Planning Commission

COOKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 21, 2007 The Cookeville Planning Commission met on Monday, May 21, 2007 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 45 E. Broad Street, Cookeville, Tennessee. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Jennings, Dr. Roy Loutzenheiser, Nina Lunn, Don Prince, Dr. Angelo Volpe, Chris Wakefield, Ryan Williams, and Tod Williams. MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Stafne. STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Shipley, James Mills, and Jayne Barns. OTHERS PRESENT: See attached Record of Attendance. CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. Don Prince made the motion to approve the agenda as submitted. Dr. Roy Loutzenheiser seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVED. CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL THE MINUTES OF APRIL 23, 2007. Don Prince made the motion to approve the minutes of April 23, 2007. Dr. Angelo Volpe seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVED. CONSIDER FOR ACTION AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 208, LANDSCAPING, SCREENING AND BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENTS. REQUEST SUBMITTED BY STAFF. (THIS ITEM WAS POSTPONED AT LAST MONTH’S MEETING.) James Mills stated that the screening and buffer yard requirements are primarily intended as a method of lessening the impact of non-residential uses on residential uses when such uses are developed adjacent to each other. The requirements for screening and buffer yards between different types of development are provided in Section 208.6, Screening and Buffer Yard Requirements, of the Cookeville Zoning Code. It has been brought to the attention of the Planning Department that revisions to portions of these requirements should be considered. Of particular concern is whether the current requirements provide adequate protection for residential properties adjacent to new non-residential developments. The issues with the current provisions and suggested amendments to address them are as follows: Issue 1: The type of screen and buffer yard that a development is required to install is based upon the classification of use. Commercial uses are presently classified as moderate impact uses requiring the installation of a Type 2 Screen and Buffer Yard when adjacent to single family properties. There currently is no distinction in screening type for the scale of commercial development. A small office building has to provide the same type screen as a big box retail development. It is questionable whether a Type 2 Screen and Buffer Yard provide the level of protection necessary when a large scale commercial development is adjacent to residential properties. COOKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION 2 MAY 21, 2007 Potential Amendment: Section 208.6B Impact Classification • Insertion of provision specifying that any non-residential development consisting of 5,000 square feet or more and/or involving 1 acre or more shall be classified as a high impact use (high impact use requires Type 3 Screen and Buffer Yard when adjacent to a residential property) • Insertion of provision specifying that all parking lots, including expansions of existing lots, of 50 or more spaces shall be classified as a high impact use Issue 2: As the Code is currently written, the Building Official has the authority to require a greater height in the screen only when a Type 3 Screen is required. Each proposed development is unique with many variables such as topography, existing vegetation, and scale of construction, and the Building Official needs the authority to alter the screening and buffer yard requirements if necessary to better protect adjoining properties. Potential Amendment: Section 208.6D Description of Screens and Buffer Yards by Type • Insertion of the following wording under Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 Screen/Buffer Yards: “The adequacy of the required screening shall be determined from the elevation of the adjacent residential property or property of a lower classification. A greater height, more opaque screening, or wider buffer yard may be required by the Building Official if it is determined that, due topographic reasons or scale of development, the screening will not adequately block visual contact or create the impression of separation between uses.” Issue 3: The Building Official has received requests (from both property owners required to install the screen and from property owners intended to be protected by the screen) that the buffer yard be waived and the required screening be located on shared property lines. To alter this requirement currently requires the approval of a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Potential Amendment: Section 208.6F Modification of Screening and Buffer Yard Requirements • Insertion of a 208.6F (3) to read as follows: “With the written and notarized approval of the owner of the adjacent residential property or property of a lower classification, the Building Official may approve a reduction of the buffer yard to within 1 foot of the shared property line when a Type 3 Screen is installed. This shall not serve to reduce any required building setbacks.” Staff recommended approval of the amendments. Don Prince made the motion to approve the amendments to the Landscaping, Screening and Buffer Yard Requirements. Nina Lunn seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVED. COOKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION 3 MAY 21, 2007 CONSIDER FOR ACTION ANNEXATION OF BUNKERHILL ROAD – LOVELADY ROAD AREA. REQUEST SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS PROPERTY OWNERS. James Mills stated that the Planning Department has completed a feasibility study on the annexation of approximately 564 acres of property located south of the current corporate limits along Bunker Hill and Lovelady Roads. The study was initiated following the receipt of a petition and individual requests for annexation from property owners in the area. The area proposed for annexation is located entirely within the City of Cookeville Urban Growth Boundary. It includes the South Creek and Southern Woods Subdivisions. Property owners in the proposed annexation area have been notified by mail and provided an information package on the proposed annexation. A Plan of Services for the proposed annexation area has also been prepared. It should be reviewed on a point by point basis. A written report from the Planning Commission to the City Council regarding the Plan of Services is required. The study area consists of 125 parcels in their entirety and the portions of two (2) others. Located on 101 of these 127 parcels are 106 residential housing units, of which 105 are occupied. The estimated population of the area is 230 persons. There are approximately 3.05 miles of streets in the area, most of which are in good condition with an asphalt surface. At the present time, the proposed annexation area can be generally characterized as low density residential. It has been identified in the Cookeville Future Land Use Plan as an area primarily best suited for low density residential development. The area has a limited amount of undeveloped land located primarily between Lovelady Road and State Highway 111. Topographically the area can be described as level to gently rolling. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified 100-year floodplains along Hudgens and Pigeon Roost Creeks. These floodplains occupy approximately 104 acres of property. Water service to the entire proposed annexation area is currently provided by the City of Cookeville. Natural gas is currently not available to the area, however; it is within the service boundary of the Cookeville Gas Department. Electric service is currently provided by the Upper Cumberland Electric Membership Cooperative and the service area will have to be purchased by the City of Cookeville. The area is located primarily within the 5 mile fire service boundaries of the city’s existing fire stations located on Gould and England Drives. A small portion of the area, located along the western end of Bunker Hill Road, is located outside the 5 mile service boundary. Residents of the area proposed for annexation would receive numerous benefits as a result of annexation. These include improved police and fire protection, reduction of ISO fire insurance rating from Class 9 to Class 2 which can result in a savings on homeowners insurance of up to 20 percent, reduction of water rate by over 30 percent, zoning protection, street lighting, and weekly garbage pick up. Upon the provision of natural gas, customer would received the inside city rate, which is 25 percent less than the outside city rate. Once the area is acquired from UCEMC residents electric rates will be reduced by over 10 percent. COOKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION 4 MAY 21, 2007 Property owners would be required to pay city property tax. The current city property tax rate is $0.79 per $100 of assessed value. Based on current tax appraisals the average annual city property tax for a homeowner in the area would $151.26. Should this area be annexed in 2007, property owners would not be required to pay city property tax until 2008. The estimated cost for the provision of all services to the proposed annexation area is $2.8 million of which the provision of sewer service is $2 million. The provision of sewer to the annexation area is depicted on the Master Sewer Plan of the Department of Water Quality Controls. The estimated annual revenue to the city from property and state shared taxes is $41,500. Staff recommended approval of Plan of Services and approval of annexation with recommendation to City Council for RS-20, Single Family Residential Zoning Carolyn Ward, 5007 Lovelady Road, stated that they had a business and they did not see any benefits to being inside the city limits. Brenda Wallace, 4554 South Creek Drive, shared her concerns for the elderly in their neighborhood who were on a fixed income and couldn’t afford to pay more taxes. Ms. Wallace also had concerns about curfews, and animals running loose. Lisa Waters, 4436 South Creek Road, complained about the city sewer plant and the smell that their neighborhood gets from that facility, the tap water not tasting good, kids out until 1:00 a.m. in the morning, crime, not being able to walk in the neighborhood due to the dogs running loose, junk and trash and overgrown lots with snakes. There was a discussion by the Board on the ways that the City could help the neighborhood with some of their enforcement concerns. Jim Shipley added that the City has codes that regulate overgrown lots. The code states that if lots or yards are not mowed and it is over 12” in height, then the City will mow their property and put a lien on the property owner’s taxes. Don Prince made the motion to approve the Annexation, Plan of Services, and RS-20 Single Family Residential Zoning. Dr. Roy Loutzenheiser seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVED ANNEXATION, PLAN OF SERVICES AND RS-20 ZONING. CONSIDER FOR ACTION REZONING 805 NORTH WHITNEY AVENUE FROM UNV (UNIVERSITY) TO CL (LOCAL COMMERCIAL). REQUEST SUBMITTED BY JUDY NGUYEN. James Mills stated that Ms. Judy Nguyen has submitted a request that her property located at 805 North Whitney Avenue be rezoned from UNV, University to CL, Local Commercial. The property is identified as Parcel 6 on Tax Map 40O, Group B. The property owner indicates in the petition that the purpose of the rezoning is to increase the permitted density for multi-family residential use. COOKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION 5 MAY 21, 2007 The property proposed for rezoning is contiguous with UNV zoning to the north, south and east and with CL zoning to the west. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement in the UNV district is 5,000 square feet and in the CL district it is 3,000 square feet. A submitted preliminary site plan indicates that the subject consists of approximately .4 acre or 17,467 square feet. Based on this square footage, under the current zoning three (3) multi-family units could be located on the property and under the proposed zoning five (5) multi-family units would be possible. The CL zoning to the west of the subject property consists of a corridor along North Willow Avenue that extends at no point any further east than North Whitney Avenue. While not technically a spot zone, this proposed rezoning does have many of the characteristics of one. Rezoning this individual property as CL would classify it differently than all other properties east of North Whitney Avenue in the immediate vicinity. It would also establish a precedent for future rezoning and further erosion of the UNV district. Staff recommended denial of the request. Jerry Bradford, 811 North Whitney Avenue, lives adjacent to the rezoning request and he was opposed to adding more apartments to the area. He is already surrounded by rent houses and apartments. Don Prince made the motion to deny the rezoning request. Judy Jennings seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. DENIED. CONSIDER FOR ACTION REZONING 2160 DENTON AVENUE FROM RM8 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO RM14 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). REQUEST SUBMITTED BY CHARLIE SOARD. James Mills stated that Mr. Charlie Soard has submitted a request that his property located at 2160 Denton Avenue be rezoned from RM-8, Multi-Family Residential to RM-14, Multi-Family Residential. The property is identified as Parcel 24 on Map 40C, Group F and consists of approximately 4.5 acres. The subject property is contiguous with CL zoning to the west, with CL and CI zoning to the north, with LM zoning to the east, and with RS-10 zoning to the south. The petitioner indicates that the purpose of the rezoning is to increase the permitted density for multi- family residential use. A 35 unit multi-family residential development is located on the property. Under the current RM-8 zoning, which requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit, a total of 39 dwelling units can be located on the property. Under the proposed RM-14 zoning, which requires a minimum of 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit, a total 65 dwelling units could be located on the property. In December of 2005 the Planning Commission considered a request from Mr. Soard to rezone the subject property from RS-10 to RM-14. The Planning Commission recommended rezoning to the lesser density zoning of RM-8 and the rezoning to RM-8 was adopted by the City Council in early 2006. A primary concern for not rezoning to the higher density RM-14 zoning was the traffic impact on the local streets accessing the property and the affect on the existing single family residential area to the south. The COOKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION 6 MAY 21, 2007 Planning Department is unaware of any changes from the 2005 request that would alleviate these concerns. It should be noted, according to the 2006 site plan approved for the multi-family complex, that several of the recently constructed apartment units have rear setbacks of 20 feet. These units would violate the rear setback requirement of 30 feet in the RM-14 zone if the property is rezoned. Staff recommended denial of the request. James Mills reported that he received a call from the Cookeville First Assembly of God who owns property across the street from this request and that they were opposed to the rezoning request. Don Prince made the motion to deny the rezoning request. Nina Lunn seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. DENIED. STAFF REPORTS: (1) MINOR PLAT APPROVALS: • THE MEADOWS AMENDED PLAT LOT #28 – 1 LOT LOCATED ON WHITE ROAD – DARYL AND DARLENE UTHUS. • SAM’S CLUB DIVISION PHASE IV – 2 LOTS LOCATED ON SAM’S STREET – RAZORBACK. • WINDSOR HILLS DIVISION OF LOT #21 – 2 LOTS LOCATED ON NOTTINGHAM DRIVE – ANDY MILTON. ADJOURNMENT: 6:20 P.M. SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL SUBMITTED FOR RECORDING ____________________________ _____________________________________ JAYNE BARNS CPS TOD WILLIAMS, ACTING CHAIRMAN PLANNING ASSISTANT COOKEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION