AGENDA CASA GRANDE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, :00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS 510 E. FLORENCE BOULEVARD

Transcription

1 AGENDA CASA GRANDE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, :00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS 510 E. FLORENCE BOULEVARD A. Call to Order/Pledge B. Roll Call C. Approved Minutes: 1. September 7, 2017 E. Changes to the Agenda F. Unfinished Business: 1. Public hearing and consideration of a request by Tiffany M. Battle, for the following land use request for property located at 1469 E. Laurel Drive: 1. DSA : Conditional Use Permit to allow for operation of a Group Home (Safeway House Youth Facility) for up to 9 clients. G. New Business 1. Public Hearing and consideration of a request by Architekton on behalf of the City of Casa Grande for a Major Site Plan (DSA ) for the City of Casa Grande Public Recreation Facility located at 1900 N. Peart Rd. Said facility to be sited on a acre site; contain approximately 55,158 sq. ft. in building area and have a maximum height of 40 ft. H. Call to the Public I. Reports by Planning Director:

2 1. Minor Site Plans Administratively Approved: a. DSA : Minor Site Plan for Cottonwood Cove (Arizona Village) for a new entry feature and turnaround, addition to the exterior wall and modifications to the recreation center site on the premises. Approved: September 18, 2017 Planner: Joseph Horn 2. Board of Adjustment Decisions: None 3. Monthly Development Center Reports: J. Adjournment Note: This meeting is open to the public. All interested people are welcome to attend. Supporting documents and staff reports, which were furnished to the Council with this Agenda, are available for review in the City Clerk s Office or online at Disabled individuals with special accessibility needs may contact ADA Coordinator for the City of Casa Grande at or TDD If possible, such requests should be made 72 hours in advance. Posted on September 28, 2017, by 7:00 p.m. at the below locations: City Hall 510 E. Florence Blvd. Casa Grande, Arizona Police Dispatch 520 N. Marshall Casa Grande, Arizona City Website Gloria Leija, MMC City Clerk

3 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Date: 10/05/2017 Prepared by: Linda Harris, Admin. Assistant C.1. Subject: September 7, 2017 PZC Attachments

4

5 AGENDA ITEM DATE Regular Meeting September 7, 2017 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CASA GRANDE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HELD ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2017 AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL, 510 E. FLORENCE BOULEVARD, CASA GRANDE, ARIZONA. A. Call to Order/Pledge: Chairman Benedict called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Roll Call: Members Present: Chairman David Benedict Vice-Chairman Robert Miller Member Mike Henderson Member Fred Tucker Member Mikel McBride Member Anthony Estrada Member Dennis Dugan Absent: City Staff Present: Paul Tice, Planning and Development Director Laura Blakeman, City Planner Mark Graffius, Assistant City Attorney Linda Harris, Administrative Assistant C. Approval of Minutes: August 3, 2017 Member Henderson moved to approve the minutes dated August 3, 2017, Member Dugan seconded, a voice call vote was called, and all were in favor. D. Changes to the Agenda: Director Tice asked that the Preliminary Plat (DSA ) under F1 New Business be removed from the agenda as Staff received an from Communities Southwest

6 PZ Minutes Page 2 of 16 September 7, 2017 requesting that this item be postponed indefinitely so that they can do additional work on the plat. Director Tice asked for a motion to postpone indefinitely. Member Henderson made a motion to postpone indefinitely DSA Preliminary Plat to divide the property into 1,198 single-family residential lots, identifying future rights of way, tracts and easements. Motion was seconded by Member McBride. The following roll call vote was recorded: Member Dugan Member Estrada Member McBride Member Tucker Member Henderson Vice-Chairman Miller Chairman Benedict Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye The motion passed 7 0. E. Unfinished Business: 1. Public hearing and consideration of a request by Tiffany M. Battle, for the following land use requests for property located at 1469 E. Laurel Drive: a. DSA : Major Amendment to the Ironwood Commons Planned Area Development to allow a Group Home land use (Safeway House Youth Facility) and a modification of the parking requirements for group homes to allow tandem parking and vehicles to back out onto the street. b. DSA : Conditional Use Permit to allow for operation of a Group Home (Safeway House Youth Facility) for up to 9 clients. (Planner Laura Blakeman) Laura Blakeman, Planner came forward and presented an overview of the case as stated in the Staff Report. Mrs. Blakeman provided a brief history of the site stating that the site was annexed in In 1999 the site was zoned PAD (Planned Area Development) for Ironwood Commons residential subdivision. The house was constructed in 2006 and was purchased by Tiffany Battle, who is the current owner, in February Mrs. Blakeman explained that this item was presented at the August 3, 2017 meeting which was tabled to the September 7, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Mrs. Blakeman explained that there are two requests to be considered: the Major Amendment request to allow a Group Home land use and a modification of the

7 PZ Minutes Page 3 of 16 September 7, 2017 parking requirements for a group home use to allow a tandem parking and vehicles to back out onto the street and a Conditional Use Permit request to allow for operation of a Group Home facility to allow up to nine residents. She stated that the owner currently operates the Safeway House Youth Facility as a residential facility which allows for six or fewer residents who are provided care. The owner is asking to increase the number of residents from six to nine to keep sibling groups together. She explained that currently the owner is permitted to operate a residential facility because the City Code defines a residential facility as a single family residential structure having common kitchen facilities, occupied by six or fewer persons having a physical, emotional, social or developmental disability and living together for the purpose of residential training, observation, and/or common support in which care is provided on a twenty-four hour per day basis. The limitation does not include the operator of a residential facility, as members of the operator s family or persons employed as staff are allowed in addition to the six group home residents, except that the total number of all persons living at the residential facility shall not exceed eight. Mrs. Blakeman explained that this definition was derived from the ARS (Arizona Revised Statutes) which states that for the purpose of all local ordinances, a residential facility which serves six or fewer persons shall not be included within the definition of any term which implies that the residential facility differs in any way from a single family residential. She further explained that based on the ARS (Arizona Revised Statute), the City treats a residential facility from a zoning, building and fire code perspective as any single family residence and there is no special permitting required to operate a residential facility. Mrs. Blakeman explained that a group home is defined as a single, residential structure having common kitchen facilities occupied by more than six residents having physical, mental, emotional, or social problems and living together for the purpose of training, observation, and/or common support on a twenty-four hour per day basis, except that a residential facility shall not be included in the definition of a group home. She further explained that the City Code treats group homes and residential facilities differently. She stated that the Safeway House Youth Facility is considered a Foster Care Agency that provides foster care as defined in the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) as a 24-hour substitute care for children outside their own homes which includes nonrelative foster family homes, relative foster homes, group homes, emergency shelters, residential facilities, and pre-adoptive homes. Mrs. Blakeman stated that case managers of the facility transport the children to the facility. The facility accepts youth ranging from seven years to sixteen years of age and includes females and males. One of the facilities goals is to keep the sibling groups together. Mrs. Blakeman explained that the facility has two administration staff and four qualified behavior health technicians, which include a registered nurse. The facility operates seven

8 PZ Minutes Page 4 of 16 September 7, 2017 days a week, twenty-four hours a day year round with three shifts to allow for sufficient care of the youths at the facility. Mrs. Blakeman overviewed the review criterion for the PAD Zone Amendment which have been addressed in the Staff Report. She explained that in conformance to the City s Zoning Ordinance the Ironwood Commons PAD limits the uses to single family homes which allows residential facilities because they are treated as single family homes. This PAD zoning does not allow group homes. Mrs. Blakeman stated that the applicant is requesting that the PAD be amended to allow a group home use on this specific property located at 1469 E. Laurel Drive. Mrs. Blakeman further stated that Staff recommends that the land uses allowed within the Ironwood Commons PAD (which is single family) not be expanded and the original use intent maintained. Mrs. Blakeman explained that existing requirements for a group home consist of one space per bedroom and that all parking spaces must be designed to allow maneuvering area on site so that vehicles do not have to back into the street. Tandem parking is also not permitted. Mrs. Blakeman stated that proposed requirements would be to allow tandem parking and allow parking stalls to back directly into street. She stated that according to the Trip Generation Manual, Staff finds that the proposed group home use would generate double the traffic of a single family home and therefore may create adverse traffic conditions. Mrs. Blakeman overviewed the review criterion for the Conditional Use Permit which have been addressed in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff has found that the traffic concerns of the neighbors are valid because a group home creates more traffic than the single family home. She further stated that Staff understands that the children at the facility do not get family visitation, however there is some traffic generated for transporting children to appointments and functions, case managers visitations to the facility, as well as any state agency visits, and any police vehicles as well as delivery vehicles to the facility. Mrs. Blakeman explained that there was a neighborhood meeting held on April 19, 2017 of which there were 25 attendees. Their concerns included: No businesses are allowed in Ironwood Commons per the HOA covenants Police have been called several times to this particular house Juveniles will destroy property in the neighborhood A group home in the neighborhood will lower the property values of the homes Gang member concerns Behavioral issue concerns Increase in traffic in the neighborhood

9 PZ Minutes Page 5 of 16 September 7, 2017 Increase in crime in the neighborhood Mrs. Blakeman stated that Staff received eighteen s, two letters and several calls expressing concerns regarding the adverse impact the proposed group home facility would have upon the neighborhood. Staff also received one letter that was in support of the facility and she understands that additional letters of support have been provided directly to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Blakeman explained that according to the Casa Grande Police Department reports, the Safeway Youth House Facility had three reports in 2016 of which the majority of the calls were the result of Staff at the facility calling asking for assistance with the problems with the children staying at the facility. Mrs. Blakeman stated that the Ironwood Commons Subdivision incidents for the 342 homes had 41 reports in 2016 which averages.12 per house per year. Based up this analysis, it shows that this facility does have significantly higher level of police calls compared to other single family homes in the neighborhood. Mrs. Blakeman stated that with an increase of residents in the facility from six to nine will likely increase police activity. Mrs. Blakeman stated that property owners within 300 feet of subject site and the Ironwood Commons HOA were notified. She further stated that the applicant also posted a notice. Mrs. Blakeman stated that Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of denial to City Council for DSA Major Amendment to the Ironwood Commons Planned Area Development to allow a Group Home land use. Mrs. Blakeman stated that Staff recommends the Planning Commission deny DSA Conditional Use Permit to allow for operation of a Group Home for up to nine clients. Mrs. Blakeman asked for questions. Chairman Benedict asked for questions from the Commission. There were none. Chairman Benedict made a call for the applicant for come forward. Edmund F. Richardson, Law Firm of Davis Miles McGuire Gardner, 40 E. Rio Salado Parkway, Suite 425, Tempe came to podium to address the Commission on behalf of the Safeway House Youth Facility. Mr. Richardson stated that before discussing the issues raised by Staff, he wanted to make sure that each of the Commission members were aware of the new materials provided by the Safeway House in support of the two pending applications. Mr. Richardson

10 PZ Minutes Page 6 of 16 September 7, 2017 covered the new materials which are listed on the attached presentation submitted by him. Member Dugan questioned if Tiffany Battle lives at this residence. Mr. Richardson replied that she is there constantly but she does have another residence. Member Dugan then asked if Mrs. Battle sleeps there. Mr. Richardson replied that she does not generally sleep there but there is Staff who stays there at night. Member Dugan questioned how much does Mrs. Battle get paid per resident per month. Mr. Richardson stated that he does not have an answer to his question. Member Dugan questioned if she gets paid a good amount of money, is it possible for her to purchase another house in another neighborhood to take these extra children plus an additional six residents. Mr. Richardson replied that there isn t enough extra money to purchase another house. He explained that Mrs. Battle originally had planned to have two different houses and to increase the number of residents she could take care of. However, she found out that she could not afford it. Member McBride questioned Mr. Richardson how he came up with his calculations regarding the number of police incidents reported. He stated that he is trying to level the playing field and with him turning the numbers the way he did, it makes it seem like there is nothing wrong and it is more than nothing. Member McBride also questioned his statement regarding no damages reported. He stated that when he looked at police incident reports which were provided by City Staff, there was damage. The damage might not have been against other neighbors but Member McBride stated that he wanted to make sure that the things that are being said is what really happened and not just to slant towards one side. Mr. Richardson replied that the Staff is using the number of police reports for the entire area without distinguishing whether those numbers came from neighbors calling neighbors because they were doing something, or kids doing something, or distinguishing whether the reports are from a resident at their house asking for

11 PZ Minutes Page 7 of 16 September 7, 2017 help. He emphasized that his point is that it isn t helpful to use the wrong numbers without more detail. Member McBride asked Mr. Richardson if he did any research that he could present to the Commission to provide them with a good understand of what is really happening. Mr. Richardson stated that he has never been able to get this type of information from a police department. Member McBride replied that he can go on the City of Casa Grande s website and request this information. Mr. Richardson stated that he was not aware of that. He further addressed Member McBride s question regarding reported property damage stating that Mr. Richardson addressed Member McBride s question regarding property damage stating that he was referring to property damage in the neighbor to other property owners which would decrease property values. Mr. Richardson stated that what happens inside a residence does not have any effect on the value of other houses and that is the reason why he stated that. Chairman Benedict made a call to the public. Scott Haney, 1382 E Laurel Pl. came to podium to address the Commission in opposition. Mr. Haney asked if a letter that was referred to by Mr. Richardson from a person directly across the street is from the nurse who works for them. He stated that it was mentioned that there would be no increase in the daily traffic. He explained that in the previous meeting, Mr. Richardson stated that the reason for no increase in traffic is because the professionals are seeing the kids at school which makes sense. If the professionals are showing up after school, then this is an increase in traffic during the wrong time of the day. He stated that initially only people within 300 ft. were notified. During their HOA meeting, they made sure that the entire neighborhood was informed of what is transpiring. Mr. Haney pointed out that Mrs. Battle and her website denote her business as a foster care agency. He stated that when she purchased her home in Ironwood Commons, she knew that she was in an HOA as she would have had to sign an agreement. She would have agreed to all of the conditions. He stated that Mrs. Battle is using a very broad definition of the Federal Fair Housing Act (FFHA) that states that any child who has any of these conditions is considered disabled. This allows her to open this home. Mr. Haney stated that what they are asking for from an HOA standpoint is to understand what she wants. Mr. Haney stated that he believes that the HOA is asking the Commission to deny the application

12 PZ Minutes Page 8 of 16 September 7, 2017 to change the status from a residential facility to a group home because if you change the status for this Conditional Use Permit, you will open the doors as there is no maximum number of any nature. Maribel Hawkins, 1468 E. Anna Dr. came to podium to express her opposition to the group home to the Commission. Mrs. Hawkins stated that her single level home shares their back fence with the youth facility. She referred to information she found on the internet regarding other neighborhoods across the country who have allowed group homes stating that once a group home is established, the HOA s, police department and city offices do little to alleviate problems. Mrs. Hawkins stated that during the neighborhood meetings, she heard her neighbor s express their opposition and shared events they witnessed including violations and property damage caused by the youth facility. Mrs. Hawkins stated that Mrs. Battle can barely control five children as she has called the police department numerous times for assistance in managing the children and now she wants up to nine children. She stated that the following issues have already taken place ; traffic with people going in and out of the house, street being turned into parking lot, noise with children screaming and graffiti. Mrs. Hawkins mentioned that the quality of life will change for the worse. She explained that home property values will decrease. She questioned who is going to buy your house when you disclose to the potential buyer that you have a group home in the neighborhood. She stated that there will be a higher risk of violence, burglary, drug and gang activity and peace in the neighborhood will no longer exist. She further stated that if this request is approved it will entice other neighbors to request applications for their own businesses such as child care, hair and nail salon, car restoration etc. and the City will have no choice but to approve those requests. Mrs. Hawkins stated that she strongly urges the Commission to consider placing the group home in a neighborhood that already has them where they are welcomed. Candace Mills, 1493 N. Maria Lane came to podium to address the Commission in opposition. Ms. Mills referred to the previous meeting minutes stating that Mr. Graffius mentioned that the HOA regulations and the City Zoning Code are not necessarily the same thing. She referred to of the City Zoning Code regarding Home Occupation requirements that states that that a business has to be conducted solely by the resident occupying the home. Ms. Mills stated that since Mrs. Battle does not live there, she is in violation of City Code for running a business out of her house. She further referred to the section of code that states that no more than twenty-five percent of the home can be used as a business. Ms. Mills stated that Mrs. Battle is in violation as she is using her entire home. She stated that Mrs. Battle has a business license with the State of Arizona listed as a foster care agency under the Safeway House Youth Home and she is also registered on a national provider s database as a foster care agency under the

13 PZ Minutes Page 9 of 16 September 7, 2017 same name and address. Ms. Mills stated that she wanted to make the Commission aware that Mrs. Battle was going to do another facility at another house in Mission Royale and that according to the Pinal County Assessor s Office, is also registered under Safe Angels with a business license and is also registered as a foster care agency on the national provider database for that address. She stated that Mrs. Battle has a Facebook page which show a second house doing finishing touches. Ms. Mills stated that Mrs. Battle s plan is to have as many group homes as she can afford and has been lying to the HOA and the Commission and that she asks that the Commission deny Mrs. Battle s request to expand this facility into a group home. Bonnie Warren, 1388 E. Natasha came to podium to address the Commission in opposition. Ms. Warren referred to the police report that indicated that there have been eight calls made to this residence and six of them were against the owner which indicates to her that there is very little control over these children by their caregiver. Jennifer Swoish, 1415 N. Frederick Lane came to podium to address the Commission in opposition. Ms. Swoish stated that she lives outside of the 300 ft. area that notices were sent to and she was not aware of this until recently. She explained that she has lived at her residence for six years and have had no issues until this past March when her car s windshield was smashed and her car was egged. Ms. Swoish stated that the police thought it was kids in the neighborhood. She stated that she has no proof that it is one of these children but wanted to point out that it doesn t mean that nothing has happened or could happen unless you witness the incident. John Neff, 1424 N. Milly Lane came to podium to address the Commission in opposition. He stated that he has been at residence for six years. He explained that it was a nice development when he moved in but after several years the subdivision is going downhill as people are moving out and renters are moving in and the subdivision is starting to look bad. He stated that now what is going to happen with the proposed group home coming into the neighborhood. Julie Lorentzen, 1481 N. Frederick Lane came to podium to address the Commission in opposition. Mrs. Lorentzen stated that she and her husband have lived in their home for seven years. She explained that they previously talked about doing an Airbnb as they have stayed many times going up and down the coast. She stated that they found out that it is against HOA regulations as it is considered a business. Mrs. Lorentzen stated that her family believes that the youth facility is a business and they support the idea of limiting the number of clients to the six and not enlarging it to nine and not approving the Conditional Use Permit.

14 PZ Minutes Page 10 of 16 September 7, 2017 Chairman Benedict closed the public portion of the meeting. Director Tice suggested giving the applicant a chance to address some of the questions or statements that were made during the public comments. Chairman Benedict replied that he was going to invite the applicant back to the podium to respond to any comments that were made. Mr. Richardson returned to the podium to respond to the comments that were made by the public. He stated that there is always at least two adults at the facility 24 hours a day and 24 hours a day there is Mr. or Mrs. Battle there. He stated that they are asking for a Conditional Use permit for this residence only and not any other residence and if approved, could have conditions on it such as limiting the number of residents to nine. The board of the HOA has provided a letter that indicates they do not oppose the group home request. The speakers who referred to the HOA as opposing the group home were speaking for themselves and not representing the HOA board. The speaker who noted that they would have to be disclosed the fact that a group home existed in their neighborhood when they sold their home is mistaken as that disclosure is not required. If you drive by 1469 E. Laurel Drive you can t tell that it is a residential facility or group home by what is outside or even by what s inside as it looks like a normal single family home. There were some comments made that perhaps he was twisting the law or not in compliance with the City Codes, not sure what that speaker was talking about but the Battles are trying to do what law requires them to do which is the reason they are before the Commission. Member Estrada questioned if Mrs. Battle has a second home that she operates out of. Mr. Richardson replied that she does not. He explained that Mrs. Battle submitted an application for an additional foster care home but she has no control over what the state does with her application and this is the reason why her name shows up on the state website. Mr. Richardson stated that Mrs. Battle does not own the home in Mission Royale. Member McBride questioned if she leases the house. Mr. Richardson replied that she does not. Member McBride stated that the HOA letter indicates that they don t oppose the group home but they do not indicate that they support it.

15 PZ Minutes Page 11 of 16 September 7, 2017 Mr. Richardson replied that it was a matter of interpretation of their letter. Member McBride questioned again if there are two people there to supervise at all times. Mr. Richardson replied that there are two people there to supervise all of the time and one of them is either Mr. or Mrs. Battle. Member McBride questioned if the supervision is separated if the children are inside or outside of the house and if there was a policy regarding this. Mr. Richardson replied that there is supervision wherever the children are. Vice-Chairman Miller stated that it appears that from reading the letters that were presented, the concerns are related to raising the number of clients from six to nine. He stated that the concerns seem to be with just raising the number and not what is currently there. He questioned if the HOA is not opposed to what is currently there or are they not opposed to raising the number of children from 6 to 9. Mr. Richardson referred Vice-Chairman Miller to the letter that was presented from the HOA that states that based upon the nature of the group home and information provided by the group home owner, the Association must accommodate operation of the facility as it appears to comply with the FFHA. If the home ceases to operate as a facility subject to the FFHA, the Association can revoke permission. He stated that this implies that they are giving permission to operate the group home. Vice-Chairman Miller responded that they are giving them permission because they can t deny them but his question is more towards the Conditional Use Permit and raising the number of clients. Mr. Richardson responded that as previously mentioned, they would be glad to add a condition of approval that limits the number of clients to nine. Vice-Chairman Miller mentioned that he did have a phone conversation with Mr. Richardson and during the conversation nothing was discussed outside of the minutes and what was presented tonight. Member Dugan made a motion to send a recommendation of denial to City Council for DSA Major Amendment to the Ironwood Commons Planned Area Development to allow a Group Home land use (Safeway House

16 PZ Minutes Page 12 of 16 September 7, 2017 Youth Facility) and a modification of the parking requirements for group homes to allow tandem parking and vehicles to back out onto the street. Motion was seconded by Member Tucker. Member Henderson stated that he believes that the Commission should forward to City Council a positive recommendation because this facility is one that the neighborhood and the community needs. He explained that there is a lot of emotion on the commentary and he has lived in places where it mattered so he understands the neighborhood concerns but he thinks the community need outweighs the concern. Member Henderson stated that he thinks a lot of concerns are based on things that could possibly happen but has not happened so far and by normal expectations probably aren t going to. He further stated that Ironwood Commons HOA feels that this is something they have to agree with so they are proactively not objecting to this even if some of the members of the HOA don t like it. As to the police calls and reports, he stated that he doesn t agree with Staff s assumption that this is dangerous in the first place even though there have been a few more reports for this house than average for the neighborhood. Member Henderson stated that we don t know that it is more than anybody else but just more than average. He stated that nobody in the neighborhood has been threatened or called the police. It has been all within the organization to help Staff members help these kids. Member Henderson explained that the City Traffic Engineer has said that traffic doesn t cause a problem and that Staff feels that ten trips a day might be a recognizable thing. He stated that if you look at a normal day, this would be less than one trip and hour and he does not think it will change the traffic in the neighborhood. Member Henderson stated that this is not a business application. This is a group home. They are not talking about a tire shop or hair salon. This is a residential facility that happens to be bigger than the permitted residential facility so they are required to get a Conditional Use Permit to have nine clients. He explained that it is not different in any other respect and they would not be opening flood gates of any kind regarding any other kind of commercial activity that could happen. Member Henderson stated that if somebody proposed anything commercial, it would not be allowed. It would stop at Staff level and not come before the Commission. Member Henderson referred to drugs and gangs stating that these are kids taken from a situation who are in a care environment receiving guidance and treatment so they can learn to understand and accept a more normal life and not be a hazard to the world. Member Dugan commented that at the last meeting he voted in favor of approving the motion. He stated that he does not believe that there is going to be an issue there with traffic as he drove through the neighborhood four or five times in the last month and each time at different times of the day the traffic was

17 PZ Minutes Page 13 of 16 September 7, 2017 dead. He explained that he made the motion to not approve because if this gets approved, they would be setting a precedence that if another residential facility wants to increase from six to nine, it would open up a mess that he does not want the City to deal with later. Member Dugan stated that six clients is fine. Vice-Chairman Miller asked if the six included staff. Director Tice replied that the limit of six was just for the residents and did not include staff; with staff a total of eight could occupy the residence. Member Henderson stated that we are not opening any flood gates. He explained that anytime a residential facility requests to increase to more than six, they would be required to go through the same review process. Member Dugan responded that if the PAD Amendment is approved, then any applicant can come back and say that this facility was approved so why can t they have a group home even if they have to go through the same process. Member Henderson asked Staff if the reason a Condition Use Permit is needed and the change to the PAD (Planned Area Development) is because the use is not permitted within this particular PAD but is available in other PADs. Director Tice replied that the uses within the Ironwood Commons PAD are limited to single family homes which include a residential facility and it does not allow group homes. He stated that the applicant has chosen to try to amend the PAD (Planned Area Development) to add a group home use as an allowable use on a conditional use basis for this property and filed an associated Conditional Use Permit. Director Tice explained that the majority of residential PADs within Casa Grande are in the same situation as group homes are not listed as a permitted or conditional use in most of them. He stated that in most areas of the city, in order to have a group home approved in a PAD zoned property, it would be the same process. Vice-Chairman Miller stated that there would be a point in time that Mrs. Battle would have the ability to find a property in the R1 zone district for sale and move forward with the group home. Director Tice replied that it would require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The City s non PAD (Planned Area Development) residential zones such as UR (Urban Ranch), R-1, R-1A and R-2 all allow group homes as a conditional use so they would still be required to go through the Conditional Use process, but it would not require a zone change amendment.

18 PZ Minutes Page 14 of 16 September 7, 2017 Member Dugan questioned if the Commission recommends denial will it still go to City Council. Mr. Graffius replied that if the recommendation is to deny, the code says that the applicant is required to request in writing that they would like the PAD Amendment to go to City Council for their decision. He explained that, as far as the Conditional Use Permit, it is up to the applicant whether or not they want the Commission to vote on it at this time. He stated that the applicant may want to wait for City Council s decision before a decision is made on the Conditional Use Permit. The following roll call vote on the recommendation for denial of the PAD amendment was recorded: Member Dugan Member Estrada Member McBride Member Tucker Member Henderson Vice-Chairman Miller Chairman Benedict Aye No Aye Aye No Aye Aye The motion passed 5 2 Mr. Graffius explained that staff would advise Council of the recommendation made by Planning Commission and whether or not there is a hearing before City Council would be up to the applicant. He stated that as far as the Conditional Use Permit, the applicant could decide if they would like to table it for a month or two and wait to see what the outcome is from Council or it could be voted on tonight. Vice-Chairman Miller questioned if the Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit, it will still require the approval of the Major Amendment to the PAD (Planned Area Development) Mr. Graffius replied that there is a condition of approval for the Conditional Use Permit that the applicant receive approval for the Major Amendment to the PAD (Planned Area Development). Chairman Benedict questioned if the Commission denied the Conditional Use Permit and City Council approved the Amendment to the PAD, would the Conditional Use Permit then come back in front of the Commission to hear the Conditional Use Permit again.

19 PZ Minutes Page 15 of 16 September 7, 2017 Mr. Graffius replied that they have appeal rights for the denial of the Conditional Use Permit per City Code. Mr. Richardson requested that the Commission table the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Graffius explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission has thirty days per City Code to make a decision on a Conditional Use Permit. He stated that the thirty days would be met for the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting but the City Council may or may not have acted on this case prior to that meeting. He asked Mr. Richardson if they would like to put it on the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and if Council has not acted on this prior to that meeting, would they want to put it on the next meeting or waive the thirty days at this time. Mr. Richardson replied that they would like it moved to the November meeting. Member McBride made a motion to table DSA Conditional Use Permit to allow for operation of a Group Home (Safeway House Youth Facility) for up to 9 clients to the October meeting. Motion was seconded by Member Henderson. The following roll call vote was recorded: Member Dugan Member Estrada Member McBride Member Tucker Member Henderson Vice-Chairman Miller Chairman Benedict Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye The motion passed 7 0 F. New Business: 1. Public Hearing on a request by Bowman Consulting on behalf of Communities Southwest for the following land use approval on approximately 372 acres generally located north of McCartney Rd. and east of Pinal within the Villago Planned Area Development: a. DSA : Preliminary Plat to divide the property into 1,198 single-family residential lots, identifying future rights of way, tracts and

20 PZ Minutes Page 16 of 16 September 7, 2017 easements. (Planner Joseph Horn) Item tabled indefinitely. G. Call to the Public: John Neff, 1424 N. Milly Lane came to podium stating that he did not feel that Member Henderson should have been included in the voting because he alleged that Member Henderson had prior background in group homes. H. Report by Planning Director: Director Tice briefed the Commission on DSA : Minor Amendment to the Cardinal Glass Site Plan for the installation of 2.15 acres of ground mounted photovoltaic panels which was administratively approved on August 4, 2017 by Planner Joseph Horn. I. Adjournment: Member Henderson motioned for adjournment, a voice call vote was called and all were in favor. Chairman Benedict called for adjournment at 7:30 p.m. Submitted this 13th day of September 2017 by Linda Harris, Administrative Assistant to the Casa Grande Planning & Zoning Commission, subject to the Commission s approval. Approved this day of, 2017, by the Casa Grande Planning & Zoning Commission. Chairman Benedict

21

22

23

24

25

26 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Date: 10/05/2017 Submitted By: Laura Blakeman, Planning & Development F.1. SUBJECT Public hearing and consideration of a request by Tiffany M. Battle, for the following land use request for property located at 1469 E. Laurel Drive: 1. DSA : Conditional Use Permit to allow for operation of a Group Home (Safeway House Youth Facility) for up to 9 clients. DISCUSSION Because the Major PAD Amendment request that accompanies the Conditional Use Permit request, has not been voted on by the Mayor and City Council, Staff is requesting that the Conditional Use Permit request, DSA , be postponed until the November 2nd Planning Commission meeting (see attached Memo). RECOMMENDATION Staff is requesting that the Conditional Use Permit request, DSA , be postponed until the November 2nd Planning Commission meeting. Memo to Planning Commission Attachments

27 City of Casa Grande, Arizona PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMO TO: FROM: Planning & Zoning Commission Laura Blakeman, Planner DATE: September 25, 2017 SUBJECT: DSA : Conditional Use Permit to allow for operation of a Group Home (Safeway House Youth Facility) for up to 9 clients. At the September 7 th Planning Commission meeting, the Conditional Use Permit request was tabled to the October 5 th, Planning Commission meeting. Because the Major PAD amendment request (DSA ) has been scheduled for the October 16 th City Council meeting (with the applicant s consent), City Staff is asking that the Conditional Use Permit request be tabled to the November 2 nd Planning Commission meeting. This postponement of the Conditional Use Permit request will allow the Mayor and City Council to make a decision on the Major PAD Amendment request, which has to happen prior to consideration of the Conditional Use Permit. 1

28 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Date: 10/05/2017 Submitted By: Jim Gagliardi, Planning & Development G.1. SUBJECT Public Hearing and consideration of a request by Architekton on behalf of the City of Casa Grande for a Major Site Plan (DSA ) for the City of Casa Grande Public Recreation Facility located at 1900 N. Peart Rd. Said facility to be sited on a acre site; contain approximately 55,158 sq. ft. in building area and have a maximum height of 40 ft. DISCUSSION This a Major Site Plan/Final Development Plans submittal for the consideration by the Planning & Zoning Commission for the City of Casa Grande Community Recreation Center Facility proposed to be located at 1900 N. Peart Rd. See Exhibit A for the Staff Report and various attachments thereto consisting of excerpts of the site plan, elevations, landscaping, etc. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve DSA subject to technical modifications presented within the staff report (Exhibit A). Attachments Exhibit A - Staff report with exhibits

29 Planning and Zoning Commission STAFF REPORT AGENDA # TO: FROM: CASA GRANDE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION James Gagliardi, AICP, City Planner MEETING DATE: October 5, 2017 REQUEST A Public Hearing on a request by Architekton on behalf of the City of Casa Grande for the following land use approval at 1900 N Peart Rd. within the G-Diamond Ranch PAD (Planned Area Development) zone district: DSA Major Site Plan/Final Development Plan for the City of Casa Grande Public Recreation Facility to be approximately 55,158 sq. ft. in area and a maximum height of 40 ft. on a acre parcel. APPLICANT/OWNER Architekton 464 S Farmer Ave Suite 101 Tempe, AZ City of Casa Grande 510 E Florence Blvd. Casa Grande, AZ HISTORY June 5, 2000: October 6, 2003: The City Council adopted Ordinance No annexing property into the City of Casa Grande, initially zoned UR (Urban Ranch), CGPZ Ordinance No was adopted by the City Council rezoning 367 acres from UR to G-Diamond Ranch Planned Area Development (PAD), CGPZ September 17, 2007: December 12, 2007: City Council approves Ordinance amending the G-Diamond Ranch PAD land use plan to allow a public recreation facility use on Parcel I of the G-Diamond Ranch land use plan as well as revising some of other surrounding uses, DSA Ordinance No was approved by City Council for an acquisition of real property within the G-Diamond Ranch 1

30 PAD for acres of land conveyed by the Gilbert Family Limited Partnership to the City of Casa Grande. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Area Current Land Use Existing Zoning acres Undeveloped (designated for 4.13 acres for open space/parks use associated with public recreation facility and 8 acres for public recreation facility use) PAD (G-Diamond Ranch) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Direction General Plan 2020 Designation Existing Zoning/Use (see Maps below) North Neighborhoods G-Diamond Ranch PAD /currently undeveloped/ commercially designated East Neighborhoods Highland Manor single-family residential PAD on other side of Peart Pd. South Neighborhoods G-Diamond Ranch PAD / eastern portion currently undeveloped and designated for professional office, western portion consists of single-family homes. West Neighborhoods G-Diamond Ranch PAD/ northern portion undeveloped and designated for townhomes, southern portion developed as single-family homes on other side of Colorado St. 2

31 N Peart Rd N Peart Rd Aerial Map Land Use Map E Kortsen Rd. Subject site E Kortsen Rd. Subject site E O Neil Dr. E O Neil Dr. General Discussion: A municipal bond was approved by a vote of Casa Grande citizens to construct a City recreation facility a number of years ago. This site has been selected by the City Community Services Department for that purpose. The City of Casa Grande owns slightly over 12 acres of land within the G-Diamond Ranch PAD which was donated from the Gilbert Family in That same year, City Council approved an amendment to the G-Diamond Ranch PAD to accommodate a public recreation facility on that parcel. Though the PAD allows for the construction a public recreation center facility use, development of such is subject to the approval of a Major Site Plan/Final Development Plan by the Planning & Zoning Commission. The proposed facility is 55,158 sq. ft., and 40 ft. tall. It contains a gymnasium, fitness loft, fitness classrooms, large meeting space, educational classrooms, administrative offices, the Boys and Girls Club, and functional lobby space. Also planned for the site are two event lawns (see Exhibit A, narrative). 3

32 Compliance with Major Site Plan/Final Development Plan Review Criteria: Section of the Zoning Code sets forth various review criteria that need to be evaluated in conjunction with the consideration of a Major Site Plan/Final Development Plan application. Staff s analysis of how the proposed Major Site Plan complies with each of these criteria is as follows: 1. Relationship of the plan elements to conditions both on and off the property The site is currently a flat field that has been historically used for agricultural purposes, bordered by Peart Rd, a major arterial to the east. To the west and southwest are existing and planned low-density residential uses to the. To the north, northwest, and south are areas identified for commercial use, town homes, and professional offices, respectively. The Major Site Plan (Exhibit B) calls for placement of the building, parking, and event lawns to be arranged in a way that takes these adjacent areas under consideration. This is achieved the following ways: Peart Rd. is the site s only point of ingress/egress. This minimizes vehicular traffic caused by the facility from driving through the other areas of G-Diamond Ranch which primarily serves residential traffic. The building is placed in the area of the parcel that is the furthest from abutting single-family residential designated land uses within the G- Diamond Ranch PAD. As a result, the building s massing does not obstruct views from residential lots. Similarly, the residents within the Highland Manor neighborhood across Peart is over 100 ft. away, with no parking areas located between the building and the road to minimize the look of an institutional use from the street. Covenants that apply to the property are taken into consideration such as the use of lighted fields is not allowed. The Major Site Plan identifies future pedestrian connectivity from the internal street network within G-Diamond Ranch and the planned commercial area to the north to be completed by the City s Community Services Department at a later time. Building and landscape design that take into account the property s setting and context (See Elevations and Landscape Plan, Exhibits C and D). 4

33 2. Conformance to the City's zoning ordinance The 12-acre site is within the PAD zone district for G-Diamond Ranch. Eight of these 12 acres is designated specifically for the use as a public recreation facility, and slightly over four acres of the parcel is designated for open space and park purposes to be owned and maintained by the City. The zoning allows for two different development scenarios. If this site were not to be developed for a public recreation facility, professional office uses would be permitted. The development standards under a professional office scenario require compliance with the standard zoning designation of CO (Commercial Office). Under the public recreation facility scenario, however, there are no stated standards; therefore, its proposed setbacks and height are subject to the approval of the Major Site Plan. Though there is flexibility afforded to the facility, the site provides for comparable standards found in other standard zone districts. The plan accomodates the City-Code stipulated parking amount, signage, landscaping, and setbacks. The building is setback 40 ft. from the front property line, 55 ft. from the north property line, over 200 ft. from the south property line, and over 400 ft. from the west property line (See Exhibit B, Major Site plan). The building s height of 40 ft. ht. is de-emphasized by the fact it has flat-roof. It also has articulated massing on its lower-level and is spaced the same distance from the front property line as its height so as not to give the appearance of a looming structure from the right of way. There are not specific architectural requirements within the PAD; however the building is primarily comprised of masonry block (See Exhibit C, elevations). The G-Diamond Ranch PAD does call for a 10 ft.-wide multi-use trail to ultimately connect Colorado St to future uses within the PAD through this parcel. This Major Site Plan accommodates for this by a note that a trail will be added in the future by the City s Community Services Department. 3. Conformance to the City's General Plan The subject site is designated as Neighborhoods in the City s General Plan The objective of this land-use designation is to create places of character for residents. Areas for commercial use are limited to sites no larger than 30 acres. There is to be accessibility to park developments and service areas from residential neighborhoods by bicycles, pedestrians. Internal pedestrian circulation is encouraged. To respond to this, there is pedestrian connection from Peart Rd. to the facility; and a future connection to the G- Diamond ranch neighborhood to be completed by the City at some point in the future through the parks and open space designated portion of the parcel. 5

34 Peart Rd. General Plan 2020 Subject site Kortsen Rd. 4. The impact of the plan on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared by Dibble Engineering, and it analyzed the existing level of service provided by streets and access points impacted by the proposed development. Based on the findings of the TIA, a portion of Peart Rd. is to be widened to accommodate a left turn lane to access the site for northbound (NB) Peart Rd. traffic. Also, there is to be right turn lane constructed for southbound (SB) traffic to the site. To accommodate this widening, a Map of Dedication (MOD) application establishing 70 ft. of ROW west of the centerline of Peart from O Neil Dr. to Kortsen Rd. has been submitted and approved by City Council. With this dedication of this additional right of way, there will be a total of 125 ft. of right of way for Peart Rd. between O Neil Dr. and Kortsen Rd. As a future City improvement, additional travel lanes will be added to Peart beyond the NB and SB turn lanes that are being implemented with this project. Prior to the TIA, City Engineering worked with the design firm to ensure that the driveway was located at the furthest southern location possible on the 6

35 parcel to minimize conflict with existing intersections on the east side of Peart within the Highland Manor subdivision. Parking for the site meets City Code requirements for community recreation use of one parking space per 200 sq. ft. of 90% of the building s gross floor area. Accordingly, 262 parking spaces are planned, 249 spaces are required. 5. The adequacy of the plan with respect to land use This is addressed within Relationship of the plan elements to conditions both on and off the property, above. 6. Pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress There is to be one access vehicular drive to serve the site located off of Peart Rd. This is appropriate given the fact that Peart Rd. is designed to be a major arterial road with limited driveways and street intersections. Bicycle parking will be provided on site. Ultimately, Peart Rd. and other nearby streets will have bicycle lanes to provide alternative access to this facility. The plan provides for pedestrian access to the site via a new sidewalk abutting the site along Peart Rd. There is also reference on the plan for future pedestrian access to the G-Diamond Ranch neighborhood from the building s entrance. 7. Building location and height See Conformance with Zoning Ordinance, above. 8. Landscaping A preliminary landscape plan was provided and found to meet the landscaping criteria as set forth in the Article VI of of the City Code (Exhibit D). A final landscape plan will be reviewed administratively by Planning staff prior to the issuance of the building permit. This site requires two trees and five shrubs for every three parking spaces, as well as one tree and three shrubs for every 30 ft. of street frontage. This amounts to a minimum requirement of 180 trees and 488 shrubs. The City Code also limits turf to 10% within landscaping areas. Due to the large size of the site, the 56,196 sq. ft. area of planned turf falls within this 10% maximum. 9. Lighting A photometric plan has been submitted showing no bleed of light onto other sites (Exhibit E). 7

36 10. Provisions for utilities Water is to be provided by Arizona Water, and waste water is to tie into the City of Casa Grande s sewer line within Peart Rd. Both preliminary reports were found adequate by City Engineering and Public Works. Final design wastewater and water reports are to be submitted with the site development permit. The final water report and plans require submittal to Arizona Water Company for review and approval. There were a few outstanding review comments pertaining to the preliminary water and waste water reports. Prior to final approval of the Major Site Plan these reports need to be revised to address the following items: Water Report: 1. Fireflow requirements must be approved by the City of Casa Grande Fire Marshall, including any reduction allowed for implementation of firesuppression system. Report must clearly demonstrate that required fire flow will be available at the site. 2. A recent fire hydrant data sheet (fire flow test) must be provided which connects to the line this project intends to connect to. 3. Design must clearly demonstrate that adequate supply is available to supply domestic and fire demands. Sewer Report: 1. Sewer demands for the project appear low when compared to the water demands projected for the project. Verify calculations. Provide explanation in the report on where additional water usage is being discharged if it is not discharging into the sewer system or base the sewer demands on fixture count as well. 2. In Section II. Existing Conditions, information for the existing sewer lines should be per City of Casa Grande and not the Arizona Water Company. 11. Site drainage/grading A preliminary drainage report has been submitted for the site as well as a grading and drainage plan (Exhibit F). Three primary retention areas are planned- one to the north of the building, one to the northwest and one to the southwest. There are outstanding review items that require technical revisions to the drainage report. The following items must be resolved between the applicant and City Engineering prior to final approval: 8

37 Drainage Report: 1. Need to describe and perform offsite hydrology and hydraulic analysis ( ) for the proposed site of significant interest: 2. The site may be under the impact of offsite flows from local watershed consisting of the open fields upstream (South and Southeast) of project site. Also, no temporary or permanent retention basins were indicated. Appropriate drainage design for the conveyance (or retention) of any offsite flow from local watershed shall be addressed at this stage of the project. 3. The applicant and their consultants shall review all previously approved drainage plans (if applicable) that impact the proposed project and shall acknowledge in their report/plans that, except as noted in their report/plans, they accept the assumptions/ analysis/ conclusions/ recommendations of the prior report(s) and will use them as the basis for their report and design ( ) 4. The runoff coefficients used for the site areas are not consistent with the City Code Please use land use coefficients listed in the City code e.g should be used for bare ground. It is recommended to calculate weighted runoff coefficients for drainage areas. 5. All retention basins shall have at least 1-foot of free board above the maximum water elevation ( ). 6. Please provide Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the site with flood zone and site boundary clearly indicated. 12. Open space The PAD requires this site is to provide a minimum of 15% open space. The provision of open space on this parcel greatly exceeds this at approximately 40%. 13. Loading and unloading areas There is a non-improved service drive on the site planned parallel to Peart Rd to be screened primarily through the use of vegetation. A screen wall within a limited portion of this area adjacent to the service yard is also planned. There is a customer unloading area at the building s entrance at the west-side of the facility. Trash pick-up is located toward the north side of the site comprised of a dumpster located within a City-approved trash enclosure. 9

38 14. Signage A low-profile sign is proposed near the site s entrance at Peart Rd. that matches signage for other City facilities. It will be subject to a separate sign permit to ensure appropriate line-of-sight is maintained. 15. Screening The parking area is well screened from public view by the fact the building lies between the parking area and the street. The aforementioned service drive and yard will have screening using primarily vegetation, but also a 3 ft. screen wall adjacent to the service yard will be used. 16. Setbacks See Conformance with Zoning, above. 17. Parking This is discussed within The impact of the plan on the existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions, above. 18. Other related matters The City Fire Marshall had indicated several technical modifications required to the plan that will need to be addressed prior to its final approval. These are: 1. Show the size and location of the fireline to the building. IFC Section Relocate the FDC to the south side of the project adjacent to the first fire hydrant on the north side of the firelane access road. This keeps the firelane unobstructed during fire operations. In addition the currently proposed location at the northwest corner of the building causes conflict with the aerial apparatus location and fire hydrant serving this apparatus. IFC Section The review items associated with the water, waste water, and drainage reports, as well as the City s fire department s comments are possibly addressed with the project s second review submittal, which is currently pending. 10

39 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION/COMMENTS Notification: Public hearing notification efforts for this request meet and exceed those requirements set out by City Code. They include: A notice was published in the Casa Grande Dispatch on September 19, 2017 for the October 5, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. Notice was mailed by the City of Casa Grande on September 20, 2017, to each owner of property situated within 300 feet of the subject property. The names and addresses of the owners were provided by the City of Casa Grande per Pinal County Ownership Data. An affidavit confirming this mailing was supplied by the City. A sign was posted on behalf of the City on September 20, An affidavit confirming this posting is located in the project file. Inquiries/Comments Staff has received one telephone inquiry at the time of this writing. The person lived in Highland Manor and was concerned about the added traffic to Peart Rd. RECOMMENDED MOTION Staff recommends that approval of the Major Site Plan DSA with the following technical corrections: Technical Corrections: Prior to final approval of the Major Site Plan these reports need to be revised to address the following items to the satisfaction of Public Works: Water Report: 1. Fireflow requirements must be approved by the City of Casa Grande Fire Marshall, including any reduction allowed for implementation of firesuppression system. Report must clearly demonstrate that required fire flow will be available at the site. 2. A recent fire hydrant data sheet (fire flow test) must be provided which connects to the line this project intends to connect to. 3. Design must clearly demonstrate that adequate supply is available to supply domestic and fire demands. 11

40 Sewer Report: 1. Sewer demands for the project appear low when compared to the water demands projected for the project. Verify calculations. Provide explanation in the report on where additional water usage is being discharged if it is not discharging into the sewer system or base the sewer demands on fixture count as well. 2. In Section II. Existing Conditions, information for the existing sewer lines should be per City of Casa Grande and not the Arizona Water Company. Drainage Report: 1. Need to describe and perform offsite hydrology and hydraulic analysis ( ) for the proposed site of significant interest: 2. The site may be under the impact of offsite flows from local watershed consisting of the open fields upstream (South and Southeast) of project site. Also, no temporary or permanent retention basins were indicated. Appropriate drainage design for the conveyance (or retention) of any offsite flow from local watershed shall be addressed at this stage of the project. 3. The applicant and their consultants shall review all previously approved drainage plans (if applicable) that impact the proposed project and shall acknowledge in their report/plans that, except as noted in their report/plans, they accept the assumptions/ analysis/ conclusions/ recommendations of the prior report(s) and will use them as the basis for their report and design ( ) 4. The runoff coefficients used for the site areas are not consistent with the City Code Please use land use coefficients listed in the City code e.g should be used for bare ground. It is recommended to calculate weighted runoff coefficients for drainage areas. 5. All retention basins shall have at least 1-foot of free board above the maximum water elevation ( ). 6. Please provide Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the site with flood zone and site boundary clearly indicated. Modify Site Plan to address the following Fire Department items: 1. Show the size and location of the fireline to the building. IFC Section Relocate the FDC to the south side of the project adjacent to the first fire hydrant on the north side of the firelane access road. This keeps the firelane unobstructed during fire operations. In addition the currently 12

41 proposed location at the northwest corner of the building causes conflict with the aerial apparatus location and fire hydrant serving this apparatus. IFC Section Exhibits Exhibit A- Narrative Exhibit B- Major Site Plan (excerpt) Exhibit C- Elevations Exhibit D- Preliminary Landscape Plan Exhibit E- Photometric Plan Exhibit F- Grading & Drainage Plan 13

42 Exhibit A Narrative 14

43 Exhibit B- Major Site Plan (excerpt) 15

44 16

45 Exhibit C Building Elevations 17

46 18

47 Exhibit D Preliminary Landscape Plan 19

48 Exhibit E- Photometric Plan 20

49 Exhibit F Grading & Drainage Plan 21