Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-21 OF C4\ / *'n ''PaY �` • City or Cawe Carmel Plan Commission COMMERCIAL COMMITTEE Tuesday, June 1, 2021 Meeting Agenda Location: Cannel City Hall Council Chambers,2nd Floor, 1 Civic Square,Cannel,IN 46032 Members Present: Alan Potasnik(Committee Chairman),Nick Kestner,Kevin Rider,&Jeff Hill. Staff Present: Rachel Keesling(Planning Administrator),Mike Hollibaugh(DOCS Director),Adrienne Keeling(Planning Administrator),&Nathan Chavez(Recording Secretary) Legal Counsel: Paul Reis Time of Meeting: 6:00 PM The Commercial Committee meet to review the following items: 17 WITHDRAWN-Docket No.PZ-2021-00071 ADLS Amend: House of Martial Arts—Mural/Public Art. 2. Docket No.PZ-2021-00104 ADLS Amend: Dunkin Donuts—Exterior Remodel. The applicant seeks design approval to modify the exterior building color and signage.The site is located at 1305 South Rangeline Road.It is zoned B-8/Business District and is within the Rangeline Road Overlay District. Filed by Ryan Dirksen of ECA Architects on behalf of Raj Patel of The Hari Group. Petitioner: Ryan Dirksen(ECA Architects): • We are going through an exterior update to match the current Dunkin' branding design and color scheme. • There are minimal amounts of alterations.Mostly changing the paint colors and updating the signage. • We are proposing removing the existing sconces and awnings,leveling off the tower elements,and painting the EIFS banding a light grey on 2.5 sides and an off-white on 1.5 sides. • The Dunkin' orange will be used on the drive-thru canopy,as well as a small metal accent beam that runs from the drive-thru to the front elevation which will transition into an entry canopy that sticks out 12"from the existing fascia. • Signage is updated to a cleaner look. • We have repainted the towers a dark grey charcoal,as well as a coping and cornice to match. • The light gray on the EIFS is also used for the brick pilasters. • The existing unpainted brick is going to remain unpainted. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • They want to update the façade by taking off the awnings and sconces and moving of the signage over to the main fascia,so it is more visible, • We worked with the petitioner to let them know that it is important to the City that all the brick are not painted.What is proposed is already painted. The main tower and cornice line will be painted a dark color. A light color is then proposed behind the sign to help it pop. We went through a few different versions and the Department of Community Services(Staff)really likes the current proposal. There is minimal orange accents and the main Dunkin' sign is proposed. • This building burned down at one point and was rebuilt. • Staff is in support of the petition. Commercial Committee Minutes 06-01-21 1 Committee Comments: Jeff Hill: • The revised signage is in compliance with the Sign Standards?Rachel Keesling: Yes. The Spandrel Panel is identified,and the sign is in compliance. Kevin motions to approve Docket PZ-2021-00048 DP/ADLS,Jeff seconds,motion passes 4-0. 3. Docket No.PZ-2021-00048 DP/ADLS: Napleton Auxiliary Lot and Detail Center. The applicant seeks site plan and design approval for a new auxiliary parking lot and detail and service center. The site is located at 4538 E.96th Street(north of the Napleton Hyundai dealership).It is zoned B-3/Business District. Filed by Jon Dobosiewicz and Rick Lawrence of Nelson&Frankenberger on behalf of EFN Crossroads Property, LLC. Petitioners: Jon Dobosiewicz(Nelson&Frankenberger),Rick Lawrence(Nelson&Frankenberger),Bill Butz (Kimley-Horn),Rick Randstad(Napleton), Stephanie Day(Napleton),&Fredrick Dryer(Napleton): Jon Dobosiewicz: • Handouts were passed out(Titled Handouts from COM 06-01-21). • There was a comment regarding our easement area to the far north and east. This is a dry detention area.For maintenance it will all come off the lot. However,the plans have identified a 25-ft easement off that area to extend it to the 50-ft.tree preservation area. The plan has been revised so that the easement has been removed and out of the tree preservation area.There is no future threat to the 50-ft.tree preservation area. • A dumpster enclosure was added to southeast corner of north building.The doors face south on that. It was previously on another location where the doors faced out towards Randall Dr. Staff asked that we modify this and we did. • Along Randall Dr.,north of the entrance,a sidewalk is proposed.There is no sidewalk there now and just street trees. The sidewalk will either be placed on the forward side between the curb and the trees or the backside.My understanding is that Staff is learning toward opposite side of trees. • To the south of entrance is a sidewalk along the parking. Staff suggested that we take a route that would be different and that we identify a connection and build when the future use is implemented on the site.It would come across the forward half of the southern building. The petitioner is agreeable to that. • We met with a group of residents out at the Williamson Run Subdivision clubhouse to address the comments that they have provided to the Plan Commission(Commission). The project engineer put an exhibit(page 16 of document titled Handouts from COM 06-01-21)together to show the existing grades in the area. The subject site is between 742-741.6,about half a foot difference for parking lot. To the north the closest houses have grades at 744-746. They sit higher by a couple feet at least.Most of these homes have walk up steps meaning they are even higher. There was some concern that our property would be looking down on them. • Page 17 of the Handouts is the landscaping plan. The easement area has not been adjusted.24 additional evergreen trees will be planted. When the original Napleton dealership came in,it was a Hyundai,that petitioner agreed to a 50-ft.buffer and instead of typical landscaping they would preserve all the trees in that 50-ft. space,which is about 10 times the number of plantings that would otherwise have been preserved.You have 10 times the number of trees plus a 50-ft. space wrapped in.The neighbors asked if we could do more and review further.Napleton proposed to install 24 additional evergreen trees,every 8-ft. The neighbor asked for a fence,we didn't think aesthetically that was appropriate and there were some safety considerations. In Napleton's opinion this will be a superior buffering of the future.They will grow taller than a 6-ft.fence would. • Likewise, in place of the sidewalk in the bottom southeast corner,those same plantings will be done on the face of the future building.The landscape plan will be amended to identify those. • Page 18 is the planting schedule and identifies the additional evergreens. • Page 1 of the Handouts shows the sidewalk to the north,where the property line is,and the 50-ft.buffer. • Page 2 shows the narrow space between the road and proposed parking.It will probably 6-7 feet. That is where we are trying to thread the needle with the sidewalk.If it sits on the frontside vs the backside there is not an equal amount of space of either side.We will continue to work with Staff to determine the best location for it. • Page 3 is a rendering of the building if you are driving north on Randall Dr. One of the adjustments is to the Commercial Committee Minutes 06-01-21 2 sign font/style.My understanding is the signage was adjusted to match up with the lettering on the primary dealership that is along 96th St.Page 6 shows the modified sign. • Page 4 shows elevations of the building.One of the modifications is that it was painted white.To give you an idea,Napleton went out and took photos of various buildings in the area(page 5)that have used concrete panel building material.This site is a little bit different.It is zoned B-3Business and not in an Overlay Zone with specific architectural standards. It still requires ADLS approval by the Commission,but it is really up to the petitioner for the building material and design. • Page 8 is the lighting plan.The thing that is different, is that the 5 poles are only 15-ft. in height rather than 22-ft.Additionally,you can see the spread of that light,how it throws forward. LED is utilized and there is a full cutoff or glare issue because the lights are cast downward and alight shield. • There was a request from the neighbors to have all access come through the site via Randall Dr. instead of off the Street Frontage. They mentioned a hairpin turn and safety concern at the intersection. The project engineer made an auto exhibit for a delivery vehicle on the site(page 12)to make sure everything worked from a geometry standpoint and it does. However, Staff did ask us to make sure there was a wide enough space. Staff did ask us to make sure there is enough space in the drive aisle for a fire truck when there is also a delivery truck parked as well. It will not hinder an emergency vehicle. • The neighbors also asked for an exhibit which shows a cross section visual exhibit(page 20).It is 260-ft. from our property line to the closest building and then depending on which home,another 100-ft.to 400-ft. to the closest house. • Staff identified 5 additional considerations in the Department Report. o The dumpster location has been revised. o Engineering Department and Hamilton Country Surveyor's Office approval is forthcoming and will continue to work with them. o There was previously conflict between the light poles and sidewalks on the southeast portion of the site.This will be eliminated with the relocation of the sidewalk and installation of landscaping along the frontage. There was also conflict with the sidewalk and building. This was addressed previously. o Bike racks are in the top right hand and bottom right-hand corners of the subject and future building. Department Report: Rachel Keesling: • A lot of updates and changes to the site plan have been received today. We are moving in the right direction with this. • I want to further work on the sidewalk along Randall Dr.to make sure it impacts the trees as little as possible.They do provide shade and character. • Staff wants to keep working on the sidewalk conflict in the southeast corner of the site.I am glad to hear the petitioner is able to make the change and relocate the proposed sidewalk location. • Bicycle parking on the north side of the building will need a sidewalk to it,to make it usable. • Staff wants to review the changes in northwest corner where the dry pond is.Is the removal of the access easement acceptable to the Engineering Department?Realistic to where access is able to transpire. I am happy that was removed,but more time is needed to talk through that to review thoroughly. • Additional space on west side of the building was added for the transport truck.It was 24-ft.and is now 34- ft. That significantly helps to ensure that a fire truck pass may pass. The petitioner knows about the concerns from the neighbors and City regarding the transport vehicles parking on Randall Dr. That is a problem and needs to be moved onto the site. There is enough room to resolve this now. • With the painting of the building to white,that will look good instead of plain concrete walls. It will match other buildings in the area. There are no architectural standards in the area. Staff pushes petitioners to produce the best product possible. • Staff recommends this item be continued at the Tuesday July 6,2021 Commercial Committee(Committee) meeting. Committee Comments: Nick Kestner: • The main entrance to the building in on the south?Jon Dobosiewicz: The main entrance is on the east elevation. This is not a public building so the only folks entering and exiting are employees.Nick Kestner: Commercial Committee Minutes 06-01-21 3 If it is used for something else,then we will need public access.Jon Dobosiewicz: It is difficult to see,but there is a sidewalk that comes across. There is a walk which crosses over as a possible connection.Nick Kestner: It doesn't show that going across.Jon Dobosiewicz: We will show that. • Move bike parking to the southeastern corner of the building. Jeff Hill: • The intent is to detail vehicles and if it isn't a public entrance now, I am curious what the entrance would look like if it does change hands or something else someday. • I think we need to reconsider doing something a little stronger architecturally. The petitioner has shown a number of exhibits of various buildings in the area with an emphasis on the back of the buildings.If it becomes something else, it would be nice to have an improved architectural feel. The front of the Napleton building is a great example of different window treatments: glass block and frosted windows.I'm not saying you have to do it all,but it would be nice if it didn't look like four sides of the back of the building. • The sidewalk you showed on the drawing, is that deferred or future?Jon Dobosiewicz: The temporary situation would be that the crosswalk is still installed,however,you would walk on the back of the asphalt over to the crosswalk. It is employee access and that would be until the future building is constructed.They don't want to pave in a sidewalk and then have to tear it out in a few months.They preferably would want to extend the asphalt on the backside of the parking spaces or just walk across the backside of the parking spaces for the employees to get to the space instead of installing the 5-ft.walk which will be teared out later. Jeff Hill: Does it make sense for whatever reason the front building isn't constructed within 5 years or 1 year... Jon Dobosiewicz: If it is not constructed within 5 years,we agree to construct the 5-ft. sidewalk. • You mentioned earlier,the conflict we spoke about with the tree preservation and pond easement has been dealt with,but can you describe how it will be dealt with?Is the pond smaller and deeper or something different?Jon Dobosiewicz: The easement has been reduced from 25-ft.down to 10-ft. That is a comment from the Engineering Department.It has also been shifted slightly south to accommodate that 10-ft.It is a modest change to the pond configuration.It is a dry pond,and you can drive in off the parking lot into the grass area. It is not like we are maintaining a wet pond.Bill Butz: The easiest way to get into the pond is directly east of the pond,via the drive aisle.Any maintenance vehicle would just come right through to mow it. There are no chemicals to treat it or having to chase birds away. There is just going to be a moving crew. • Can you walk me through all the parking?I see a sea of parking. Is it to supplement the other dealership? Jon Dobosiewicz: If you drive down Bauer Dr.today you will see parking devoted just to those other dealerships. This one will also be devoted to the Napleton dealerships in this space. These double stacked spaces are for the 20 different colors and options of the vehicle you are looking at the lot.Jeff Hill: When the two buildings are there and all the cars are present,will there be enough parking for the employees?Jon Dobosiewicz: Yes. The parking breakdown is provided throughout the handouts and will be updated. • The last exhibit you showed was the site line,has that been shared with the neighborhood.?Jon Dobosiewicz: Yes. We wanted to come to this meeting with that exhibit, so we have not forwarded it on to anybody.Jeff Hill: Is that a straight line look or does it take into account some of the elevations discussed? Jon Dobosiewicz: It does.There are adjustments based on grades. Kevin Rider: • When will cars stop being unloaded on Randall Dr.?I don't want cars unloaded on Randall Dr. They should be unloaded on their property. That is not a request. Can we agree to that?Rick Randstad: We can agree to that. • How are we going to add a sidewalk along Randall Dr.without killing those trees?Rachel Keesling: I have struggled with this as well because I want to preserve everything that is there.However,I know that a lot of it is not good trees,but undergrowth or invasive.Kevin Rider: That is between the good trees.Rachel Keesling: We have to carefully pull that stuff out and clean it up so that there is room right at the property line.Kevin Rider: Does the Urban Forester think there is room?Rachel Keesling: He does.He wants it as far to the west,as close to the property line if not straddling the property line if possible.Kevin Rider: If there is not room,I would rather not have the sidewalk and to keep the vegetation.We want sidewalks but I ride on a number of paths,and in Cannel we do a good job of grinding them down,but in communities around us it is upsetting on a bicycle.It is like going over speed bumps. • I was at the neighborhood meeting. The only thing that was unsettled was whether or not to load the cars off Commercial Committee Minutes 06-01-21 4 Randall Dr. I can't get involved in that.You can use public roads. • I don't see any of the other issues as a reason to bring this back to Committee a month from now. Is there really a reason to bring everyone back here?Rachel Keesling: Typically,when we get stuff back on the day off,we like to have time to review everything.Kevin Rider: We have time between now and Commission. Rachel Keesling: Yes we do. We also have number of comments on ProjectDox that have not been addressed by the other departments.Nobody has motioned for a favorable recommendation yet. I don't think it is there yet. Alan Potasnik: • With regards to the general use of the facility,cars are delivered and detailed here to be ready for sale. They are parked and then they are sent to a specific dealer?Or are they inventoried here?Rick Randstad: If there is an excess of inventory or a significant number of cars jammed into the parking lot. We may have 7 white identical Hyundai Sonata and we don't necessarily want them all sitting on the dealership parking lot,we want 2 or 3.There is a car shortage today so that isn't an issue currently. The rest go into this lot. There will be a car wash and photo booth. This gets secondary operations of the dealership off of the lot. Takes away from service area where Staff is present to just service the cars.Alan Potasnik: Rather than being just a detail center, it is also a detail center and new inventory. Rick Randstad: Absolutely,that is why there are 700 parking spots on the site. I can't imagine all 700 will be filled but it is setup that way in case there is an additional dealership in the south.In the future, if there is an additional dealership to the south then we will be back here.The northern portion will be storage after that transpires. • What effect does lowering the light poles to 15-ft. from 24-ft,have with regards to coverage?Bill Butz: It will drop coverage but not substantially. The light is still going where you want it.Jon Dobosiewicz: The LEDs do more to restrict lighting that the pole height.Jon Dobosiewicz: If it is dropped to that height then it will not make any affect with regards to safety?I assume that is why you have lights there.Jon Dobosiewicz: We are still zero footcandles at the north property line.It is lighting the parking field for security. It is more about the LED fixtures. They are shorter along this edge out of respect for the residential use to the north. • Does Staff feel comfortable with the proposed truck vehicle drop off and movement?Rachel Keesling: I do because they widened that portion of the path and there is a designated space. There is enough room in the main drive aisle. They can pull of there and I think this will work. They did lose parking to make this happen. • It sounds like there are at least issues that we need to go over and some will be address with Staff. We will just have to come back in July for Committee.Kevin Rider: Is there anybody here actually from Napleton? I want somebody who works there to attend the July Committee meeting. Docket No.PZ-2021-00048 DP/ADLS continued to the July 6,2021 Commercial Committee. 4. Docket No.PZ-2021-00062 OA: Gas Station Setback& Standards Amendment The applicant seeks to amend the Unified Development Ordinance in order to amend the standards for Automobile Service Stations and associated definitions. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Cannel Plan Commission. Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling(DOCS): • At Commission there were three general categories of discussion regarding the proposed amendment. To recap currently the Unified Development Ordinance(UDO)has an 80-ft. setback from residentially zoned or used properties.We are proposing to increase that standard to 500-ft. as well as adding a matching setback for vent pipes for underground storage tanks.The three categories are: • First, lighting regulations.We have proposed an amendment to that on page 3 of the Submitted Packet(Line 60-61)to be clearer. It would read"Under-canopy lighting shall use full cut-off,recessed luminaires with flat lenses to minimize glare and light trespass."This should cover concerns about the difference between flush mounted and recessed mounting under the canopies. Nick Kestner: Can you clarify that a little more? Adrienne Keesling: Full cut-off recessed with a flat lens,meaning that it needs to be recessed and a flat lens would keep the lens from curving down and creating glare. Full cut-off means that there would be no light emitted upward. It would all be oriented downward. • The second category of questions related to consideration of additional uses and clarifying how those uses Commercial Committee Minutes 06-01-21 5 would be affected, including schools,long term care facilities, such as nursing homes,retirement homes, and CCRC uses,grocery store gas stations,and non-retail dispensing of fuels. Schools specifically,each Cannel-Clay school building is within a residentially zoned building. They would all fall under the increased setback. Each of the continuing care uses are categorized as a residential use. In those instances, regardless of the zoning district,those would also be protected by the increased setback distance.Regardin grocery store gas stations there was a question as to whether the gas station would be an ancillary use. We believe that in the defmitions of Automobile Service Station and Automobile Filling Station,with the phrase "Any place of business..."we feel comfortable that those stations are places that we would consider new stations and would fall under the increased setback distances, if something like a station at Kroger and Meijer were proposed. There are some instances where gas pumps are used. Staff acknowledges that they exist for mostly fleet purposes such as school fueling or an auto dealership with gas on site. The charge of this proposal was for the retail installations and those presumably have the largest volumes of fuel to dispense. This ordinance does cover retail dispensing uses. • The third category of questions revolved around the structure or applicability of the UDO across the City. There were several questions regarding the various districts listed and again to recap the B-1/Business,B-2, B-3,B-6,B-8,&I1/Industrial zoning districts are the only districts where new gas stations are permitted.It was pointed out that there are gas stations in other districts. One at 146th St. and Gray Rd. That received Board of Zoning Appeals(BZA)approval.A second one is at Main St. and Guilford Rd.within the UC/Urban Core district,which would not permit a gas station today. However,when that was built the zoning was business.The UDO can only do so much.It regulates districts and Staff does not want to be put into a position where we are adding residential districts to this list which may cause confusion that gas stations are permitted uses in residential districts. Staff believes that this covers most of the scenarios where service stations could be proposed.Any other scenarios in the case of Use Variances or Planned Unit Developments(PUD),there are solutions during those public hearings to ensure those instances can be covered as well.If a proposal comes through the BZA that is fewer than 500-ft. from a residential district that is certainly something that the BZA can consider as a part of their approval or denial of the gas station. Regarding new PUDs,there are decision criteria in the processes for PUDs. Staff agrees that Commission and City Council(Council)definitely need to pay reasonable regard to the decision criteria in terms of setbacks. That can be included as part of the PUD approval process.I want to repeat that if we are proposin that these setbacks be automatically applied to a PUD,doing so would single out that 500-ft. setback as the only development standard that is a prerequisite for a PUD in the entire UDO.Kevin Rider: Are you pointing it out as a positive or a negative?Adriene Keeling: I am pointing it out because when the PUD districts were contemplated 5 or 6 years ago there was a lot of discussion about adding prerequisites and whether that is a density cap or open space minimums.It was discussed and adopted that the PUD ordinance was meant to be flexible,and Staff didn't want a blanket requirement because every site and context is different. The decision at the time was there would be no prerequisites other than that the applicant had to be the owner and there would be no development standards required. This would be the first if we required it. Committee Comments: Kevin Rider: • I agree with not having prerequisites in the PUDs because they are their own entity.But I also don't know if any of the prerequisites had to do with safety. This is a safety issue. I understand the logic and don't disagree with it,but Staff does this every day,I do it parttime,and the public doesn't do it at all. Sometimes we do things, if it causes no harm but puts comfort in people's world, sometimes we make decisions that way. If we did this City wide would it cause harm?I know you think it might confuse things but that's not harm.Adrienne Keeling: It would be a very different section or scenario based on the whole UDO format to add these extra districts.I am not sure what you mean by harm. It is just breaking with the format and every other use specific standard,which would cause confusion.Kevin Rider: Can we not just say,"This applies to our entire boundary."Do we have to list every zoning district?Paul Reis: Correct.What the current draft talks about is the districts where one would have a gas station. If I am in any other zoning district City wide,I would have to come in and either rezone the land or apply for a variance.You could state in the current ordinance, in addition to current districts,you could say,"Pr such other districts in which a parcel/the use has been granted by either variance or rezoning."When it is rezoned it is in the PUD. • I know our current BZA,and if they granted a Use Variance they would look at this as a safety issue and not Commercial Committee Minutes 06-01-21 6 grant it less than 500-ft. I am pretty comfortable with that. But I know them all now. I might not know them in 10 years.I want to give as much guidance to the future as possible. The BZA is the only place where you can circumvent this,because the BZA can circumvent anything. Correct?Paul Reis: If someone brings through a PUD,a standalone ordinance, it is in fact amending the UDO.As Adrienne said, if you put something in there, it is just consideration anyway.It can be stated in the zoning districts that would basically say,"It shall apply to any parcel in any zoning district,which this use is approved."That would open it up and say this applies to that.The issue is,even if it is inserted, it would cover the BZA and be in the Department Report. Somebody could come in and say,"We understand the 500-ft. We have a plan that shows 450-ft.Kevin Rider: I am going to vote no,but not everybody will.Paul Reis: The whole point of PUDs and why PUDs have become is because there are development standards that somebody can't live with.Kevin Rider: Development Standards aren't harmful to anybody's health.Paul Reis: Some of them could be. Let's say I have a PUD and I have light fixtures which are 24-ft.tall. Well,that light may have an impact on the well being of an adjacent property. I think that Staff and I could add something regarding the districts. We can look into adding language in paragraph 2 about the districts,"All PUDs must take into consideration the restrictions of the UDO"for this section. Kevin Rider: Mike,we have done no restrictions on PUDs. Would this create harm if we did on this one topic because it is a safety issue?Mike Hollibaugh: The harm is not having the standard.Does it prevent further development?Is that what you mean?Kevin Rider: Yeah.I totally agree with not putting restrictions on PUDs ahead of time.But that is for other development standards. We want it to be a clean slate.I don't want this to be a clean slate.Paul Reis: But at Council,if I bring in a PUD notwithstanding what is written here,because it is a standalone ordinance and a future Commission and ultimately Council will have the final say.Kevin Rider: I want to give guidance, similar to when Council created US 31.Mike Hollibaugh: What it does is it is the first one and then there will be a second and then a third. This is a particularly sensitive issue.The odds of getting additional gas stations,with the movement towards EVs and hybrids are low. We can micromanage this to death with only the potential of one at the Village of WestClay,we aren't going to get more gas stations. They will go to Westfield or 96th St.Alan Potasnik: I wondered why it wasn't considered to begin with. Would doing what Kevin suggested hurt the intent of what was brought to us?You don't have to worry about saying the wrong thing.Adrienne Keeling: I think it is a matter of figuring out how we add the language. I am trying not to argue against the intent of the setback.As the individual who maintains this document,I have stayed resolute in terms of keeping things consistent. I can work with Paul Reis or Council to add language for the districts.Kevin Rider:You don't have to list all the districts,just say"City wide". Alan Potasnik: Is it possible if you and whoever come up with something that was said this evening.And bring this back, is that agreeable?Adrienne Keesling: Yes.Kevin Rider: Could we send it back with a positive recommendation contingent upon the language of the amendment?Alan Potasnik: I don't think that would be a problem,but I think if there is no urgency. Is there an urgency?Adrienne Keesling: There is not.Looking at the deadlines for the Commission,the new packet would be due this coming Friday, however I don't have control over Counsel's schedules.Alan Potasnik: Anything is possible,but is this something that could be done?Paul Reis: We can certainly get together. One thing to make it City wide is to look at City Code and there may be a place in the City Code,where it lists different standards for construction.Typically,that language is not in the code,but we can look into that.If you look at the way the UDO is set up,if I want to build a gas station, I then trigger the code. The only instance where one could circumvent is through a Use Variance.Kevin Rider: That is the only reason I am looking for guidance,the Use Variance.Even putting that language in,the BZA could still grant a Use Variance. It is still kind of a guidance to show intent.Paul Reis: In the variance scenario, one has to approve why it is unique and an undue hardship. It has a higher standard than just negotiating.Kevin Rider: Plus,from a legal standpoint, this gives the BZA something to hang their hat on.Paul Reis: Correct.Alan Potasnik: Would you feel more comfortable in doing that so we could act on this,this evening?Mike Hollibaugh: We are not in a hurry. Docket No. PZ-2021-00048 DP/ADLS continued to the July 6,2021 Commercial Committee. eeting adjourned at 7:18 PM. n Nathan Chavez Recording Secretary Alan Pota ik Committee Chairman Commercial Committee Minutes 06-01-21 7