. This is 9.6.3 regulate signage in downtown district. So right now it says shall not be internally illuminated. We would add except by halo illumination with the following conditions. One is that it be

white or soft white temperature not less than 4,000 or 6,000 trying to capture that color range that y'all talked about last time and be clear that it can't change colors or temperatures or give the appearance of change colors. Now, there's some things that we had talked about, but we didn't talk about last time that you may or you may not want to add. This is This is what I think y'all was my marching orders. Um, on this, I'm not sure if it is or if it isn't. There was some We had discussed some of it, but I hadn't got, you know, how y'all wanted to do that. So that may or may not be some conditions you want to add to it. Do you want to require them to turn off half an hour, an hour after the business closes? Um, do you want the is it all right for them to be on a channel u on a raceway or do you want the individual letters on the wall where they're individually mounting mounted? Um, you know, do you want to specify that there' be one to two inches from the building facade? Is that something you want in there? Um, and do you want to do anything about the finishes? Um, you know, this has and this is some information I had gotten and I had sent out to y'all in an email some months back and you know where the plastic faces highly reflective aren't allowed and you have brushed aluminum, bronze, matte flat, you know, kind of that um as finishes. you may not want to do any of that. That was a question that I

wanted to ask uh because it wasn't the focus of the discussion last month and I want to make sure I get what y'all wanted. So, I thought it was complicated before. So, let's go one by one and now keep it. All right. So, um we gonna say something. Okay. We'll go to uh number one. So hours of illumination um I think you just mentioned for example within 30 minutes of closing is there any other thoughts or you think that um we don't need that do need that having really

I when I was reading and I wasn't here last week but I last month but I replayed um meeting but I'm kind of for if they want to leave them on just for safety because this is our downtown area. I think it looks kind of nice if you drive through, you know, if you're driving through downtown at 3:00 in the morning and we we know we're going to have more traffic. Um, you know, if we limit the hours, obviously if the business wants to cut it off, that's fine because that's their their bill, but if we allow them to leave it on just from whatever street lighting we have in addition, because I did see that was kind of left open-ended. Um, I'm a fan of they want to stay on, they can. I agree.

Yep. All right. So, um, no need for housing information. All right. Then the second being mounting and design standards. So, let's go with A. That it must be individually mounted. Letters or logos, cabinet box, or raceway mounted are prohibited. I personally don't have a problem. Yeah, I don't I don't think that bothers me either because I know that like the raceway that's kind of where it has like the line at the bottom and the letters on top of that because I think the public safety sign has that and I think they said it was easier there was some maintenance it was easier for the business and I don't think that looks bad at all

that makes sense because then if it's individual letters you have to power have power coming through the wall for every letter it's all connected I say I'm fine with having a raceway okay and so then um so no need to to to call that out and then um any interest in that it must be installed one to two inches building facade. Is that kind of the distance that the sign company said that they usually go with? Yes.

I didn't remember specifically talking about that, but there was a lot of discussion that was had. So, I mean, I think if you know, I'm not the one to say this is what it should be as long as that's the working standard. I think I guess the concern is maybe if it's fleshed if it's if it's too narrow then it looking like it's maybe neon as opposed to the halo effect. Is that the the thought behind it? It it is it's it's to make sure that it stays fairly close to the building and all the lights coming out from around it. Okay. um and that it's illuminating kind of a height shape. Okay. So that Oh, I said it the opposite. So that it's not so like six inches off,

right? And the illumination is such that it's like that's I think okay. So I think I think there is some consensus around maybe requiring it between or do we need to say no more than two inches no more than two inches

from the building facade? Okay. All right. And then the next is acceptable finishes include brushed aluminum, bronze, matte black, or similar nonreflective historically compatible material. I think there's probably some interpretation into historically compatible materials, but I like that because I think as long as it fits into the look, like you said, not like a a shiny mirrored finish necessarily. I like I like that verbiage. Now, let me ask this though. What about um so then that mean the letters themselves could not be white?

Is that Are you talking about the finishes on the letters themselves or the the finishes on the letters itself? Correct. Okay. because then they would not be so then white would not be Can you go back to the examples because I think some of the white I would think a white lettering on a dark building would be more visible in the daytime. So, I'd hate to prevent somebody from having something whose sign wasn't as

white oak when it was white. If it if it was against a red brick, it would be more visible than a darker finish. I personally think it makes sense to add the next one versus uh sort of boxing them in on a finish type. Maybe just make sure that the transparency is what we're after as opposed to making them do certain kind of things. I agree with that. I think you're just going to end up with people who have to make bad design choices. They have they're boxed in. But instead of making it a required finish, just make sure it's not highly reflective. Yeah, I think they're not highly reflective because I think also think a lot all of them are big pl some of them.

Yeah. Oh, they're not plastic. Okay. So, do we is there a problem with plastic? ones he brought were metal, weren't they? Yeah, they were metal. Typical. I think your higher end are metal. Remember, you're going to have that heat in there. Say heat and fading. I don't know that the plastic. Yeah, that would be Do we say material instead of color? So, I think we we could skip C just go C and just um do classic faces or high I like it.

What was that again? So just in we're not going to um so we'll remove C rather as an option and just adopt D. So I can summarize what we've decided upon. So, our interest in restrictions include um signs must be installed no more than 2 in from the building facade to learn for proper halo protection and um plastic faces or highly reflective services off of it. Okay. B and D. Yes.

Do we add back in historically compatible materials into D or leave it? No. just to have a little more that always gives you an e extra some extra room to determine if something is but it yeah then you get into what is historically right I I think what y'all have is is fine so then we'll just go with VN so the changes as recommended with the addition of um with the conditions being only VN D. I'm sorry. Yeah. So, you'd have one and two from here and then B and D.

Yep. Gotcha. Were there any other thoughts or changes? Yes. So, that being said, if we could please have a motion. I will make a motion for the approval uh for the proposed text amendment. um for RZT25- Z003 with let's see the changes for only B and D

and getting rid of and and it's removing the time limit then A and C or yes A and C the first condition around Yes, removing the conditions around hours. All right. So the condition. All right. So is that clear enough for you? We we amen 9.6.3 is what's on the slide now. Right. And then we add B and we add D. Correct. Correct. Is three and four. Right. Is the only other condition. Where's your boss? All right.

Well, are we amending A also that week? because it says cabinet box or raceway are prohibited. We're saying we're okay with leaving. So they're Yeah, we're fine with that. Okay. All right. So for clarification, let's do a try one more time.

All right. All right. So I make a recommendation to uh for RZT25-00003 amendment for the halo illuminated signs. Uh, and that was would you go back to that screen with the numbers 9.6.3. Thank you. Uh, with the conditions for we're going to scrap a this is all kinds of messed up. I apologize. We're going to scrap the time limitations and we're going to keep B and D. So, okay. I think maybe somebody else needs to take a shot.

No, no. So I think a way to say it may be that the sign so so staff recommended text agreement with the conditions as um they appear propo with the sections as proposed including um signs must be installed no greater than 200 from the building facade to learn for proper halo projection and that they only and that plastic faces or highly reflective services are and do you want to recommend in the definition as well. Yes. And and yes and add in the definition. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So then if I could have a motion. So do I got to repeat all that? No, just say so moved.

Yes. Thank you. No. So we'll take So moved. A second. Okay. All right. So it has been moved and seconded. All those in favor, please say I. I. All those opposed. All right. Thank you. quoting any. All right. So, now we're on to um MSP24-06 016 and MW25-004 site plan and a waiver request uh by Evans Development Company. Mr. Paradise, is there anything you'd like to share with us about this site plan and waiver request?

Yes, ma'am. This project affects 0.05 05 acres is zone land development in the Sweetwater area at exit 5,20 Stevens Farm Lane. Um the applicant is this is the subject parcel. You can see it's right behind what used to be checkers in this u there's another coffee shop that's going in here. This used to be one parcel and it was subdivided into two parcels. The u they want to put a retail store here with a couple of tenant spaces. This is uh the layout. Uh it meets all of the requirements except for setbacks. And if you look at the rear corners of the building, they're required to be 20 feet on the property lines and they're only 10 n and a half to 10. So they'd like a waiver from that uh to allow it to be constructed um as it is at that site. Any questions for Mr. Paradise before we have the

Okay. All right. If the applicant could please come forward and please give your um name and address into the microphone and what we'll do is if there are um after you make your presentation, we'll ask questions. And if there are any members from the community that have any questions for you, we'll ask them to come up um do all of their questions and then ask you to come up and respond to all of the questions at one time. Okay. All right. Thank you and welcome.

Thank you. Uh thank you for your time tonight. I'm Bill Quarter with Bluewater Engineering. Office address is 4210 Columbia Road, Martinez and we're here on behalf of Evans Development and the applicant. As Mr. Paradise said this uh track was once one parcel with uh what was a checker parcel. Um and as you know the Sweetwater PD's been around for a long time. They didn't have a plan for every every site. So what happened is the Checkers property was developed u on the front part of the parcel and nothing was developed on the rear part of the parcel. And prior to checker selling site to Caribou Coffee, um they wanted to find something to do with the rear part of the parcel that was undeveloped. It was a bit awkward because it's a small tract. It's a little bit unusual shape and so um our our client was interested in the property. We worked with the planning department. They or the planning staff. They were they were great helping us try to fit something on on the site. challenge with this site was it was so small to be able to fit, you know, an appropriate size retail building and enough parking. Things were a bit tight. So, we're asking in addition to approval of the the site plan for some relief on the setbacks on the the one side and the rear of the building. Um the rear of the building actually the majority of it complies with the setback requirements or or at least part part of it. It's sort of a angle on the property line. So one end of the building complies with the 20 ft the other end is a little bit shy but we feel like you know this is probably the best fit for the site. Another thing that you won't see on the

plan, one one challenge with this area is the original developer of this PD um built a storm water pond to to cover storm drainage for this area. Um and that um wouldn't drain by gravity, so it had to be pumped. And at some point, you know, they guess decided they'd made their money and they went on their merry way and they quit paying the power bill. pond grew up. So, the developer for this site actually purchased the pond from a third party. Uh they've cleaned the pond up. They've got the power restored. They've got the pump working pond functional again. Um in in part, you know, so that they wouldn't have to have an underground detention system on their site, but also do discussions with with the city just wanting to be a good neighbor and try to get the problem resolved. So, I wanted you to be aware of that. Uh, so that's that's pretty much the background and what we're asking for. I'd be glad to answer any questions that you might have.

Madam Chairman, if I could say something else about the pond. That is a regional that is a pond for that development. Not just this part, but for this development, and it is a pond that we have been struggling with um for a couple years now. Where is the kind of beside Holiday in Express. This is going straight. You go straight the square footage of this building because it is kind of a small lot ballpark because I can't read. I think it's about 7,500 square feet. There be enough parking for

it is we we meet the parking requirements for the site based on the the use and the square footage of the building and um I'm sorry I I misspoke is not 7500 is 4,728. So, a little less than a little less than 5,000 square feet. On this contour map, you can see where the pond is. Now, the pond is offsite. It's actually a separate parcel. It wasn't a part of the the permitted drawings, although we addressed in storm water study. The fact that that pond once it was restored and functional again would serve for storm water retention not only for this site but for the larger area as well.

Any other questions? Is it two or three units that are going to be subdivided? that hadn't been determined yet. I don't know that the final architectural is confirmed. You know, a lot of times on the retail spaces, it kind of depends on tenant uses thing. It could be all one single tenant. [Music] Thank you.

Are there um any members from the community that have questions or concerns? All right, there being none, any further conversation. I mean, it's really the waiver is really just that back one corner on that weird angle, right? Looking at the map, basically it backs up to the trash cans where Zach is there's nothing going on back there. It It's both to the corner. Both corners.

That other corner gets I think close to the side. Because my concern is just with the the plan for the pud that it doesn't interfere with the landscape and I know you've got it noted that it doesn't affect the buffering and landscape requirements. I don't love the dead end parking and I wish there was amongst all those parcels the well the yes the the connectivity with the caribou coffee I think it is yeah that's already existing so it's not there the one um next to it on the right you know those are already established Um there is there is connectivity there. The road in front um you know goes around and connects back to Stevens Farm Road. So you do have that connection there. And there's um in the works, you know, a traffic light to that intersection. So that should help some with with traffic as well. But they can all go all the way down to um walnut if they wanted to use that light to get out.

What has the fire department said about they okay? Have they looked at the site plan? Has it been through? They have. Access is all good for them. Yes, sir.

There no other questions. Is there a motion? Um so if you could go back to the main screen for the first please. All right. So um need a I guess an acceptance of the site plan and then motion with regards to the waiver request for the setbacks. I will try this again. I promise I can do it better. You can

uh make a motion to recommend the approval of the site plan for MSP24-016 water retail uh with the conditions of the waiver for reduction of setback requirements and all all outstanding comments to be addressed to the satisfaction of city staff. Second. All right. Uh, Miss Paradise, is that all that you need to make sure? I believe so. Okay.

All right. So, it's been moved and second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please say I. I. All opposed. All right. Thank you. All right. Um, Mr. Paradise, any u comments about the staff report?

Well, um, I do want to tell y'all a couple of things. Remind you that, um, we have a joint meeting with city council Monday at 5:00. We'll be leaving here on the trolley. The, um, should last a good two hours. the trolley ride. Um I drove it in the car and it's an hour and 40 minutes in the in the car without stopping and talking. So we got a lot to look at on um Monday evening. Then the other thing is next month I believe it may start next month. Um staff has been has gotten together with the city clerk about our minutes and we're looking at trying to make all of our minutes look alike, you know, so that y'all are more y'all's minutes would be more in line with what's done for city council. City council's in line with what the BZA does and that. So, I'll tell you that so that if you get your minutes next month and they look a tad bit different, that's what's going on. And um hopefully, you know, there's not any objections to that standardization. And that as far as what we got going on, I don't know a better way to present that to you to is wait till Monday evening. [Laughter] But I do appreciate all y'all's help. Y'all have any questions for me?

So, as always, we thank you and your team for all that you all do. And we are looking forward uh to what sounds like it will be a busy and certainly um um I think opportunity and great opportunity for us to learn and to spend time um with count with council county. Um, did you want to I think share or did we do that the last time around to continue?

I did check this. Wet more is not available for that when we had scheduled it. So, it looks like we're going to have to go with the u oldfashioned CDs three hours. It's okay. same same day, same night, same time, same channel.

And and so I appreciate you all's patience because they have changed it. And so you have to watch the video together in person. We're not allowed to do this unsupervised as we were before. So um right, so we will be sitting together so we can pretend it's a movie uh for three hours on that date instead. The good news being when we do um we'll still schedule the um in person the way that we've done it last year as early as possible and then we will be done here.

So we'll go ahead and vote just think of this a planning planning commission and BZA movie. All right. All right. If that there's no other business then um I