Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5798 Staff Analysis1. Meeting Date: April 19, 1994 2. Case No.: Z-5709 3. Rea-uest: Appeal of the Planning Commission recommendation of denial for the establishment of BARROW MINI -STORAGE SHORT -FORM PCD 4. Location: On the west side of John Barrow Road, approximately 300 feet south of Labette Drive 5. Owner/Applicant: Kelton Brown, Sr./Tom Kemp and Associates, Inc. 6. Existing Status: vacant; Zoned 0-3, General Office District, and MF -12, Multi -Family District 7. Proposed Use: Mini -Storage Development 8. Staff Recommendation: Denial 9. Planning Commission ReaommendatDenial 10. Conditions or Issues Remaining to be Resolved: Amendment of the Land Use Plan 11. Right -of -Way Issues: None 12. Recommendation Forwarded With: The vote to recommend approval of the PCD failed with the vote of 4 ayes, 7 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions 13. Ob-iectors: Mary Reichstadt 14. Neiahborhood Plan: I-430 (11) FILE NO.: Z-57 NAME: BARROW MINI -STORAGE -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the west side of John Barrow Rd., approximately 300 feet south of Labette Dr. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: TOM REMP & ASSOCIATES, INC. SAMUEL L. DAVIS 2323 N. Tyler St./P. O. Box 7572 S. DAVIS CONSULTING, INC. Little Rock, AR 72217 5301 W. 8th. St. 663-6600 Little Rock, AR 72204 664-0324 AREA: 4.59 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: O-3 & MF -12 PROPOSED USES: Mini -Storage Facility PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD in order to develop a mini -storage facility. Three phases are planned: the first phase to be built is to be east of the creek which traverses the site; the second, west of the creek and south of the "leg" which extends northward towards Labette Dr.; then, the third phase would be that portion of the tract which is north to Labette Dr. A total of 80,650 square feet of mini -storage building is proposed. The first phase entails the construction of 5 buildings totaling 34,400: square feet; the second, 5 buildings and 28,900 square feet; the third, 3 buildings and 17,350 square feet. The first phase is intended for immediate development, with the remaining phases to follow as the market demand dictates. The buildings are to be 12 feet tall, metal frame buildings with standing seam metal roofing; the exteriors are to be concrete, with exposed aggregate concrete walls on the fronts of the buildings. Concrete drives are proposed. A resident manager apartment and office totaling 1,200 square feet are to be attached to one of the buildings and constructed in the first phase of construction. The landscape areas will be provided, and lawns will be sodded; a lawn sprinkler system is proposed. Security lighting and fencing will be included. A. PROPOSAL RE ❑EST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a PCD for a mini -warehouse facility. The proposed development is to occur in three phases over a number of years, based on the market. FILE NO.: Z-5709 (Continued) Overall, the buildings are to occupy 81,850 square feet of the site, or 41% of the land area. Drives are to occupy another 41%. Landscaping, then, is 18% of the site. The buildings exteriors are concrete, with exposed aggregate concrete walls on the fronts of buildings. A resident manager and an office will occupy a portion of one of the buildings. The site will be fenced and lighted for security. Access to the project will be from 7:00 A.M. until 9:00 P.M., 365 days per year. No variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. A creek runs across the site from north to south. The terrain is rolling, with a 25 foot differential in topography, rising from east to west. The existing zoning is 0-3 along the Barrow Rd. frontage and MF -12 for the west one-half of the site. The remainder of the MF -12 zone lies to the west and across Labette Dr. to the north. An R-2 site abuts the site to the south. A POD is immediately to the north of the tract. Across John Barrow Rd. to the east is an undeveloped 0-1 district. C. ENGINEERING/UTILITY COMMENTS: The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances will apply. As part of the approval of the preliminary plat, and for a final plan and plat to be approved for Phase III, dedication of the required right-of-way and construction of Labette Dr. as required in the preliminary plat approval must be accomplished. Water Works reports that on-site fire protection will be required. Wastewater reports that.a sewer main relocation must be approved by Wastewater, and must be completed prior to any construction within the existing sewer main easement. Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co: will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. Landscape review indicates that the buffer width along Barrow Rd. and the western perimeter should be 24 feet in width in order to meet the full requirement. The buffer widths along Labette Dr. and the southern perimeter should be an average width of 16 feet. A 6 foot high opaque screen will be required to screen business activity from the residential properties to the south and west. 2 FILE NO.: Z-5709 (Continued) D. ISSUES/LEGAL/TECHNICALIDESIGN: Significant deficiencies exist in the submittal: 1) the plans are incomplete and inaccurate in that they do not provide the engineering to substantiate the planned work to place the creek underground which traverses the site, and, from verbal information received from the developer, the plan is to build over the creek piping, yet an easement is reflected on the drawing; 2)- the site plan is not based on the survey/preliminary plat which has been submitted as part of the preliminary plat submittal; 3) amended drawings subsequent to the Subdivision Committee review have not been submitted; 4) the required application information form has not been completed; 5) the project narrative does not address the type of lighting or signage; 6) a landscaping plan has not been submitted; and, 7) a legal description of the site has not been furnished. The Planning staff reports that the proposed development is in the I-430 District. The Land Use Plan reflects multi- family uses for the area, and there have been no changes to justify amendment to the Plan. The proposed use is in conflict with the Land Use Plan. E. ANALYSIS• There are major deficiencies in the plans and documentation which have been submitted. There is inadequate landscaping and buffering from abutting residential districts. The anticipated use is in conflict with the Land Use Plan. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) No one was present to present the application. Staff the deficiencies outlined in the discussion outline. Committee forwarded the request to the Commission fo determination on .the appropriate course of action to of the application being incomplete and the applicant attending the Committee meeting to receive the staff Committee comments. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: reviewed The r a take in view not and (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff reported that neither the applicant nor his engineer had been present for the Subdivision Committee meeting, but that the 01 FILE NO_: Z-5709 (Continued) comments prepared for discussion at that meeting had been sent to the project engineer. Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, has, staff reported, been in contact with the Planning and the City Engineering staff, and has amended the plans to conform to the requirements outlined for the Subdivision Committee meeting. Because the proposed use in conflict with the Land Use Plan, staff recommends denial of the application. Mr. Gene Eberle addressed the Commission, indicating that he was representing Tom and E. Ray Kemp, who are the developers of the proposed mini -storage facility. Mr. Eberle said that the tract is undeveloped; that up until 20 years ago, the tract had been used as a dairy farm, but since that time, the land had been lying idle. The developers request approval to develop a mini - storage facility, and intend to develop an attractive facility which will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. The developers have previously built such mini -storage facilities as The Space Place, AAA Key Mini -Storage, and others. Mr. Eberle explained that there had been no apartment construction in the area in the past 10 years; that there is no market for multifamily development in the area; and that the mini -storage facility would be an asset to the neighborhood and benefit to the area homeowners and apartment dwellers who need the extra storage space. Mr. Eberle showed a series of photographs to the Commission members indicating the types of development in the area. He suggested that the proposed development would have more eye appeal than anything constructed in years, and would blend with the new medical rental facility being completed on the adjacent lot to the north. He reiterated that the development to the north is a commercial development, and that the mini -storage use would be of benefit to the residential uses in the area. Mr. Doug Holmstrom, representing the developer -builder, continued, saying that the proposed mini -storage facility would have eye appeal; that the construction is tilt -up concrete with stone impressions in the concrete to give the appearance of stone facing; and, that the site would be well landscaped. He reported that all deficiencies noted in the discussion outline for the Subdivision Committee had been met; that the site plan had been amended to provide the required landscape buffers. He indicated that there might need to be an adjustment in the location of the front driveway for proper separation between their drive and the drive on the abutting property to the north, but that this adjustment would be made if needed. He reported that the proposed lighting is 175 watt mercury vapor lighting fixtures set at 13'-6" height and at 90 foot intervals. The only sign on the site is to be a back -lighted awing. He concluded that the proposed use of the property would produce no noise, very little traffic, be an asset to the area, and be a better use of the land than vacant property is. 4 FILE NO.: Z-5709 Continued Commissioner Woods asked for clarification on the zoning district in which a mini -storage would normally be placed. Staff responded that a mini -storage use is a conditional use in C-3 zoning districts; and is a use by right in the C-4 district. Commissioner Woods commented that the use was inappropriate for the location. He observed that the other mini -storage facility further to the north, towards I-630, has located offices at the front of the facility, so that a passerby does not know that the warehouses are there. He concluded that John Barrow Rd. is a mostly residential thoroughfare, and warehouses facing the road are not appropriate. Chairperson Chachere complained about the amount of traffic on John Barrow Rd., commenting that Parkview High School was a short distance to the south of the proposed mini -storage facility, and, as a result of existing traffic, there are many serious and fatal accidents in the area. Bill Henry, City Traffic Engineer, related that there is a proposal to install a traffic signal at the intersection of John Barrow Rd. and Morris Manor Dr. which should help in the control of traffic. Ms. Chachere continued that she was concerned about any increase in traffic volume on John Barrow Rd. Mr. Henry responded that the traffic volumes on John Barrow are not to the volumes which would be expected on a 5 -lane arterial. He observed that the proposed development is 500 feet away from the Parkview High School access drives; that there is no sight distance problem at the proposed drive location; and, traffic leaving the proposed development can pull onto John Barrow Rd. without difficulty. Commissioner Nicholson commented that the mini -storage use would generate less traffic than either office or multi -family uses would generate. She added that a debate on the appropriateness of the land use was legitimate, but that the proposed mini - storage use would not add to the traffic problem. Commissioner Woods reiterated that the warehouse use was inappropriate in the area which, he contends, would be in the middle of a residential area. Commissioner Walker responded that the mini -storage use provides an "extra closet" for residential uses, and is an appropriate accessory use in residential areas. Many people, he said, do not have the room in their home or a garage to store the "junk" they accumulate, and mini -storage facilities are amenities to residential neighborhoods if they are developed and buffered �I FILE NO.: Z-5709 (Continued) properly. The lighting needs to have the cut-off lenses to restrict the blead-over light from affecting abutting properties. He then asked about the status of the abutting properties; who will be affected by the proposed development? Mr. Holmstrom commented that the concrete tilt -up construction is more substantial than the metal building construction commonly used, and is not "banged -up" like the metal gets. He continued that the land to the south is vacant; to the north is a new medical rental office -warehouse facility; to the west there are some apartments. The land to the west, he said, slopes upward from the site, so the apartments are 20 feet above the mini - storage site. People in the apartments, at least on the second floor of the apartment building, would look down on the mini - storage facility. He indicated that the slope transition between the apartment site and the mini -storage site would be graded and planted in trees and bushes. Mr. Eberele added that the property immediately to the west is vacant and wooded, but that the property located at the southwest corner of the mini -storage tract is the property which has the apartment development located on it, and that the apartment complex is 2 blocks away and faces Morris Manor Dr. Commissioner Walker commented that mini -storage facilities which the Commission has previously approved, and which back up to residential areas, have single -loaded bays along the perimeter of the site so that the backs of the buildings form a buffer along the property line. Mr. Holmstrom responded that, in the proposed case, along the side property line, the buildings are single -loaded, but that along the rear, the ends of the buildings face the rear property line. He indicated, though, that the developers would consider making that change in the layout. Mr. Walker continued his comment that if the layout were re -done and there were a solid wall along the west property line, the area between the wall and the property line could be heavily landscaped. This would be a preferable design. Mr. Holmstrom responded that the developer was interested in locating the buffer and fencing to provide the best benefit to the neighbors. Commissioner Woods returned to the land use question, and said that the mini -storage use is inappropriate; that the surrounding area is residential, and a C-4 use is inappropriate. Chairperson Oleson observed that the other mini -storage facility on John Barrow Rd. has the offices at the front of the project facing the road. She asked Commissioner Woods whether having the FILE No.: Z-570 Continue office use at the front of the project under consideration would make a difference to him. Mr. Woods responded that it would be Preferable. Chairperson Oleson then called for a motion. A motion was made and seconded to approve the PCD application. The motion failed with the vote of 4 ayes, 7 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. 7 March 22, 1994 ITEM NO.: 12 FILE NO.: Z-5709 NAME: BARROW MINI -STORAGE -- SHORT -FORM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: On the west side of John Barrow Rd., approximately 300 feet south of Labette Dr. DEVELOPER: ENGINEER• TOM KEMP & ASSOCIATES, INC. SAMUEL L. DAVIS 2323 N. Tyler St./P. O. Box 7572 S. DAVIS CONSULTING, INC. Little Rock, AR 72217 5301 W. 8th. St. 663-6600 Little Rock, AR 72204 664-0324 AREA: 4.59 ACRES NUMBER OF LOTS: 2 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: O-3 & MF -12 PROPOSED USES: Mini -Storage Facility PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 CENSUS TRACT: 24.04 VARIANCES REQUESTED: None STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes a PCD in order to develop a mini -storage facility. Three phases are planned: the first phase to be built is to be east of the creek which traverses the site; the second, west of the creek and south of the "leg" which extends northward towards Labette Dr.; then, the third phase would be that portion of the tract which is north to Labette Dr. A total of 80,650 square feet of mini-storage.building is proposed. The first phase entails the construction of 5 buildings totaling 34,400 square feet; the second, 5 buildings and 28,900 square feet; the third, 3 buildings and 17,350 square feet. The first phase is intended for immediate development, with the remaining phases to follow as the market demand dictates. The buildings are to be 12 feet tall, metal frame buildings with standing seam metal roofing; the exteriors are to be concrete, with exposed aggregate concrete walls on the fronts of the buildings. Concrete drives are proposed. A resident manager apartment and office totaling 1,200 square feet are to be attached to one of the buildings and constructed in the first phase of construction. The landscape areas will be provided, and lawns will be sodded; a lawn sprinkler system is proposed. Security lighting and fencing will be included. March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: _Z-5709 A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors is requested for a PCD for a mini -warehouse facility. The proposed development is to occur in three phases over a number of years, basqd on the market. Overall, the buildings are to occupy 81,850 square feet of the site, or 41% of the land area. Drives are to occupy another 41%. Landscaping, then, is 18% of the site. The buildings exteriors are concrete, with exposed aggregate concrete walls on the fronts of buildings. A resident manager and an office will occupy a portion of one of the buildings. The site will be fenced and lighted for security. Access to the project will be from 7:00 A.M. until 9:00 P.M., 365 days per year. No variances are requested. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is undeveloped and wooded. A creek runs across the site from north to south. The terrain is rolling, with a 25 foot differential in topography, rising from east to west. The existing zoning is 0-3 along the Barrow Rd. frontage and MF -12 for the west one-half of the site. The remainder of the MF -12 zone lies to the west and across Labette Dr. to the north. An R-2 site abuts the site to the south. A POD is immediately to the north of the tract. Across John Barrow Rd. to the east is an undeveloped 0-1 district. C. ENGINEERINGIUTILITY COMMENTS: The Stormwater Detention and Excavation Ordinances will apply. As part of the approval of the preliminary plat, and for a final plan and plat to be approved for Phase III, dedication of the required right-of-way and construction of Labette Dr. as required in the preliminary plat approval must be accomplished. Water Works reports that on-site fire protection will be required. Wastewater reports that a sewer main relocation must be approved by Wastewater, and must be completed prior to any construction within the existing sewer main easement. Arkansas Power and Light Co. and Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. will require easements. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. approved the submittal without comment. 2 March 22, 1994• SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12_ (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-5709 Landscape review indicates that the buffer width along Barrow Rd. and the western perimeter should be 24 feet in width in order to meet the full requirement. The buffer widths along Labette Dr. and the southern perimeter should be an average width of 16 feet. A 6 foot high opaque screen will be required to screen business, activity from the residential properties to the south and west. D. ISSUES/LEGALITECHNICAL/DESIGN: Significant deficiencies exist in the submittal: 1Y the plans are incomplete and inaccurate in that they do not provide the engineering to substantiate the planned work to place the creek underground which traverses the site, and, from verbal information received from the developer, the plan is to build over the creek piping, yet an easement is reflected on the drawing; 2) the site plan is not based on the survey/preliminary plat which has been submitted as part of the preliminary plat submittal; 3) amended drawings subsequent to the Subdivision Committee review have not been submitted; 4) the required application information form has not been completed; 5) the project narrative does not address the type of lighting or signage; 6) a landscaping plan has not been submitted; and, 7) a legal description of the site has not been furnished. The Planning staff reports that the proposed development is in the I-430 District. The Land Use Plan reflects multi- family uses for the area, and there have been no changes to justify amendment to the Plan. The proposed use is in conflict with the Land Use Plan. E. ANALYSIS: There are major deficiencies in the plans and documentation which have been submitted. There is inadequate landscaping and buffering from abutting residential districts. The anticipated use is in conflict with the Land Use Plan. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of the request. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (MARCH 3, 1994) No one was present to present the application. Staff reviewed the deficiencies outlined in the discussion outline. The Committee forwarded the request to the Commission for a determination on the appropriate course of action to take in view of the application being incomplete and the applicant not 3 March 22, 1994• SUBDIVISION ITEM NO • 12 (Continued) FILE NO.: Z-570-9 attending the Committee meeting to receive the staff and Committee comments. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 22, 1994) Staff reported that neither the applicant nor his engineer had been present for the Subdivision Committee meeting, but that the comments prepared for discussion at that meeting had been sent to the project engineer. Mr. Sam Davis, the project engineer, has, staff reported, been in contact with the Planning and the City Engineering staff, and has amended the plans to conform to the requirements outlined for the Subdivision Committee meeting. Because the proposed use in conflict with the Land Use Plan, staff recommends denial of the application. Mr. Gene Eberle addressed the Commission, indicating that he was representing Tom and E. Ray Kemp, who are the developers of the proposed mini -storage facility. Mr. Eberle said that the tract is undeveloped; that up until 20 years ago, the tract had been used as a dairy farm, but since that time, the land had been lying idle. The developers request approval to develop a mini - storage facility, and intend to develop an attractive facility which will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. The developers have previously built such mini -storage facilities as The Space Place, AAA Key Mini -Storage, and others. Mr. Eberle explained that there had been no apartment construction in the area in the past 10 years; that there is no market for multifamily development in the area; and that the mini -storage facility would be an asset to the neighborhood and benefit to the area homeowners and apartment dwellers who need the extra storage space. Mr. Eberle showed a series of photographs to the Commission members indicating the types of development in the area. He suggested that the proposed development would have more eye appeal than anything constructed in years, and would blend with the new medical rental facility being completed on the adjacent lot to the north. He reiterated that the development to the north is a commercial development, and that the mini -storage use would be of benefit to the residential uses in the area. Mr. Doug Holmstrom, representing the developer -builder, continued, saying that the proposed mini -storage facility would have eye appeal; that the construction is tilt -up concrete with stone impressions in the concrete to give the appearance of stone facing; and, that the site would be well landscaped. He reported that all deficiencies noted in the discussion outline for the Subdivision Committee had been met; that the site plan had been 4 March 22, 1994' SUBDIVISION ITEM NO_: 12 Continued FIVE NO.: Z--5709 amended to provide the required landscape buffers. He indicated that there might need to be an adjustment in the location of the front driveway for proper separation between their drive and the drive on the abutting property to the north, but that this adjustment would be made if needed. He reported that the proposed lighting is 175 watt mercury vapor lighting fixtures set at 13'-6" height and at 90 foot intervals. The only sign on the site is to be a back -lighted awing. He'concluded that the proposed use of the property would produce no noise, very little traffic, be an asset to the area, and be a better use of the land than vacant property is. Commissioner Woods asked for clarification on the zoning district in which a mini -storage would normally be placed. Staff responded that a mini -storage use is a conditional use in C-3 zoning districts; and is a use by right in the C-4 district. Commissioner Woods commented that the use was inappropriate for the location. He observed that the other mini -storage facility further to the north, towards I-630, has located offices at the front of the facility, so that a passerby does not know that the warehouses are there. He concluded that John Barrow Rd. is a mostly residential thoroughfare, and warehouses facing the road are not appropriate. Chairperson Chachere complained about the amount of traffic on John Barrow Rd., commenting that Parkview High School was a short distance to the south of the proposed mini -storage facility, and, as a result of existing traffic, there are many serious and fatal accidents in the area. Bill Henry, City Traffic Engineer, related that there is a proposal to install a traffic signal at the intersection of John Barrow Rd. and Morris Manor Dr. which should help in the control of traffic. Ms. Chachere continued that she was concerned about any increase in traffic volume on John Barrow Rd. Mr. Henry responded that the traffic volumes on John Barrow are not to the volumes which would be expected on a 5 -lane arterial. He observed that the proposed development is 500 feet away from the Parkview High School access drives; that there is no sight distance problem at the proposed drive location; and, traffic leaving the proposed development can pull onto John Barrow Rd. without difficulty. Commissioner Nicholson commented that the mini -storage use would generate less traffic than either office or multi -family uses would generate. She added that a debate on the appropriateness 5 March 22, 1994 sysDIVISIO ITEM NO.: 12 Continued FILE NO.: Z-5709 of the land use was legitimate, but that the proposed mini - storage use would not add to the traffic problem. Commissioner Woods reiterated that the warehouse use was inappropriate in the area which, he contends, would be in the middle of a residential area. Commissioner Walker responded that the mini -storage use provides an "extra closet" for residential uses, and is an appropriate accessory use in residential areas. Many people, he said, do not have the room in their home or a garage to store the "junk" they accumulate, and mini -storage facilities are amenities to' residential neighborhoods if they are developed and buffered properly. The lighting needs to have the cut-off lenses to restrict the blead-over light from affecting abutting properties. He then asked about the status of the abutting properties; who will be affected by the proposed development? Mr. Holmstrom commented that the concrete tilt -up construction is more substantial than the metal building construction commonly used, and is not "banged -up" like the metal gets. He continued that the land to the south is vacant; to the north is a new medical rental office -warehouse facility; to the west there are some apartments. The land to the west, he said, slopes upward from the site, so the apartments are 20 feet above the mini - storage site. People in the apartments, at least on the second floor of the apartment building, would look down on the mini - storage facility. He indicated that the slope transition between the apartment site and the mini -storage site would be graded and planted in trees and bushes. Mr. Eberele added that the property immediately to the west is vacant and wooded, but that the property located at the southwest corner of the mini -storage tract is the property which has the apartment development located on it, and that the apartment complex is 2 blocks away and faces Morris Manor Dr. Commissioner Walker commented that mini -storage facilities which the Commission has previously approved, and which back up to residential areas, have single -loaded bays along the perimeter of the site so that the backs of the buildings form a buffer along the property line. Mr. Holmstrom responded that, in the proposed case, along the side property line, the buildings are single -loaded, but that along the rear, the ends of the buildings face the rear property line. He indicated, though, that the developers would consider making that change in the layout. Mr. Walker continued his comment that if the layout were re -done and there were a solid wall along the west property line, the G March 22, 1994 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 12 Continued FILE NC_: Z-5709 area between the wall and the property line could be heavily landscaped. This would be a preferable design. Mr. Holmstrom responded that the developer was interested in locating the buffer and fencing to provide the best benefit to the neighbors. Commissioner Woods returned to the land use question, and said that the mini -storage use is inappropriate; that the surrounding area is residential, and a C-4 use is inappropriate. Chairperson Oleson observed that the other mini -storage facility on John Barrow Rd. has the offices at the front of the project facing the road. She asked Commissioner Woods whether having the office use at the front of the project under consideration would make a difference to him. Mr. Woods responded that it would be preferable. Chairperson Oleson then called for a motion. A motion was made and seconded to approve the PCD application. The motion failed with the vote of 4 ayes, 7 nays, 0 absent, and 0 abstentions. 7