Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm going to go ahead and unmute the room.

Okay. All right. I will call the Planning Commission meeting to order. Daisy, can you confirm the Kansas Open Meeting Act required notice has been properly provided?

Yes, I can confirm that the packet was posted and the required notice was provided.

Okay, roll call, please.

Commissioner McFadden? Here. Commissioner Rogers? Commissioner Mikesell? Here. Commissioner Ault? Here. Commissioner Van Covern? Here. Commissioner Farber? And Chair Waters?

Here.

So with five out of seven members, we have a quorum, and we can proceed with business.

All right. I would entertain an approval of the minutes of the May 5th meeting, not unless there are some corrections, and if so, please share those.

I make that motion. Second.

Been moved and second to approve the minutes of the May 25th meeting. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Same sign. Okay. Moving into new business. Application PP26-001.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of Planning Commission. For you this afternoon is application number PP26-001 filed by Jeff Mays on behalf of Jurong LLC requesting approval of a preliminary plat for what would be known as the Auburndale District Edition. You can skip that slide. All right, so this application was filed by Jeff Mays of Compro Realty, and the request is for a preliminary plat approval for the Auburndale District Edition. It's located at 3135 South 9th Street on the east side of South 9th Street and north of Avenue A, right at Riffle Drive. The total land area is 9.19 acres, and the proposed plat creates eight lots, and the property is zoned PC3, so planned shopping center district. This is an aerial view here that shows the request area. The subject property is a large undeveloped tract in the center of the image, bounded by the existing Auburndale commercial development to the north and also to the southwest. South 9th Street is to the west and Avenue A is to the south. The site has remained undeveloped since the replat of Auburndale addition was recorded in 2001. So getting into some background here, The subject property is an undeveloped portion of lot one, block one of the replat of Auburndale addition. The Auburndale addition was originally platted in 1998 and was replatted in September of 2001, creating a seven lot configuration on the 33.46 acre site. The wider Auburndale development includes Lowe's Home Improvement on lot two and the existing Holiday Inn Hotel on lot seven and a portion of lot one. and then there's several commercial outlot buildings on the west side of that plat. Zoning for the subject property was established by Ordinance Number 10-10550, adopted by the City Commission in June 2010. That ordinance rezoned the Auburndale lots to PC3, Planned Shopping Center District, with the exception of the Lowe's parcel, which was rezoned to PC5. The PC3 zoning carries an important condition relevant to all future development, as all planned commercials do, is that site plan approval is required for each lot before any building permits can be issued, because this subdivision was, or the planned commercial zoning was done with that deferred site plan, site development plan approval process. Getting into the nature of the request here, the proposed Auburndale district addition would replat the 9.19 acre subject property into eight lots for future commercial development. No construction is proposed at this time or as part of this application that will be for future applications and A brief description of each lot here. Lot one is a 26,954 square foot tract encompassing the existing internal drive corridor that's an access easement on the Auburndale district or Auburndale addition that connects to Riffle Drive from the internal drive system. And it connects Riffle Drive to South 9th. That serves as a common area tracked for the subdivision. And lots two and five are commercial development lots arrayed along the northern portion of the plat. And lot six is a 2.3 acre commercial lot that the applicant anticipates will, sorry, lot six is a 2.3 acre commercial lot that the applicant anticipates will develop as a hotel in a subsequent phase. So that'll require separate zoning and site plan approval applications related to that at a future point. Lot seven is a commercial lot that has a smaller width that you'll see in a moment once we bring up the plat. And then there is a large detention basin for the Auburndale addition that is lot eight on this plat. And we'll get into the next slide here. variation from the subdivision regulations. So section 3672B requires that all lots have legal access from an approved public street. The subject property only has frontage on South 9th Street at the end of Riffle Drive, and that's about a 64 foot width there that has frontage on a public street at the intersection. And so that frontage is entirely encumbered by the existing access easement that goes out to South 9th Street. So the result of that is that the entire plat for the commercial lots does not have direct public street frontage. And so a variation from the subdivision regulations is required in order to meet their approval criteria for a preliminary plat. So the proposed access would take the would connect to the existing internal drive corridor on lot one, and it would add a new east-west internal drive and platted access easements connecting to south, or connecting you to that internal drive, that riffle drive, and eventually getting you out to South Ninth Street. A written variation request was submitted by Kaw Valley Engineering on May 8th that meets that requirement of requesting and writing the variation from the subdivision regulations. And under Section 3610, the Planning Commission must make findings on four criteria before approving a variation. And that's addressed on the next slide here. Oh, sorry, I moved slides around. So we're gonna go through some of these, some of the graphics, just to give you some context of what we're looking at. On the left is the overall Auburndale addition. So highlighted in yellow is our subject property. And then on the right, I've just taken the plat, the proposed Auburndale district addition plat and just given it each lot a different color so it's easier to see. And we can go to the next slide. So that's the proposed plat. You'll see on the west side of that is a short segment of north-south internal drive, and then it shoots out to the west to connect you to south 9th. And coming in from the east, from that corner, there is an internal drive that's proposed through an access easement that runs approximately across the middle east-west there. You can go to the next slide. So again, that's the lots colored so that it's a little bit easier to read from a distance. The orange is that internal drive that's existing. And you'll notice in the packet that it shows the covenants for the Auburndale addition. So if you wanted to see what that internal drive is part of that, there's access easements and covenants handle access through there. And those would still be in effect with this replat. And down the middle, east-west, is that a proposed internal drive. And then you have lots two, three, four, and five up on the north side. To the east, you have that big blue section. That's lot eight. It's an existing detention pond. And along the bottom, the green one is lot seven. It's a narrow lot to the east. And then on the very to the southwest there is lot six, and that's where the hotel is planned to be developed. So that's a little bit closer view of just the internal drives and how they connect there. And getting into some of the other details of it, these are the existing easements that are in place currently, and so you have access easement the internal drive and then along the north east and the south sides you have utility easements already in place and the blue is a drainage easement for that detention pond and then the applicants are also proposing some new easements on this one being the central internal drive set up as an access and utility easement and then along the We're looking at lot six and lot seven on the south side the east and the west both have proposed new easements for utilities and The same along the top along the the north side You have new utility easements, which are a slightly different size. So it does look like they're overlapping There's just different widths there to carry different utilities So this does have some existing utilities on the property already. Out on the internal drive that's existing, there's a green line there that's an existing sewer line. Along the north boundary and down a short segment of the east boundary, you have existing water lines. And then along the south side, you have some existing telephone lines, stuff like that. They're proposing, it's hard to see from a distance here, but can you trace that blue line, just kind of run the cursor along it? So starting up on the northeast corner over here, there's a proposed water line that runs all the way down to the south edge, comes west, and then runs up along that side, and then out and connects to the existing water line that's in, in that access drive. And then you also have a proposed sewer line that runs real close to it right there, where it gauges tracing the cursor. And that would be able to serve all of the lots in the development, putting it there in the center. Go on. The proposed water lines are gonna connect to three fire hydrants. That's what's required for the proposed hotel to meet the fire flows that are needed, and that's gonna be a loop system, so that's why it runs along the southern border and along the east and the west sides, just to provide two points of connection to water lines to have redundancy to get those fire flows. And then this is the proposed site plan for the hotel. It's not directly relevant to the application, but it does kind of help for some context because this is kind of what's driving the location of the fire hydrants, which drives the location of the proposed water lines. And you can click the next slide, Gage. It's a little bit closer at view. Might be hard to see from a distance, but you can see that blue line shows where the water line is at and that connects to those hydrants. There's one on the south side, and then there's one right there where his cursor's at, and one on the west side right there. Yep. Okay. All right, so we'll get into that variation criteria. Section 3610 requires the Planning Commission to make findings on four criteria before approving any variation from the subdivision regulations. So here are those criteria and staff's analysis. The first criterion is that granting the variation will not be detrimental to public safety, health, or welfare. And staff's position is that this criterion is supported by the record. Fire department and engineering division have both reviewed the proposed internal drive layout and confirmed that it supports adequate emergency vehicle and service access. And no adverse effects to the adjacent properties have been identified. The second. is that the conditions requiring the variation are unique to the property and not applicable generally to other properties. The subject property has only approximately 64 linear feet of South 9th Street frontage, and all of that frontage is committed already to an existing driveway. And that frontage is not very close to the actual development lots. So that's a circumstance specific to how this property sits within the larger subdivision, and it's not a general condition that applies to property elsewhere. The third criterion is that an extraordinary hardship would result from strict compliance, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. Strict compliance with Section 3672B would require either constructing a new dedicated public street into the interior of the property, which isn't contemplated by the existing development pattern and isn't consistent with the planned commercial district design. Or it would mean leaving the entire 9.19 acre tract as a single undivided lot. That latter outcome would effectively close off any orderly commercial development of the site. And staff believes that does constitute an extraordinary hardship that would meet that criterion. And the fourth is that the variation will not vary any zoning regulation, comprehensive plan, provision, or official map of the city. The variation is from the subdivision regulations only. No zoning designations or future land use map provisions or official maps are affected. So staff believes that the record supports findings on all four criteria. That said, the determination rests with the commission on this, based on the evidence presented here today. So if you find the record insufficient to make those findings, you have two options. Either gather additional information from the applicant during this hearing, or postpone consideration to a future date if you need additional information to be able to make that decision. All right, the next slide is the internal drive configuration. So staff has a recommendation related to how the internal drive is physically configured on the final plat. As it's currently proposed, the internal drive aisle is located within an access and utility easement that crosses lots two and three, or two through five. Basically the lot lines are drawn to where they meet where they meet and the access easement is going across the northern lots, across lots two through five. So it's not established as its own discrete tract within the development or within the plat. So because the, if you approve the variation and that causes the drive boundary to function as the effective lot frontage, like the front lot line of the commercial lots. For lots two through seven. The reference line from which we would establish front yard setbacks, landscaping regulations, and even sign regulations in instances where there is no building. Those are all based on street frontage of the lot. So that can get complicated to be able to assign that if we don't have an actual frontage to assign it to. So staff recommends that the commission require the drive to be established as a discrete common area tract that could be set aside for a common area use or common use rather than as easements across other lots. So what I'm suggesting is not to change the actual move the line at all, but just to make it a tract on its own. So a discrete common area tract would provide a clearer and more durable access protection. It would create a well-defined front lot line that can be documented in a plat note on the final plat. And it provides a clear subject for the required maintenance agreement. And staff has included this as a recommended condition of approval. We've kept the configuration flexible here. The applicant can either extend the boundary of lot one to encompass the full east-west drive or designate the new internal drive as a separate common area tract. Either approach would work. It's more about establishing that as a separate tract so that that access can always be protected in perpetuity, you know. So moving on to the next slide. So we're going to go through the criteria here for the plat approval. This is a third section 3640. So it's approval of a preliminary plat. All 12 must be satisfied for the Planning Commission to approve a preliminary plat. So getting into the criteria. Number one addresses the application requirements. That plat was prepared by a licensed professional engineer. All the required drawing elements are present and the application fee was paid. So this one's satisfied. Number two addresses conformance with the applicable codes and regulations. The proposed lots are consistent with the PC3 and C3 zoning standards. The C3 district imposes no minimum lot size for individual lots. Future development of each lot will require planning commission site plan approval per the conditions of the ordinance 10-10550 before any permits can be issued. The lot access criteria is dependent on the commission's determination on the variation request. So some of these 12 criteria that the Planning Commission has to find for approving a preliminary plat are kind of contingent on whether or not you approve that variation from the subdivision regulations. So staff finds that the criteria two is satisfied, subject to the variation determination. Number three addresses location. The property is located within the city limits and is surrounded on all sides by developed commercial properties with existing public utilities and city services. So staff finds this one satisfied as well. And moving on to criteria four and five. Criteria four addresses public infrastructure. So the engineering division has confirmed that adequate street infrastructure exists to serve the subdivision. The utilities department has confirmed that water and sewer infrastructure can reasonably be constructed with the water main required to be extended in a looped configuration and the sewer line extended within the subdivision as conditions of development. And so staff finds that criteria four is satisfied with some recommended conditions for the water and sewer extensions. Criteria five addresses public services. So the subdivision is within the Salina Police Department service area with no issues identified. Fire protection is addressed by the fire department memo that's included in the packet. Three hydrants are required in the fire marshal approved locations and fire apparatus access roads must be designed to support a 75,000 pound minimum load. Parks and schools criteria are not applicable to this commercial subdivision. And so staff finds that criteria five is satisfied with the relevant fire protection conditions of approval. So we'll go through six through 12 here. These are a little bit shorter. The remaining criteria are each addressed here. So South 9th Street meets the applicable perimeter street standards under section 3674 and 3674.1. And no street improvements are required as a condition of this plat. The future land use map designates the site as commercial, which is consistent with the proposed use of the subdivision. And the major street plan is also confirmed consistent by the engineering division memo. The internal drive extends extends the existing Auburndale Drive network and provides connectivity with the adjacent development. There are no public parks in the immediate vicinity requiring dedicated connections. No new curb cuts are proposed on South 9th Street and the existing access configurations are consistent with the city's access policies. The existing detention basin on lot eight is confirmed adequate for the full site build out by the city engineer's memo. which also serves as the city engineer's written communication to the commission to speak to the storm drainage under section 3675 of the code. The common area maintenance criteria is addressed through the required maintenance agreement as a condition of approval. And staff finds that all of these criteria are satisfied with the maintenance agreement condition for criteria 12. So recommended findings. In summary on the findings, staff believes that findings can be made to support all 12 criteria of Section 3640. And suggested findings for each criterion are provided in the staff report for your reference. As to the variation, the Planning Commission must independently make findings on all four of the criteria for the variation from the subdivision regulations. Although that determination rests with the commission, the staff believes that the record presented in the application and your packet supports those four findings. So we'll go through those real quick. These are potentially findings that you could use in support of that. Number one, the variation would not be detrimental to public safety, health, or welfare. The fire and engineering memos have both confirmed that the internal drive supports adequate emergency and service access. Number two, the conditions requiring a variation are unique to this property, so that small amount of frontage on South 9th is fully in use and to an existing access easement serving other developed lots in the Auburndale addition. Number three, strict compliance would require either a new dedicated public street into the property's interior or retaining the entire tract as one undivided lot, which would seem to qualify as an extraordinary hardship, not just a mere inconvenience. Number four, the variation is from the subdivision regulations only. No zoning designation or comp plan provisions or official city maps are affected. And so in your decision today, you have three options. You can either approve subject to the conditions if all 12 criteria are satisfied and all four variation criteria are met, Number two, you could postpone to a future date if additional information is needed, particularly regarding the variation request is possibly the most likely one. Option three would be to deny, citing specific findings as to which criteria under Section 3640 have not been satisfied. And so staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of the Auburndale District Edition. subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Approval does require the Planning Commission to also approve the variation that's being requested with findings on all four criteria. And we can go to those recommended conditions of approval. So we have nine recommended conditions here. These are summarized. You have the exact text in your packet. So the developer would be responsible for all public improvements shown on the plat and infrastructure drawings. Number two, all utilities will be placed underground. Number three, three fire hydrants would be installed in locations approved by the fire marshal. Number four, any fire apparatus access roads would be designed to support 75,000 pound minimum load. Number five, the water distribution main would be extended in a looped configuration within the subdivision. Number six, wastewater collection pipeline would be extended within the subdivision. Number seven, Internal drive would be reconfigured as a discrete tract on the final plat with a plat note attributing street frontage to the lots. And that would just help for the future to apply the zoning regulations to those lots. Number eight. is a reciprocal easement agreement or maintenance agreement for the internal drive would be executed and recorded before recording of the final plat. And number nine, we have a few plat drawing corrections, just minor revisions that need to be made, that those would be made before the final plat is submitted. And those are listed in the conditions in your staff report. So we do have three points here that we think would be worth the Planning Commission considering discussing either with staff or with the applicant to possibly make sure that you have all the details that you need to make your decision. So before taking action, staff recommends that you discuss the following with the applicant. The first one being the basis for the variation. So the applicant's position on criteria three and four of those variation criteria, they don't go into full detail of what is the way the criteria is actually worded, so if you feel like you need more information, those might be worth discussing. The second one is lot seven. The applicant's intended future development plans for that lot are unknown, so you may wanna ask. It is a narrow lot, and as I said, there isn't a minimum lot size in the C3, but it is about 59 feet wide, so it would be, The most responsible thing would be to make sure that that is a developable lot in the future, that it could be used for some sort of development. And it could be a little bit small, but there also is, depending on what goes in there, there is space to develop it in certain ways. So it's up to the commission if they wanna discuss that. And the third would be that condition that we placed that we recommended for the internal drive. The commission might want to discuss that with the applicant and invite the applicant to indicate their preferred configuration. So as I said, you could just combine lot one, which is the existing drive, in with the new stuff and make one big common area tract. Or it could be two separate ones. Either one would work, but the staff does feel that having that as a common area would help in the future down the road with that. And I think there's one more. It's just a recommended motion here. So finally, if this commission is prepared to act following any discussion with the applicant, here is the recommended motion. That would be to move to approve application number PP26-001, the preliminary plat of the Auburndale District Edition, subject to the conditions of approval recommended in the staff report, and further to approve the requested variation from Section 3672B of the Salina Code pursuant to Section 36-10, after finding that all 12 criteria under Section 3640 have been satisfied and that all four criteria of Section 3610 for the requested variation have been met. And that concludes our presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. And we do have the applicant and their design engineer here as well to answer any questions.

OK. Thank you, Dustin. That was very thorough. All right. Commissioners, I open it up for questions to staff.

Dustin. So just to make sure that we are able to get any future businesses in there, the correct signage that they need. So developing, I mean, separating that drive into a separate tract on there, that would give them a mechanism to do that easier.

Yes, and I don't wanna, I wanna be careful too to not imply that you have to create that tract. What we would have to do is, we would basically be attributing street frontage along an easement line. That could potentially get complicated if that easement were ever changed or something like that. So having it as a separate track, it's effectively a lot that's in the center. So then you have an actual lot line. Whereas if it were exactly as it's drawn now as an easement, you would be putting a plat note on that runs you along a line. I don't know if you all remember, well, with Nine South, when we wrapped up Nine South earlier this year or last year, yeah. I wrote a pretty big plat note on that that actually kind of walked you through. You follow this to here to here. It was like, felt like writing out a meets and bounds kind of thing almost. You know, you start here and then walk along this line. And that's because, Nine South has two common area tracks for the entrances that get you into there. And then there's a north-south access easement. And so just had to really make it clear so that later when those lots develop, and this being planned commercial, Nine South was planned commercial, so those site plans are gonna come back in front of you to consider for approval. And you're gonna be looking at how the zoning regulations apply to that development. It would just make it a lot easier to apply those sign regulations and the landscaping regulations for front yards. It would give a line to base a front setback off of. And yeah, so for signs, when there's no building present, it goes off of street frontage, but once there's a building there, it's the building frontage. But it would just make it clear that that is the street frontage when you see that in the zoning regulations. Thank you.

I don't know how pertinent this is. Does Lowe's have a detention pond on the east side of their property?

No, I think there was a typo in there. I thought I got it.

No, I'm not asking about that. I'm just wondering what the purpose of this detention pond is here.

What was that? Sorry.

Okay, does Lowe's have a detention pond on the east side of their property? No, didn't they used to?

It was like an early plan, right?

So there is an existing one, if you can zoom in. So the pond, oh, excuse me.

See, the one that is in the southeast is existing right now, but go ahead.

Right, so the pond that is shown on the plat is existing. It's already there. Yeah. To answer your question. Okay. And it's not directly east of Lowe's, but it is like in the southeast portion of the Auburndale Addition.

And the purpose of those just for runoff so it doesn't flood the area, is that it basically?

Yeah, so the detention pond, it's going to detain water in a major storm event. So in a major storm event, water is going to go to the pond and it's going to hold water so that it doesn't over inundate the storm water system that we have so it gives time for The the pipes everything to drain out and holds a water while that while everything drains out and then it slowly gets into the system Once the system can handle the capacity of that water.

Yeah, so the outflows from from a detention base in our controlled rate so you get water coming in in The rainfall goes up and down over the course of an hour, and it's coming in at different rates into that pond, but it's always going out into the storm sewer system at a controlled rate, and so then that's all designed to handle that.

One more question then. From Schilling Road to access this, on the west side of Lowe's, there's a driveway and there's some businesses on the west of that. Is that a public driveway then that will connect into this development?

Yeah. Pardon? Sorry, I was talking to Gage. So you're talking about this intersection here where like the Holiday Inn is at?

No, the one coming in on the west side of Lowe's there.

Oh, that one. Yeah, right there. You would be able to get down to it. So you would keep going south until you hit just below the edge of the screen there. That is an internal drive. You can drive in there. You can keep following that south. And you can see the exist, if you were to go to the west of the cursor, that's the existing connection. but you would go east from here.

But that's a public driveway. That's not private property or anything then.

It is private. It's a private street or an access.

Adjoining Lowe's parking lot is public property probably.

All of those properties are private properties. The access is a public access. So it's a shared public access, the way it's designed, similar to what is being proposed in this subdivision replat. So what that means is it's private property. It's owned by whoever owns the lot. In this case, it would be Lowe's for that particular portion of it. However, it's shared and open to the public.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions of staff? All right. I invite the applicant to come forward. And please address the recommended conditions of approval and also the additional recommendations to be asked on page 21 and 22 of their report. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioners. I appreciate your time today. I'll start with, I might be able to explain to Commissioner Ault in a little clearer fashion. When Auburndale was originally done by Carlin out of Texas, they put in what's called reciprocal easement agreement that manages all of that. And so that detention basin went in early, but it was engineered for full development. So they master planned the detention basin. So everybody in that, everybody in Auburndale subdivision drains into that detention basin that we're referencing here. So it was master planned and sized back when Lowe's went in. but to account for full build out. The REA is a question I have for staff. There is a master REA that is recorded and runs with the land on everybody that owns a lot that addresses the easements, the access from Schilling Road down to any lot, cross lot, maintenance, all of those things. In fact, I mean, it gets into a lot more detail relative to how you can't compete, what you can put in there, all kinds of stuff. So that all comes with your title work when you purchase the property. But that was all master developed. And to that end, I wonder, as staff recommendation, I think it's eight about do we need a separate agreement or can we reference that REA that's already recorded on this lot? We need to pull out just the maintenance portion because all of this is addressed in the overlaying REA. This lot, split or not split, no, I'm talking about the maintenance agreement. I think it's your condition eight.

If it's for the internal drive, you would need to do one specific to that because the Auburndale one only covers the drive as it connects out to Ripple. It's existing easements. Okay, that makes sense. Okay, thank you for that. And that's where the argument for keeping those two separate may be better where the new internal drive, if you split that out. Yes. Okay. Okay.

Yes, okay, that makes sense because of the additional, yeah. I just thought it overlaid, so it might do the same thing, but I understand that. It's easy to prepare and to meet that criteria, so not a problem. I think the genesis that the applicant would have, the issue that the applicant would have would be this internal drive track, and I'll explain to you why. As you look at the plat and you wander across there, this was one platted lot because they didn't know what it was going to look like when the day came for it to finally develop, and then we did our one lot split, for the Holiday Inn, which then in turn triggered a replot. Well, we still sit here today very much in the same way as we did then, other than the leading project here, as staff indicated, is this hotel development. And so we have that, and we know enough about that today to speak to you intelligently, but then the head scratcher becomes how do we replot the other lots to make them developable without triggering potentially a third or fourth replot you know, to get them developed. So that's why you see four lots being proposed across the front of there. Not that we anticipate four different users. In fact, I mean, if I had to go over and under, I hope and would think that we'll see one junior box type retailer that orients back there adjacent to Lowe's facing west and those other lots will just be encumbered by parking. But the reason we plot it with the extra lots is it's a whole heck of a lot easier to pay the fee for the extra lots than it is to replot, again, if we needed to split it. So if the day came that it's not one user, but rather say it's two users, we would have the lots and be able to have the flexibility through lot split to accommodate and not have to come back through a third or fourth replot. You know, if we would have just put it all in one lot, let's say. So that's why you see the number of lots you do is for flexibility and playing a little defense. Because we can't close our eyes today, unfortunately, and tell you what's going to be there or how it's going to orient or any of that. So the proposed plot, while it might not make sense, is just because we don't know what it's going to ultimately be. We know what the REA says we can and can't do in that subdivision. We know what zoning says. But other than that... Here we are. So, as I indicated, I have a little, and I'll tell you that we've tried to meet with staff over this since the application was put in in April and have not been able to meet with them. I would like to have been able to hash this out with staff. I mean, as recently as today, I'm like, is there any way we can talk about this before we get to a public hearing? And in front of you all and hearing nothing, here we are. So... my personal issue or the applicant's issue with the proposed dedicating the drive is exactly what i just described and likely and i think you might common sense would tell you that very likely if we can do i would the applicant would prefer to do it through easement rather than a dedicated public drive and understanding the front line or the front yard and all those concerns very much so if this is not regardless of how it develops this is planned zoning so they have to come back in front of you all and say okay this is our plan if it's a single junior box user facing west or if it's a single user facing north, they're going to have to come back. But I can't imagine a scenario in which they're going to want to face the hotel and not Lowe's when they develop. So if we dedicate that common area in a dedicated lot as a front yard, most likely it's going to be a rear yard or a side yard access point. So if we can manage it through easement, that gives us two things. One, it allows us to move that rather than dedicating it on the plot. it allows us to move it let's say the development it needs to call for green space up against the hotel and then that drive moves we can manage that through easement internally with staff and not have to get the engineers involved and have to go through all of that to change the plot again so it's maintaining flexibility is what we're after because we just can't intelligently tell you what it's going to develop as

Jeff, help me understand this just a little bit. But you're going to always need an east access to that hotel, though, right?

Yes. Well, no, understand that the hotel can internally circulate and plans to internally circulate. That drive is nothing but emergency access.

So are you saying that there would be only one entrance into the hotel area?

Yes. When we originally started talking, that was just going to be a gravel. So you're going to have the end of the property line, you're going to have their landscaping, their trees, and then it's going to be, we were going to do it through gravel. Now that the hotel developers is considering wanting to pay to pave it rather than have, but it's just emergency access. If you go visit that hotel, you're going to circulate internally 100%. That is nothing more than an emergency access that's required, and the developer said we'll grant you the easement, and you put in the gravel road, and he's proposing potential pavement, which we're hashing that out. I don't know that it's anything that you, whichever way.

Even if you did have to dedicate the track, though, you'd still have the flexibility to do that, right? You'd have either the flexibility to pave it or put gravel on there.

Yes. Is that right? Yes, and I'm not concerned. If he wants to pay to pay to pay, I have some opinions there, but I don't know that that's anything that you guys should be concerned with. My only point is when you dedicate it on the plot, then I can't move it. I can move the easement through working with the, once I know, I can move that easement. If you make me dedicated on the plat, now I gotta come replat if I need to move it when the development comes along. And again, most likely, if it doesn't develop in a single user, which would face west and park in front, if it does develop in a multiple user, I gotta believe common sense says they're gonna face north. And if we dedicate that drive, Now I've got a rear, now I've got a building facing against the dedicated access point.

Jeff, can I say a couple things here?

I would have liked to have done this in your office, by the way.

Oh, it was just so you know, I, I don't, I wasn't told anything about any numerous times asked to meet. We don't need to argue about it. So I didn't know that that, or I would have just got on the phone. Like we have multiple times. So, um, yeah, I wasn't told anything about any meeting. Um, So here's the thing to consider here. One, this is planned commercial, so as soon as the hotel development, so whether we're doing easement or track, and that's why I said, I didn't say that the only way to do this is by a separate track, but consider that you don't wanna have to come back and replat, obviously, but as soon as you get a site development plan approved for that lot, for that hotel, that access to that hotel is locked into that site development plan. Agreed. Okay. So whether it's an access easement or whether it's a separate tract, it's going to be locked in to some extent.

Now also the east drive- But it terminates at the northwest corner. Where it says proposed internal drive, that's emergency access only. There is no curb cut. There will be an emergency gate for fire to get in, but we're not circulating day-to-day traffic out there. That's emergency access only.

So their plan shows an exit there. And it also says concrete drive. So there might be some discrepancies on there.

I talked to them today at three o'clock. They just signed the agreement for the additional ground they're taking. So we're working through that.

Well, the important thing is that we get submitted plans and those show the stuff. Also, when we were in our DRT meeting, We talked about that road and that was supposed to be a temporary fire access. This wasn't supposed to be forever. So you're always gonna have to get access to this lot five and lot seven. So that internal drive has to go down to those eventually if they develop. So we have to make sure that on the plat that you can get from this farthest west point all the way to all the lots. And I get what you're saying that somebody might take the four lots and build one thing there. That's fine.

I don't disagree with any of that, but we don't have to define that today.

I mean, like I said, the Planning Commission could approve it with the easement. I'm not saying that's not true. It gets harder to apply the zoning regulations to it when you don't have lot lines all around. And so if they're approving a variation to say, we want to develop this, different than the requirements of the subdivision regulations, you're effectively making that internal drive a street. It's serving the function of a street. So it seems to make sense that if we carve it out as a common area tract, it's not going to be a substantially different amount of effort to change that. Once anything develops in there and you get locked in on a site plan, whether it's a, if it were a replat or whether it's changing the approved site plan, it's going to actually have, it's going to be still a trip to the planning commission.

Yeah, the plan, it comes before this board, but it's not a replat. I mean, the replat comes at a much greater expense. Okay. Because the site plan's on the user. The replat's on the developer. And all I'm saying is that you're going to get a bot. You're going to get with a site plan that your ability to apply the zoning code based upon that future development plan. I don't think it requires the step to dedicate access on the plot today. And I think that does get us a lot more pregnant than we care to be today.

We have to establish that all of the lots in the plot would have access to a public street.

So do through easement.

And that's why I say it's up to them to make that decision. That's what I'm proposing.

The applicant is requesting that you allow us today to do that to satisfy it. We're not quibbling with the requirement. It's the mechanism we have to get there, and the applicant would prefer easement.

Excuse me. So you're saying that yellow where it says proposed internal drive, you don't want that to say that?

It's gonna be, we're gonna grant to them an easement.

We will grant to them an emergency. And then that blue, green and purple lots up there will come down and fill in that proposed internal drive space and whatever goes in those three lots, they might be on the north, the drive might be on the north side of that to access that, is that correct? Yeah, hypothetically, just very hypothetically.

Let's presume. Keep in mind, real quick before, is keep in mind that the fire marshal has approved that layout with having access on that east access also.

It's emergency though.

Yes, but there's also a fire hydrant in there too. And so you're gonna have to always have that. So you can't really, you're not gonna be able to ever really take away that piece.

We're never gonna take it away, but we may move where their access is. for the development of those other lots.

Yeah, there's nothing on here though that would prohibit you from putting the access into those north lots anywhere along that line. Why does the easement not work?

Can you make an argument that easement doesn't work by code for some reason? Otherwise, why do you so insist that it be on the plot?

Well, I think I went through those. I mean, kind of.

I understand why you would like it. I'm telling you, you're restricting. You're just going to make it a lot harder in the future. We can do everything you're proposing via easement, which was what was the applicant's plan. It's what was proposed. It was what was discussed in the DRT. It was never going to be a temporary temporary for now until it develops.

They're not. No, it's still temporary.

It was a temporary access secondary access point for them. And then it would be a perpetual easement but then I can work with the hotel developers. Let's just hypothetically say that the site plan for those lots turns out that we're parking Into southbound we got a row of 19 foot parking across where that says proposed internal drive and the driver the emergency drive aisle moves To the other side, but we've got it wouldn't be able to that's what I know the way the parking lot lays out But somebody give Jeff a pointer Jeff.

Could you go up there?

Yeah, sorry this screen you can't you can't shoot later laser pointers at it because it just reflects off so

This lot develops. Let's just assume we've got a box right here. We want to drive out coming in here, and they want to drive out coming in here.

They're going to park like this, and then we have 24 feet. And then we've got two rows of parking, and we've got 24 feet, and they're going to park like that.

Just very hypothetically.

So if I have an easement, I can still give them their emergency access. I can't park right here, but they can still come out, and I move that easement to be in this drive aisle, going out, if you make me dedicate this and that's the way this user wants to come back and develop, then I got to come reply.

So you're saying that you would potentially use that proposed internal drive space that's marked that right now as parking lot and then... Very likely. Okay, okay.

Very likely to park like this or if there's a user here and a user here, it might be that we've got service back here and we park this way and then we've got...

So you're saying that potentially in the future you might connect those two drives up to move it north some?

We know we have to always grant the hotel that emergency access easement in perpetuity. But don't plot it there. It's a requirement for us, and you will see it when it comes back to you for that development that we're going to move that easement, and we've got the agreement with the hotel user, and I can do all that via easement rather than defining it in the plot that that's where it's got to be.

But I think you're saying you can move it, but you're also saying it's dedicated to perpetuity as access, that if they build out that easement, With those being the accesses, you can't use it for anything else. And so that's why I'm not seeing where the... Like, I understand what you're saying about reconfiguring it, but what I'm saying is that's going... internal drive, that access is going to be locked in if it's an access easement that's dedicated to perpetuity, that runs... So how... Yeah, I talked to them today.

They understand 100% what I'm saying, and that if we move it... I mean, I can't block their emergency entrance point in their northeast corner. I know I can't block that. But if I move their access easement 19 feet to the north and put them in a 24-foot drive aisle in that parking lot, they still have access. Staff would grant me the release, I would have to believe, using common sense, that you would grant the release of the existing easement as I'm proposing it today if we sign and record the other easement.

And we still maintain their emergency. But that's the point I'm making. Because this is planned commercial, you're not going to be able to just move it around with an administrative approval.

But we'll come back in front of them when we have a site plan.

But do you see what I mean? Like changing around the configuration of the access to that approved plan, even though that's an approved site plan, they're looking at access to it. And so I don't think you're gonna be able to, that we would be able to administratively approve that

kind of change but we're coming in front of the planning commission for site for site approval for lots two through five if that's if that's what it's a single user we're coming at that time they can act on that and as part of the recommendation would be we have to record before the building permit the change in the access yeah and i and i i understand what you're saying about wanting it's not a reflexibility but what i think is could happen is that you get to the point where you do that and all of a sudden it's it is more than you

think then a simple like administrative approval to release that easement. We're coming in front of the commission because it's planned. So it wouldn't be an administrative approval. But to move the easement, it would. And so then I just, I'm not seeing the difference in the two, but I'm not saying that you're wrong here. I have to replat.

If you put this on the plat, I've got to replat it. I think we can do it in front of this body. bringing the new site plan, and it's a condition of the building permit that we address the hotel's emergency access easement.

Okay. So, now, go ahead. Yeah. The proposed easement is in lieu of a public street, which is what code typically requires. And so this is a variation request. And one of the elements to that is it allows both the Planning Commission and staff and developers to understand what expectations are and what's allowed by code for administering landscaping and signage and things of that nature, which are more of a site development issue. So in this case, if we have the easement here, what we've done in other locations where we have public easements is that functions as a front yard, meaning you're going to have landscaping based on that frontage, you're going to have signage based on that frontage. Is that still your understanding or your expectation?

There's an existing easement on the north end already. What I'm saying is let's not do this, and when you get the plan, we'll figure out where the front yard is because you're going to go through all the same exercise when we have a development plan. But by plotting that, if I need to park over it, tell me you're not going to make me re-plot it.

You wouldn't – so, okay, if you kept it as an easement and it ran directly straight across from riffle and it just – you wanted to put parking on the south side of it and somehow you're gonna get some driveways down to the hotel. That's what I'm seeing, you're talking about the potential for reconfiguring. And I get what you're saying. What I'm looking at is I think that there is going to be a lot of complications in actually moving that because the plat's approved based on having that access right there and there's, you make a bunch of findings to approve the plat, to approve the variation, of in lieu of having a street though all those findings are based on this internal drive being right there and so i think there's a problem where if you were to move it in the future you kind of unwind the findings that the approval here is based on doing this yes if we if we're saying that we're going to allow through the variation the easement to satisfy the public access to these lots which i think his staff has supported the idea of allowing the easement to to satisfy the public access yeah that they don't have to def like not having a public street is like that it still seems to make sense which is why i say we're in support of the variation We just think that having it dedicated as a separate tract is better, kind of like the entrances on 9 South. Now, you know, it's like, you know how they're carved out like that separately.

Well, the applicant would, the applicant is not interested in dedicating that. I mean, we will dedicate it through Eastman, but I do not understand. I, frankly, I just differ. I understand why you want to put it on the plat, but you will, it will trigger a replat. 50-50, it triggers a replat, which is substantially different than coming to these folks with a site plan and saying, okay, we need to move this, and as a condition, you have to provide us a new perpetual emergency easement plat to the hotel based on this site. If they choose the new site plan as approvable, why is that complicated?

I would have to run this down, but I don't think they can move, I don't think you can move easements as part of the site development plan approval though. Okay. You can't, that's part of the issue there. So it would be a separate action. It's not to say you could never move the easement, but it wouldn't be part of, say lots two through five, you get one big, what do you call it, small box? Yeah, junior box. Something like that, if you get something in there. bringing the site development plan wouldn't be the correct application to move easements on that. You know what I'm saying? So there would still be a separate piece. So I gotta re-plat to do business and sign reports. Well, I don't know that you have to re-plat, but because it's planned commercial, what I'm saying is I would have to look at the code to actually know exactly what the process is gonna be on that.

That's the, can we meet, can we meet, can we meet? Do we need to...

I'll just sum it up real fast here. Being an access easement is not, doesn't prohibit approval of the plat, if it's whatever, planning commission is comfortable with here. So I don't want us to have to go back and forth either on this anymore. I understand where Jeff's coming from and I see the flexibility for it. And so it's really at your discretion to decide which way to go on that.

Well, as a commissioner, and I don't want to overstep our chairperson's bounds here but for me I as long as there's an easement there that satisfies the ability to get to the detention pond get to the other part of the like for the hotel fire emergency stuff I don't care if it's 19 feet one way or the other I you know so if it stays in the easement that's okay with me I and I also understand from your standpoint the need to make things finite so anyway I'm sorry

would agree with what Pat said yeah I hate I hate to hold this up for yeah I apologize I know we've been here I'd agree with that I think we need to move on get something done all right any other questions of the applicant

Are you okay with everything else on the list, Jeff?

Yeah, I had the one question. But, yeah, we're fine with looping the water. There was a question of that coming out of the DRT. But, I mean, yes, I think we can sort it out. And, obviously, the hotel operator and the developer need to have some conversation, continued conversation, before they apply for the building permit.

All right. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you all. Appreciate your time. All right, commissioners, I open it up for further discussion or a motion.

Well, I'll throw it out there. And, again, no deference to staff's finding or their thoughts on dedicating that track, but I would make a motion to approve PP26-001 with the findings, the four findings and the 12 findings, and with the exclusion of number eight.

Was that the one for the... Actually, it would be seven and eight both. Seven being putting it as a separate tract and eight would be recording a reciprocal easement agreement or maintenance agreement. And I would say that the number eight, would probably be appropriate, whether it's an easement or not, because that is- Sure.

That's maintaining the- That's helpful.

The applicant's fine with the- Number seven, right, Jeff?

The dedication of the- Okay, yeah. So with the exception of number seven, that would be my motion.

I'd second that.

We've been motioned and seconded with the recommendations as listed in the report except for number seven on page 21 of our packet. Dustin, did I get that correct, that motion? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, thank you.

For the record, I can confirm that there's nobody from the public on Zoom.

Oh, sorry, Gage.

No, you're good. And I believe everyone else is affiliated with one of the items or staff.

Okay, thank you, Gage. Okay, we'll move into the next application, FPDD 26-001.

yes good afternoon madam chair and commissioners the next item on the agenda is a final development plan review for the srh advisors which is in the wilbur edition if you remember earlier this year a new preliminary pdd was approved by the planning commission and then also the city commission back in april and now the applicant who is charles ren's representing SRH Advisors has brought forward a final development plan for your review. The property is a vacant tract of, well, several tracts actually, that consist of 1.62 acres at the northwest corner of Crawford Place and Crawford Street. Looking at the surrounding area and the context, this subject property serves as a transition area to the north. The property is abutted by single family homes that are zoned R1. To the east and to the south across Crawford Street, we see higher density residential uses that are zoned R3, including a senior living and apartment complexes. Directly to the west sits the Brook Ridge Commercial Strip Center, which shares the Wilbur PDD zoning designation. To provide you some history with the background, The Wilbur PDD was initially established in 1983. The specific parcels in question have remained vacant since that time. And again, recently in April of this year, the City Commission approved an amended preliminary development plan for the site. And that approval formally granted four specific variations from the standard zoning regulations to address unique constraints on the property. which have been incorporated into the final plan that is before you today. And those are the front yard setback area being the area between the building and the adjacent street. The location of the landscape buffer to the north and the fencing screening to the east and then the number of signs. The preliminary PDD allows three ground signs or excuse me, three signs while the underlying Wilbur PDD typically only allows for two. Getting into the nature of the request, the final development plan details the comprehensive build out of the 1.62 acres. The primary structure is a 6,750 square foot office building with a potential of a covered car parking structure of 2,200 square feet. And the site improvements also encompass nearly 16,000 square feet of newly paved parking and over 3,000 square feet of pedestrian walkways and sidewalks on the site. Looking at the zoning ordinance requirements, the proposed plan meets all of the zoning requirements and has a height of 20 feet. Looking at the site development information, a breakdown of the site's development footprint shows that more than 60% of the total land area will be permeable green space. The new paving accounts for roughly 22% of the lot, while the primary building footprint occupies less than 10% of the total available land area for the property. Building orientation, the primary structure is oriented with significant setbacks from both the adjacent rights away sitting roughly 78 feet from Crawford place to the West and over 125 feet North of Crawford streets to the South. And the building will stand, as I mentioned, 20 feet tall to minimize visual impacts from the street network. All of the mechanical utility equipment and trash receptacles are strategically located on the north side of the building and are screened. Looking at the building design, architect design utilizes a mixture of modern materials. The exterior facade will feature a combination of smooth blonde limestone. charcoal and blonde brick and architectural metal panels and with charcoal and gray tones these core materials are accented by wood composite cladding and black aluminum aluminum window systems featuring high efficiency clear gloss Next slide gauge we do have some renderings of what that that looks like as it being proposed by the architect. This is looking North as if you're standing on Crawford Street. So this would be the South elevation again an elevation from the South facing from Crawford Street. And then we have if you're looking at the the proposed building from Crawford place which would be to the West. And then another elevation here. And this is kind of an aerial sort of oblique perspective of the building looking from the northwest corner of the property. Looking at off street parking, our zoning regulations dictate a specific parking range for professional offices to prevent over paving. Based on the active workspace, the site is required to have a minimum of 21 off street parking spaces and is capped with a maximum of 27 off street parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 26, which is within the range that is allowed. And of those 26 spaces, two of them would be ADA handicap accessible, and those would be located in the south lot. So the south lot, which is south of the building, has 19 spaces, and the north lot is going to have seven spaces. And in the plan, you see the kind of the dashed area around the north parking spaces. That is where a future covered parking structure would be located, and that's part of this plan. So this is... That particular parking structure isn't necessarily going to be built right away, but the applicant wanted to Put it on their plan so that it was approved and they could build it with a building permit down the line as a future addition Looking at traffic and access the site access and traffic flow the property benefits from over 200 feet of frontage on both East Crawford Street interior right away and crawford place which is a private local street to ensure traffic movement and movements and limit curb cuts on the arterial road all vehicular access to the parking lot will be directed through a single 26 wide foot wide entrance drive located off of crawford place so there will be no access off of crawford street directly Looking at public utilities and drainage, the site is fully equipped to tie into the existing public infrastructure, adequate water and sanitary lines currently run adjacent to the property in the streets and in easements. Stormwater runoff will be managed by a nearby 18-inch and 24-inch storm sewer network, and the site layout respects the existing 10-foot public utility easement on the north property line and a 7-foot private easement to the west as well. And you can see that sanitary sewer line in green in that 10-foot easement to the north, and then the blue lines in Crawford Place and Crawford Street represent the public water lines. Looking at landscaping, buffering, and screening, the applicant is providing landscaping that exceeds the baseline requirement with over 18,000 square feet of front-air landscaping area. The final plan accurately reflects the landscaping variations you previously approved with the preliminary PDD. This includes shifting the northern landscape buffer to avoid utility conflicts and that 10-foot utility easement along the north property line, waiving the fence and shrub requirements along the eastern border, and utilizing the entire front yard area between the building and adjacent streets for landscaping calculation purposes. For signage, this particular location adheres to the C2 district regulations, which limit the total sign area to 181 square feet of signage. There was a variation that was approved by the board to allow up to three signs. At the moment, only one wall sign is being proposed, and that wall sign is a four foot by nine and a quarter foot. foot wall sign which which equates to 37 square feet so a single wall sign on the front of the building facing Crawford Street So in summary, staff has conducted a thorough technical review and determined that the submitted final development plan is in substantial conformance with the amended preliminary plan that you approved earlier this year. And the layout successfully integrates the C2 base standards alongside the specific variations that were adopted in ordinance 26-11283, which is the preliminary plan. development plan that you approved. Planning Commission alternatives. The Planning Commission has the four standard procedural alternatives. You may approve the final development plan exactly as it is submitted, approve it with specific revisions or conditions, postpone the item to a future date for further information, or deny the plan while stating the specific reasons and findings for the denial for the record. Staff's recommendation, staff recommends approval of the final development plan for the SRH advisor's professional office building on this lot as it substantially complies with the approved preliminary development plan and the conditions adopted in ordinance number 26-11283. do have a few conditions of approval that we have in your staff report number one is that all landscaping sidewalk circulation parking fencing and other improvements shown on the final development plan with the exception of the alternative future covered parking structure north of the building shall be completed prior to occupancy of the srh advisor's office building and shall be the responsibility of applicants so that would be the first condition The second condition would be that the project shall be completed in substantial conformance with the approved final development plan, landscape plan, and associated building elevation drawing, which are hereby incorporated by reference. And finally, condition number three, that a building permit for the project shall be obtained within 18 months of a final development plan approval. With that, staff will take any questions you might have for us.

Okay, thank you, Destin. Are there any questions of staff? If none, does the applicant wish to share any further information?

No? Only if you need.

Okay. Is there any questions of the applicant?

All right.

Gage, is there anyone on?

We have nobody from the public on Zoom, and anybody in the room is staff or affiliated with the case.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, I open it up for discussion or a motion.

Well, I'd move we approve application FPDD 26-001 as outlined. With the staff recommendations. Right. With all those staff recommendations. I'd second that motion.

It's been moved and seconded to approve this application with the staff recommendations on page 89 of our packet. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Mm-hmm. All right, staff, is there any other administrative items or unfinished business?

Do not have any unfinished business or other administrative items, and our next regularly scheduled meeting will be June 16th, and we do have one item on the agenda for that one.

Okay, and Gage, one more time, is there anyone online?

There is nobody from the public on Zoom and no one from the public in the room, yeah.

All right. I'd open it up for a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Second. Been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, commissioners.