Zachary Planning and Zoning Commission

ZACHARY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Wednesday, September 9, 2015 6:30 pm Regular Meeting New City Hall

Members Present: Mr. John Dry, Mr. Robert Snowden, Mr. Mark Martin, Mr. Billy Kline, Mr. Donald Hunt, Mr. Earl Thornton, and Mr. Mike Freeman were present.

Also Present: Chris Davezac – Director of Public Works, Ricky McDavid – Assistant City Attorney, John Hopewell – City Attorney, Scott Masterson – Code Inspector, Amy Schulze-Code Compliance Officer/City Planner

A regular meeting of the Zachary Planning Commission was held September 9, 2015 at 6:30 pm in the New City Hall. A quorum was present.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting:

Commissioner Martin motioned to approve the Minutes of the August 3, 2015 meeting. The motion to approve the minutes was seconded by Commissioner Hunt and approved by roll call vote. ACTION: Motion Approved Vote: 5 Yeas, 2 Abstaining

Presentation of Delegations: None

Announcements: In an effort to scale down his civic activities, Dr. Scott Buzhardt has resigned from the Planning & Zoning Commission. Mr. John Dry has been appointed as his replacement. Amy Schulze, present at the meeting tonight, has been hired by the Mayor’s office to serve as the new City Planner.

Planning

Old Business:

1. Resubdivision – Tract CM2-H-1 of the Marshall M. Hughes Tract – Prestwick Ct. & Iberville Ave. – from 18 lots to 10 lots (tabled)

Chris Davezac explained that this item was tabled last month. Commissioner Hunt reminded the Commission that he will be abstaining from the vote due to contractual relationship with the Copper Mill Homeowner’s Association. Commissioner Thornton will be abstaining due to his absence at the prior meeting. Mr. Davezac explained that the City has heard back from Mr. Gaines but, to his knowledge, no agreements have been made with Copper Mill Homeowner’s Association.

1 of 16 20150909PlanningMinutes Commissioner Kline noted that the public hearing was closed during last month’s meeting, so there will be no public hearing tonight. Commissioners may discuss and ask questions of audience members.

David Gaines, 17498 Old Scenic Hwy, Zachary, LA is the developer for this property. Mr. Gaines was invited to explain the status of the negotiations with the HOA. Mr. Gaines stated that he has offered several compromises. He drafted an agreement that he has signed but the homeowner’s association has not yet agreed to sign.

Mr. Kline explained to Mr. Gaines that, as he sees it, either the new development is its own subdivision and therefore must be in compliance with the UDC as a subdivision, or otherwise it is part of Copper Mill. If it is part of Copper Mill, there are requirements that go along with that – such as architectural standards, homeowner’s dues, etc. One of the main issues is that this development will physically be part and parcel of Copper Mill, and the development should not be allowed to change the character of Copper Mill Golf Community. If Mr. Gaines does not want to adhere to the restrictions and requirements to be part of Copper Mill, then it will be considered a separate subdivision and must adhere to a different set of requirements under the UDC. This was discussed ad nauseum last month. There is a new UDC and this proposal falls under the jurisdiction of the new UDC. The issue is whether this is part of Copper Mill or not.

Commissioner Kline stated that he is very concerned about changing the nature of that area drastically. He doesn’t know if it will be, but he is concerned. Commissioner Kline also stated that the Commission is looking at what’s best for the City of Zachary, not just the developer and not just the residents of Copper Mill. The existing homeowners have a vested interested in the new development as part of their overall neighborhood. Commissioner Kline stated that approving the request without knowing what will be there is giving him some heartburn. He doesn’t want this to be at an impasse. It’s either part of Copper Mill, or it isn’t. He is not inclined to kick it back to the Homeowner’s Association for compromise if it isn’t in the best interest of the City. This Commission is not the proper forum for negotiating a compromise.

Commissioner Thornton noted that he was not present at last month’s meeting, so he will not be voting; however, he feels that any new development within the overall Copper Mill community should adhere to the existing standards.

Commissioner Freeman remarked that he is in agreement with Mr. Kline. If this is a stand-alone development, there are several additional requirements, including the restriction of lot widths, the establishment of a homeowner’s association, and a set aside for common space. If this development is not considered part of Copper Mill, then table 2.201 would apply, which calls for a 20 acre minimum requirement and minimum lot widths, as well as other various restrictions. As its own development, it would also needs its own HOA with restrictive covenants, along with designated common areas. If this development is not part of Copper Mill, Commissioner Freeman indicated that he would

2 of 16 20150909PlanningMinutes be unable to vote in favor. He feels that the UDC requirements make the most sense here.

A representative of the Homeowner’s Association indicated, at the questioning of Commissioner Kline, that there have been emails exchanged between Mr. Gaines and the HOA members. There have been various issues discussed, but no resolution to date. The “close to final” decision was that Mr. Gaines’ development would adhere to the architectural control committee, but he would be exempt, as the developer, from paying dues until the lots were sold. However, Mr. Gaines indicated that the agreement would be non-binding unless he sold 3 lots by the first quarter of 2016. That doesn’t make sense for the Homeowner’s Association. They feel that they either need a binding agreement or not. They also don’t feel that they can make the decision for future association members now, in 2015, to cap the dues for future generations.

Mr. David Gaines indicated that he regrets his decision to purchase property in Copper Mill and he would like to forget about a lot of his work in Zachary. Mr. Kline indicated that Mr. Gaines’ attitude does not go far in gaining favor with the Commission or with the City. He asked Mr. Gaines’ if he was withdrawing his request, and Mr. Gaines indicated that he would proceed and allow the Commission to vote “No”, since he already knew that would be the outcome.

Mr. Gaines expressed sympathy for the homeowners in Copper Mill, stating that he understands their frustration with the falling home values in that development. However, the falling values are not his fault. He had Mr. Hunt review his proposed plans and he seemed to approve. They did not, however, discuss one car garages. Mr. Gaines explained that if he can’t get approval for an economic option to develop this property, he will just “let it grow up”. He also offered to sell the property to the HOA with owner financing. There is a market for smaller homes in Zachary. The first plan is 1,500 square feet and it will be finished by next Friday. This home does not require P&Z approval. He has asked for ACC control and to have the dues capped for 5 years. The only thing he knows to do with the property now is donate it to the church and let them figure out what to do with it. The property has been nonproductive for 10 years.

Commissioner Kline reminded Mr. Gaines that the Commission is only making a recommendation to the City Council. They are not making decisions for Copper Mill or for Mr. Gaines, but for the good of the City. Mr. Gaines’ economic decisions, good or bad, are not the responsibility of the Commission. Mr. Gaines’ inquired whether the Commission has ever issued a waiver. Commissioner Kline indicated the Planning Commission can’t issue waivers – that request would need to be brought to the City Council. The Commission can only make recommendations based on what is in the best interest of the entire City.

Mr. Gaines exited the Commission meeting.

Commissioner Kline motioned to recommend to DENY the request for resubdivision – Tract CM2-H-1 of the Marshall M. Hughes Tract – Prestwick Ct. & Iberville Ave – from

3 of 16 20150909PlanningMinutes 18 lots to 10 lots. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Snowden and approved by roll call vote. Commissioner Hunt abstained from voting due to a contractual relationship with the Copper Mill Homeowner’ Association. Commissioners Thornton and Dry abstained from voting due to their absence from last month’s meeting. Commissioner Martin was a “nay” vote.

ACTION: Motion Approved Vote: 4 Yeas, 1 Nay, 2 Abstaining

New Business:

1. Site Plan – an un-numbered Tract of the J.S. Montegudo Tract (20123 Plank Road) – James’ Barber Shop – James Graves

Mr. Davezac explained that this property is located at the northwest corner of Angus and Plank Road. Mr. Graves intends to bring in a t-building to this property to serve as a barber shop, along with an existing home on the property. There is a possibility that this property will need to be subdivided, because the existing UDC does not allow for commercial and residential on the same lot. The City Council has issued a waiver for the landscaping requirements and the concrete parking lot. The parking lot will be crushed limestone. Mr. Davezac noted that this has been a confusing process because it is not directly addressed in the UDC.

Commissioner Hunt explained that he had questions at Site Plan Review whether the commercial building could exist on the same lot as his home, even if they are both zoned commercial. For legal reasons, does the property need to be subdivided? You can’t have two home addresses on the same lot, commercial property may be more restrictive. Additionally, there are standards for mobile homes as far as appearance and how they are affixed to the property – what standards are applied for temporary buildings for commercial use? The Assistant City Attorney drafted a memo addressing these questions.

4 of 16 20150909PlanningMinutes Attorney McDavid explained that he has reviewed the entire UDC to find applicable sections. There aren’t many, because it doesn’t appear that the code has considered this type of use. This can be interpreted two ways, as either the use is allowed or it’s not allowed. The code allows for a 5,000 square foot commercial building, not buildings (plural). The code also allows for mixed use, but there are standards that must be applied. Mixed use typically refers to vertical mixed use, with businesses on bottom and residential on top. The design standards should be reviewed in Site Plan Review. Parking and landscaping requirements have received waivers, but non-residential design standards, as well as mixed use design standards must be considered. Temporary building use is highly restricted in the City of Zachary. Nowhere does the code contemplate the use of temporary buildings for commercial use. It will definitely have to conform to the commercial building design standards.

Public hearing was opened at 7:06 pm.

James Graves, 20123 Plank Road, Zachary, was present to speak in favor of this request. The temporary building was a school building that was used within the East Baton Rouge Parish school system. It currently meets all codes. Mr. Graves is currently leasing a building a little further down Plank Road for his barber shop. He explained that he didn’t know that he needed a permit to move the building to his property. He contacted all of the Councilmen and received responses from 4 of them, confirming that he did not need a permit to move the building. He used only state highways for the transportation, no City streets. Councilmen said that was fine until he went through Site Plan Review and received permission to relocate it to the front of his property. Mr. Graves has 3.5 acres and the building is currently located at the rear of the property, where he is working on it – painting and such. After the building was moved, about 2 months later, he was informed that he would need a permit to move it within the City of Zachary. He has the paperwork and is working with the house mover. They have permits for EBR Parish, but not for the City of Zachary.

Scott Masterson explained that Mr. Graves would have to move the building to the front of the property. Mr. Masterson further explained that these buildings have been used within the City limits before and transformed into housing. From an aesthetic standpoint, no one would know those homes were previously a temporary school building. For the current use, the building would have to meet all applicable codes and undergo a thorough inspection. There will be a public hearing and neighbors would have an opportunity to

5 of 16 20150909PlanningMinutes bring forth any objection. Mr. Graves will have to meet the same code requirements as any other commercial building.

Commissioner Kline expressed his concern that Mr. Graves received a waiver for landscaping and driveway without even knowing where the building will be placed. Mr. Graves explained that he has elevations and a site plan developed, so he can demonstrate exactly where the building will be going. Commissioner Kline questioned Mr. Graves whether he understands the situation with the property having both a commercial and residential building on the same property. Mr. Graves explained that, back in May 2014, he came before the Commission for rezoning of the property. He read from the May 27, 2014 City Council minutes, when the Commercial rezoning was approved, which stated that there was no problem with having the commercial and residential on the same property.

Commissioner Hunt noted that the zoning for the barber shop is correct, the question now is whether there can be a home and a business on the same lot with Commercial zoning. Commissioner Martin noted that he remembers Mr. Graves coming before the Commission, but he did not recall that this was going to be a temporary building. Mr. Graves explained that he had planned to subdivide the property, but when he reviewed the Council minutes, he realized that he did NOT need to subdivide. He has also spoken with his Councilman (Womack), who has told him that this is the law and he does NOT need to subdivide.

Commissioner Kline noted that, other than an in-home business, he does not know of a similar situation. If there is a separate building, each section of the property should be zoned according to the use. He doesn’t have a problem with the plan, but he doesn’t think it is zoned properly. Mr. Graves explained that he saved $4,000 by not having to subdivide his property. Commissioner Martin noted that there was some confusion regarding the legality at his last appearance, but there was nothing explicitly in the Code that prohibited this plan. Mr. Kline noted that the position the Commission has taken, especially with small business owners, is that if a use is not expressly prohibited, then it is NOT prohibited. The effort is made to help out the business owner. There is no prohibition to this plan, but it is unusual. In the past, someone may appear and want a portion of the property rezoned with no legal description of the portion. A resubdivision makes more sense in that case. This property, however, is zoned Commercial but has a house on it. The property was grandfathered in as residential, but the Commission had previously recommended to rezone the property to Commercial Suburban.

6 of 16 20150909PlanningMinutes Commissioner Hunt noted that it would not be unusual to rezone a historical home or property in town for commercial use, but would it then be permissible to come along and build a commercial building on the property and return the home to residential use? That was his question to the City Attorney, but he hasn’t really received an answer.

Commissioner Freeman questioned the construction of the exterior of the building. Mr. Graves explained that he submitted photos of all 4 sides of the building. It is vinyl siding. Commissioner Hunt noted that one way to address the use of a temporary building for commercial use would be to apply at least the residential standards. Commissioner Thornton expressed his opinion that the Commission should be looking at the Commercial Suburban standards. Commissioner Martin agreed that the same architectural standards should apply as for any Commercial building. This will be converted to a permanent structure. Scott Masterson explained that the building will be compliant to the commercial building code, from a safety and construction standpoint. Mr. Graves explained that he has looked through the UDC for commercial construction materials regarding what is and is not allowed. He is very far on the outskirts of the City limits. This will be one of the best looking Commercial buildings on his side of town. He has a copy of the UDC and will be in compliance with all architectural regulations.

Commissioner Snowden inquired whether Mr. Graves has something to show what the building will look like when completed. Snowden explained that he has a hard time approving something that he hasn’t seen. Commissioner Hunt explained that the request has gone through Site Plan Review with the same concerns but that has not yet been addressed. Commissioner Thornton explained that he holds the same concern regarding the lack of architectural plan. Mr. Graves explained that there will be modifications, including skirting and flower beds. A site plan and landscaping plan has been submitted. Commissioner Martin noted that the one thing missing is a rendering of what the building architecture will look like when completed.

Commissioner Kline asked Mr. Graves if he knows what he needs to do besides the skirting. Mr. Graves said he needs skirting, he has a waiver for the landscaping but he will still need flower beds. He is supposed to have a dust free parking lot, but he has a waiver that allows limestone. Mr. Freeman noted that section 11.504c states that the use of aluminum or vinyl siding/cladding is prohibited in all districts except I. It also lists other prohibited materials. However, 11.501 under “Purpose and Applicability” only

7 of 16 20150909PlanningMinutes references Hwy. 964 and Hwy. 64. One set clearly states “all districts” and so now it is a question of applicability.

Commissioner Kline expressed his opinion that, if this request has not gone to Site Plan Review with a plan, it is difficult to make a decision today based on the questions regarding the architectural requirements. Mr. Graves stated that he has read the UDC, and found language that stated that vinyl siding is allowed for barber shops. Mr. Graves explained that he bought the building because he received guidance from Hugh Engels with the City that the building would be fine and wouldn’t require major modification. Mr. Graves has also reviewed the UDC for himself and believes that he is in compliance with the vinyl siding. The apartments directly across the street have exactly the same color vinyl siding.

Mr. Graves explained that he has spent a considerable amount of money to provide to the City the items required. He has done his homework, consulted the City Council, and spent hours reviewing the UDC to ensure that he is in compliance – otherwise he would not have purchased the building.

Commissioner Hunt suggested that this item could be tabled to the following month to allow the new City Planner to review the request. He indicated that he would be willing to make this a motion.

No one was present to speak against this item. The public hearing was closed at 7:32 pm.

Commissioner Martin expressed his opinion that Mr. Graves has performed his due diligence and met all requirement set at Site Plan Review. He feels that Mr. Graves deserves a decision this evening and it’s not fair to delay the opening of his business due to the uncertainty of the City and this Commission. Mr. Graves has gone through the ringer with this request. Mr. Davezac apologized to Mr. Graves and indicated that he knows that he has done everything that was asked of him. Commissioner Hunt also expressed his sympathy but indicated that this is an opportunity to stop and consider the situation before making a mistake and create a precedent. Commissioner Snowden indicated that he would not be able to make a decision this evening based on the photos presented that do not meet the City code.

8 of 16 20150909PlanningMinutes Mr. Graves asked what about the building does not meet Code and wants to know what he needs to correct to meet the City’s requirements for the building. Commissioner Snowden explained that the photos submitted this evening do not provide the information needed to make a decision whether the architectural standards have been met. Mr. Graves indicated that all he was told was that he needed skirting and flower beds to meet requirements. This will be a permanent building once it is installed in its final location.

Commissioner Hunt motioned to recommend to TABLE the Site Plan – an un-numbered Tract of the J.S. Montegudo Tract (20123 Plank Road) – James’ Barber Shop – James Graves.

ACTION: Motion Approved Vote: 5 Yeas, 2 Nays

Mr. Davezac then interjected and inquired what the City needs to provide to Mr. Graves to help him move forward. Commissioner Hunt indicated that this is not a negative decision, but there needs to be a clearer idea of what is needed to move forward. Confirmation is needed that this building meets the architectural requirements for this type of commercial structure. Some of the delay has been to request waivers and ultimately will save Mr. Graves money on the engineering, etc. Commissioner Kline explained that, by the next meeting, Mr. Graves will know exactly what needs to be done to the building to comply with the Code. It will, however, delay the request for another month.

Mr. Graves protested that he can’t wait another month. He was told that he was in compliance with the Code and he only needed skirting. There are 5 people with Code books sitting at tonight’s meeting, but no one knows what it says. Commissioner Kline explained that the Commission wants him to be able to proceed with his business, but they don’t want to set a negative precedent. At this point, the Commission doesn’t know that his request follows the Code.

Mr. Graves indicated that he would prefer a vote this evening, with even the possibility of denial, which would allow the Council to approve. A tabling would delay him by a month which is not something that he can afford.

Commissioner Kline offered a substitute motion to untable and reconsider this item, recommending APPROVAL of the request Site Plan – an un-numbered Tract of the J.S. Montegudo Tract (20123 Plank Road) – James’ Barber Shop – James Graves, contingent on compliance with the architectural standards of the UDC. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Martin and approved by roll call vote. Commissioners Snowden and Freeman were ‘nay’ votes.

9 of 16 20150909PlanningMinutes 2. Resubdivision – combination of Lots B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 (and revoking the right of way) into Tract B-4-A of the Mollie Loudon Property.

Mr. Davezac explained that this item is the property that is located directly across Hwy. 64 from Little Farms Drive. This resubdivision will resubdivide the property and revoke a right of way.

Randy Herring, 23221 Sunnyside Lane, Zachary was present to represent the property owners for this item. There are a total of 50 acres, this resubdivision represents approximately 24 of those acres. Mr. Herring also represents the buyers of this property, who would like to remain anonymous at this time. The buyer is an electrical contractor which is a fixture in another community. They currently have around 110 employees, about 40 of which are in-house and the remainder are in plants. The plan is to build a nice office in front. They understand about the 360 degree architecture requirements on Hwy. 64. There will be a warehouse to the rear of the property. They are asking for Industrial zoning. This is not the type of industrial development that makes a lot of noise. The warehouse will be for equipment and inventory, it will be strictly storage. There are currently no structures on this property. This is tract B-1, B-2 and a dedicated right of way, as well as tract B-3 and B-4. They are trying to return all of this to a single tract. They will return for Site Plan Review in 2016. All 4 lots are all zoned CS and the rest of the property in the back is zoned RE.

Patrick Campbell, 3100 Fairway Drive, Baton Rouge, LA was present to speak in favor of this item. Mr. Campbell knows the owners of this business, he has done business with them and they would make great corporate citizens.

David Gaines, 17498 Old Scenic Hwy, Zachary was also present to speak in favor of this item. He welcomes this company to the City. One thing they are discussing is creating uniformity with the new development next door.

10 of 16 20150909PlanningMinutes No one was present to speak in opposition. The public hearing was closed at 8:03 pm.

Commissioner Martin motioned to recommend to APPROVE the Resubdivision – combination of Lots B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 (and revoking the right of way) into Tract B-4-A of the Mollie Loudon Property. The motion was approved by Commissioner Thornton and approved by roll call vote.

3. Resubdivision – 8511 Main Street into lots 1-9 and 2 out parcels (Superior Ford)

Mr. Davezac explained that this tract is located just west of the property that was just discussed.

The public hearing was opened at 8:04 pm.

Randy Herring, 23221 Sunnyside Lane, Zachary was present to represent the sellers, Angie & David Stewart. He feels this is an excellent proposition and should drive economic development on that side of town.

Ken Jones, PO Box 720, St. Francisville, LA was present as an architect and general contractor, representing Patrick Campbell and Superior Ford. Mr. Jones is present to answer any questions regarding the subdivision of the 26.6 acre tract or about the building that would be the first part of the development.

Commissioner Kline asked if the water feature indicated on the plan is currently existing, or if it would be added. Mr. Jones responded that it would be added. Commissioner Hunt was curious why there are more lots on this plan than what was presented as Site Plan. However, he noted that it doesn’t really matter, since the resubdivision wasn’t addressed as part of the Site Plan Review. This is just a resubdivision at this time.

11 of 16 20150909PlanningMinutes Patrick Campbell, 3100 Fairway Drive, Baton Rouge, LA was present as the buyer of the property. Lot X is going to be the dealership. Lot Y and Lot 1 are for future use as a restaurant. Lots 2 – 8 are for future commercial use, such as Enterprise Rental Car. Lot 9 will be the dealership and Mr. Campbell’s headquarters/office. They will utilize the existing house. Mr. Campbell expressed his excitement at this project and thinks it will help revitalize this side of town. They are planning a state of the art facility that they hope will be a crown jewel of the City.

David Gaines, 17829 Old Scenic Hwy, Zachary was present to speak in favor of this item. Not only will this be a “superior” product, it will revitalize the area and help provide good jobs for our citizens. Mr. Gaines expressed his hope that some of the rear lots may be light industrial, with some combination office/light warehouse facilities.

Justin Langlois, 8924 Brookwood Drive, Baton Rouge was present to speak in favor of this item. Mr. Langlois is a commercial real estate broker. He is working with Randy Herring and Mr. Stewart on this project. Mr. Langlois noted that this location, in particular, will generate some commerce for an area that is sparsely populated. They envision some retail, professional services and general office use for the rear parcels.

Gregory Louviere, 208733 Plank Road, Zachary was present to speak in favor. Mr. Louviere expressed his excitement about his project. He is glad to see if coming to this end of town and believe it will bring some revitalization to this area of town.

No one was present to speak in opposition. The public hearing was closed at 8:13 pm.

Commissioner Martin motioned to recommend to APPROVE the resubdivision – 8511 Main Street into lots 1-9 and 2 out parcels (Superior Ford). The motion was approved by Commissioner Kline and approved by roll call vote.

4. Site Plan – Tract C1-A-2 of the Hubert C Owens Tract, Hwy 964 (Dollar General)

12 of 16 20150909PlanningMinutes Mr. Davezac explained that this item is located to the north of the vet clinic on Hwy. 964 on the east side. They have met fulfilled all recommendations from Site Plan Review.

Ed Voltolina, of Dorsey Development, 129 Chartres Street, New Orleans was present to speak in favor of this request. Mr. Voltolina was present to represent the developer. Commissioner Hunt explained that he was unable to attend this Site Plan Review meeting but he did send some comments. There was paving indicated on the Site Plan to the north of the property, but Commissioner Hunt asked about a stub out to the south that would allow connectivity to the vet clinic. It was indicated in his notes but does not appear to have been done. Mr. Davezac commented that the existing vet clinic parking lot is limestone, which is why they did not think this was necessary. Mr. Voltolina explained that they would need additional approval from Dollar General to make that change, and they would prefer to stop short of the property line and add a curb with landscaping, just for aesthetic purposes. They are not opposed to doing it, but they will have to request approval from Dollar General.

Commissioner Thornton noted that the north side indicates future connectivity. Are the developers going to provide pavement across the ditch? Mr. Voltolina explained that the adjacent property owner would be responsible for bridging the drainage ditch. They will provide stub outs to the property line on both sides of the property.

Commissioner Hunt commented that the building looks great and is one of the best looking Dollar General stores that he has seen. Mr. Voltolina explained that they tried to put their best foot forward and address any regulations regarding the architecture.

No one was present to speak in opposition. Public hearing was closed at 8:20 pm.

Commissioner Hunt motioned to recommend to APPROVE the Site Plan – Tract C1-A-2 of the Hubert C Owens Tract, Hwy 964 (Dollar General), contingent on providing paving

13 of 16 20150909PlanningMinutes to the property line on the south side of the property. The motion was approved by Commissioner Martin and approved by roll call vote.

5. Site Plan – Tract Z-A-A-4 of the Copper Mill Business Park (LA Dental)

Mr. Davezac explained this property is located on the left when pulling into the driveway of the office park. There were no issues at Site Plan Review.

Chad Stevens, MR Engineering, 9345 Interline, Baton Rouge, LA was present to speak in favor of this item. Mr. Stevens explained that there were 2 minor comments from Site Plan Review, which were to add a couple of parking islands. They were also asked to add 4 trees – 1 in each island and 2 on the north side of the building.

Rich Hopton, 201 Masters Point Court, Slidell, LA. Mr. Hopton explained that he is the exclusive builder for LA Dental. They are very excited and can’t wait to get started. Commissioner Hunt noted that this property is subject to the 360 degree architecture requirement. Mr. Hopton explained that the front door will face old Scenic Highway. Commissioner Hunt noted that the plan shows the front door on the south elevation and asked for clarification which is correct. Mr. Hopton acknowledged that the map is labeled incorrectly. Commissioners Hunt and Freeman both expressed concern that the elevation may be deficient in some of the design elements required for the 360 degree architecture requirements. It was suggested that the addition of some simple design elements, such as shutter, gas lanterns and a dormer, would bring the plan into compliance. Mr. Hopton explained that he has not read the code. Commissioner Hunt recommended that he review the requirements and ensure that the design complies. Section 11.502a discusses the 360 degree architecture. There are discussion on building laws in section 11.502b. The entire section 11.500 is applicable in this case. This building is very nice and it is viewable from 3 streets, so the 360 degree architecture makes sense in this case. It is very similar in style to the adjacent buildings, and if they pick up the items that are currently deficient, they will come very close to matching the existing style.

14 of 16 20150909PlanningMinutes Lori Kinchen, 2220 St. Andrews, Zachary was present, not necessarily to speak in opposition, but to request that the building be brought more consistent in look with surrounding office buildings in the development.

Public hearing was closed at 8:29 pm.

Commissioner Freeman noted that the sign height is not in compliance. The sign height would need to be reduced to 7’ in height. Site Plan Review noted that they would need to reduce the sign height or they would need to request a waiver.

Commissioner Hunt motioned to recommend to APPROVE the Site Plan – Tract Z-1-A-4 of the Copper Mill Business Park (LA Dental), contingent upon compliance with 360 degree architecture, subject to verification by the City Planner, and compliance with the sign ordinance. The motion was approved by Commissioner Martin and approved by roll call vote.

Report of the Chairman: None

Report of the Public Works Director: None

Report of the Building Official: None

Adjournment:

With no further to discuss, Commissioner Hunt motioned to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Martin and approved by roll call vote. Meeting adjourned at 8:39 pm.

ACTION: Motion Approved Vote: 7 Yeas, 0 Absent

______Elizabeth Manly, Recording Secretary

15 of 16 20150909PlanningMinutes Approved by:

______Mr. William Kline, Chairman

16 of 16 20150909PlanningMinutes