Z-5668-D Staff AnalysisMarch 19, 1`998
ITEM NO.: 10-A
NAME:
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Staff Analysis:
FILE NO.: Z -5668-D
Home Depot Revised Conditional
Use Permit
12610 Chenal Parkway
Home Depot/Derek Gilpin, Manager
A revision to this previously
approved conditional use permit is
requested to allow Home Depot to
have an area of outside seasonal
display. The property is zoned
C-3.
On March 23, 1993, the Planning Commission approved a conditional
use permit to allow for development of a home center on this C-3
zoned property. The conditional use permit was originally
approved for Lowe's Home Center. The Lowe's store was never
built and Home Depot developed the site based upon the approved
conditional use permit. One condition of the approval was that
the area of outdoor display/storage was to be limited to the
fenced in garden center shown on the plan. No additional outside
display, seasonal or otherwise, was approved.
In the spring of 1997, the City's Code Enforcement staff
initiated action against Home Depot, who had created an area of
seasonal merchandise display within the parking lot in front of
the store. Home Depot filed for an amended conditional use
permit to allow for two areas of seasonal outside display,
totaling 45,375± square feet. The largest area of display was
located in front of the building, between the store and Markham
Street. Staff felt that the proposal was unreasonable and
recommended denial. Staff felt that allowing an area of seasonal
display was reasonable as long as it fell within the area and
time frame established by the ordinance for commercial
properties. On May 15, 1997, the Commission denied the amended
conditional use permit. The applicant appealed to the Board of
Directors in June 1997. The item languished at the Board and was
never acted upon.
Home Depot has now filed a different, amended conditional use
permit application, again asking for an area of seasonal outside
display. This time, however, the request conforms to ordinance
standards for seasonal display in commercial districts and staff
feels this proposal is much more reasonable. Home Depot now
proposes a 60 foot by 100 foot area of seasonal display to be
located directly adjacent to and east of the garden center. This
March 19, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 10-A cont. FILE NO.: Z -5658-D
6,000 square foot area would be used for the seasonal display of
bagged goods such as mulch and fertilizers and other seasonal
merchandise. The seasonal display will be limited to a total of
120 days. A temporary chain-link fence will be erected around
the area which will be removed after the 120 day display period.
Additionally, Home Depot is asking to be allowed to display items
on the sidewalk directly in front of the store. This sidewalk
display would not be limited to 120 days per year.
Staff believes this is a much more reasonable request which
conforms to our recommendation of a year ago. The property is
zoned C-3, General Commercial. Section 36-298(4) of the
Commercial District restrictions states:
Seasonal and temporary sales, outside, shall
be permitted a maximum of four (4) occasions
per year with a maximum of thirty (30) days
per event. These events shall be permitted,
prior to initiation, by the staff of the city
department designated by the city manager.
These events may be permitted consecutively
or as desired by the owner or occupant.
Outside display of merchandise is allowed in
an area equal to one-half of the facade area
of the front of the building.
Section 36-301(b), the C-3 district development criteria states:
All commercial uses shall be restricted to
closed buildings, except parking lots,
seasonal and temporary sales per Section 36-
298.4, and the normal pump island services of
service station operations. In addition,
outdoor display of merchandise is allowed in
an area equal to one-half (1/2) of the facade
area of the front of the building. Certain
seasonal or special event sales may be
allowed when the owner has requested a permit
for such activity in conjunction with the
Privilege license application. The
permitting authority shall review the owner's
plan or placement of merchandise in order to
assure that obstruction of drives, walks,
required parking and fire lanes does not
occur. In no case shall full-time static
open display be permitted.
Staff believes it is reasonable to allow this business the same
seasonal and sidewalk display opportunities enjoyed by other
businesses in the City.
il�
March 19, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO..: 10-A (cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5668-D
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested amended conditional
use permit to allow seasonal outside sales and sidewalk display
subject to compliance with the provisions of Section 36-298(4).
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 26, 1998)
James Telford, assistant store manager for Home Depot, was
present. Staff presented the item. In response to a question
from staff, Mr. Telford stated that the area of seasonal display
would be enclosed by a temporary chainlink fence and that the
fence would be removed after the seasonal display was removed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 19, 1998)
Derek Gilpin, the Home Depot store manager, was present
representing the application. There were nine objectors present.
Staff presented the proposal including the information regarding
the previous conditional use application for a larger outside
display area and its status.
Staff made the point that this proposal does now conform with
ordinance standards in Section 36-298(4) for seasonal display and
sidewalk display in commercial districts.
Anne Borg, director of the St. Charles Community Association and
a member of the Rock Creek Area Planning Task Force, addressed
the Commission in opposition to the application. She spoke for
all of the nine persons present in opposition.
She stated that they had reached an agreement with Mr. Gilpin
regarding landscaping improvements and keeping them maintained,
keeping the parking areas cleaned up, and not stacking items in
the display area higher than the 8 foot fence which will surround
the display area. If these improvements are adhered to, that
will satisfy their concerns, she stated.
e
Ruth Bell with the League of Women Voters also spoke in
opposition. Their concern was that this was revising a
conditional use permit that was granted less than 5 years ago.
She asked if there is some criteria to use to decide when
revisions are OK or not.
Chairman Lichty responded first that he does not feel the process
of going through this public hearing is all that easy. Secondly,
he stated you can update and amend conditional use permits, there
is nothing unique about that. The Chairman said he would hate to
say the Commission would never amend a conditional use permit,
3
March 19, 1998
SOBDIVISIQN
ITEM NO,: 10-A (cont.
which sounds like what Ms. Bell was suggesting. Ruth Bell
responded by saying that is not what they are asking for. They
just want to make sure there is some rationale for these changes,
especially when there is a relatively short -time after the
original permit was granted.
In response to a question by Mark Johnson, representing the
Opposition, Chairman Lichty stated that the agreement about the
landscaping would be on record as a part of the conditional use
permit.
Commissioner Nunnley asked how the landscaping modifications
agreed to were related to the conditional use permit.
Mr. Giles, Deputy City Attorney, responded by saying if these
landscaping modifications were made conditions of -the conditional
use permit, they would have to be met. If not met, then that
would be grounds for revoking the permit.
Commissioner Earnest made the point that staff would need to
receive a copy of the agreed to landscaping plan.
Chairman Lichty made the point with Mr. Gil
writing his consent to doing those things agreedin btotinrovorderntoin
satisfy the objections raised, and make it part of the conditions
to this conditional use permit. Mr. Gilpin agreed to do this in
writing.
Commissioner Putnam asked if the sidewalk display had always been
in the application. Staff assured him it had always been there.
Commissioner Rahman asked about the meaning of static display in
relation to the sidewalk display area. Staff agreed that the
requested sidewalk display area met the requirements in the
ordinance.
A motion was made to approve the application as made to include
the staff recommendations and to include the agreement reached
with the neighborhood association as to landscaping and
maintenance thereof. The motion passed by a vote of 11 ayes,
0 noes and 0 absent.
4