Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 6, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 42 of 52 authorities. On page six, paragraph six, change that paragraph to read: Paint the mono pole structure and antenna array a mat gray color, medium to dark, to camouflage the structure and antenna to reduce glare and visual intrusiveness. And on page seven, under Meridian Fire Department comments, their paragraph two I'm adding to it, so that it reads: Post the building address with six inch numbers on the outside of the site- obscuring fence. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14. Public Hearing: PP 04-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 6 commercial building lots on 5.23 acres in a L-0 zone for Valencia Plaza Subdivision by Aspen Grove Development, LLC -east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Overland Road: Borup: Thank you. Next item is Public Hearing PP 04-010, request for preliminary plat approval for six commercial building lots on 5.23 acres in an L-O zone for Valencia Plaza Subdivision by Aspen Grove Development, LLC. We'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Before you I have another resubdivision development application in Resolution Subdivision. This site is generally south of Overland Road and east of Millennium Way on the south side of Gala Street. It is 5.23 acres. Currently vacant. The applicant is proposing asix-lot subdivision. This was Lot 1, Block 1, in Resolution Subdivision No. 1. As part of that original CUP for Resolution, as you may recall, all uses require a separate CUP and approval prior to construction. I'll let the applicant touch on that a little bit more in their presentation. We are currently working with the applicant on either amending the development agreement for Resolution -- this kind of goes back to some of the discussion that was had earlier today. It takes a lot of the applicant's time, as well as staff time, to process CUP's in L-O zones for professional offices. It was envisioned at the time that Resolution was approved they had just a general concept, a mix of uses, and so when each phase came in, detailed approval would have to be submitted. I don't believe this particular site was anticipated to be an ice skating rink. It is zoned L- O. The applicant does not want to have the burden to come back with each of these professional offices and obtain CUP approval, so we are currently working with them on away to get that question before this board, possibly, or maybe just City Council, to see if modifying the development agreement or maybe one CUP for the whole site. But, anyways, I'II' let the applicant touch on that some more. A couple of changes to the submitted preliminary plat as outlined in the staff report. The main entrance off of Gala Street -- I call it the main entrance -- does align with the other access across Gala. There is a center island, a median that they are proposing. The Fire Department does have concerns. There is only, I believe, about 14 or 15 feet from the curb faces. They need a minimum of 20 feet for the fire trucks. So, the applicant, I believe, is going to be able to widen one or the other of those to provide a fire lane into this site, but that was Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 43 of 52 one of the comments. Moving over to the stubbed drive aisle to the west. Staff had made a recommendation that this drive aisle stub slash easement be moved to the south five feet. They are showing it -you can kind of see here. This is an existing property line separating Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision and Lot 3, Block 1, of Resolution Subdivision. The stub -the drive aisle was constructed, the pavement would be right on that property line, and so the extension of that drive aisle would not allow for the five foot landscape buffer along that property line. So, that's the nature of the staffs request. So, when it's extended you get some landscaping in and you're not building that drive aisle right up to the northern property's property line. The other comment has to do with this drive aisle. It is longer than 150 feet. Therefore, the Fire Department wants to see a -- either a turn around here or shorten this up to 150 feet. I believe they will lose about four stalls if they shorten it up to 150 feet. I'll let the applicant state that. Or how they propose to meet the Fire Department's requirements there. The last comment I believe that's pertinent that the Fire Department has, except for their standard comments -- this is, again, outside of their current five-minute response goal area. Just like to point out that, these are coming on a pretty regular basis. I know it's just going on the record that this is currently outside of that five minute goal for the Fire Department. And, then, also on the record staff did receive a letter from David Wishney, who is representing Gaudry Seegmiller and they are supportive of a cross-access to Lot 3, Block 1, to the south of their property. With that, I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from Commission? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Craig, on the subject of the Fire Department and this lower right area in there, would the Fire Department be satisfied if instead of ending - I realize there is no development proposal for the property to the east, but if that were made across-access driveway as well, instead of being a dead end parking lot, would that satisfy the Fire Department eventually? Hood: They would still need a temporary turn around until such time as that was extended. So, some type of a turn around would have to be provided there, even if it were stubbed. Zaremba: Okay. Hood: But it could be temporary in nature. And we did analyze this for cross-access, the reason just to kind of --why that is a recommendation, Gala Street is fairly close and so that interconnectivity is there, we believe, and that stub -- I don't remember the exact dimension, but it's only a couple hundred feet, anyway, between the public street and that drive aisle you see there to the south, so -- Borup: I have got an additional question on that, too. The concern on the 150 feet is what? Hood: They get a fire truck back in there and, then, they have to back up that whole length, so - Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 44 of 52 Borup: So, if the -- so it would be shorting the road about 20 feet or so? Hood: Approximately 20 feet, yes. Borup: Is that going to make the building any smaller? Hood: It shouldn't have any effect on the building. Borup: So, can't the fire truck just quit backing up that last 20 feet, instead of -- Hood: You would think that they could see that the road ends there, but I -it's a standard requirement. It's the Fire Department's requirement. Borup: And I understand that. In most instances it makes sense. I mean they have got a distance -- how about striping the road, say fire trucks do not pass this line or something. Hood: That may be an option and, basically, they just need to please the fire marshal in that respect. I think they could use the other northern part of the drive aisle to service this backside of the building anyway. It would just be if they had a service call on the southern part of this development would they even have to get down here. I would imagine that the truck would stop probably in this area and they can pull their hose to 150 feet of that building anyway, so -- Borup: And if their options were to, you know, shorten the street or the turnaround, I -- I mean I could maybe see the point of a turnaround, but I don't see what shortening the street really accomplishes. Okay. Maybe we can have some input from the applicant. Newton-Huckabay: Well, if I'm in the south side of the building and I'm having a heart attack and the Fire Department is the first one there, I don't want them to have to worry about whether or not they could turn down there. Borup: Well, they already can turn down, they just can't drive on the last 20 feet Newton-Huckabay: But if they have a sign painted fire trucks do not enter or something -- Borup: Well, no, I meant have the striping right here in their no man's land. Rohm: Well, an alternate to that would be just to not put those spaces and when adjacent property develops, then, you will put the cross-access in and at that time you would put the spaces in and carry it on out. That seems like that would -- Borup: Well, they are saying this Gala goes to that same property, so that it Rohm: Well, all I'm saying is when they put this cross-access in -- Borup: Well, staff isn't recommending that at this point. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 46 of 52 Rohm: No, but - Borup: If they did you're saying? Rohm: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Okay. Would the applicant like to add anything to this conversation? Guho: Good evening. My name is Mark Guho and I reside at 362 Rooster Drive in Eagle, Idaho. I don't think we object to the -- any of the concerns of staff whatsoever. And as far as the -that rear - it would be the southeast corner of the parcel there, yes, we would probably go with your idea, Commissioner, and bring back those four stalls, omitting those and if they need the cross-access, we can provide that. And when that cross-access comes into happen, then, we could gain back those stalls, but right now our parking ratio, I believe, is somewhere in the neighborhood of about one to two hundred square feet, so we have a pretty good parking ratio on the project. Borup: So that's not a concern for you, the parking? It sounds like that's not a concern. Guho: Well, it's nice to have the parking, because that equates to four spaces, which is enough for a thousand square feet, so -- I mean it would be great to have it, but I mean if it's a stumbling block, we are - I think we are okay on -- Borup: It sounds like it's mainly with the Fire Department. Or could that parking be redesigned with straight in parking in that location? You'd get back two of your spaces. Is it possible with that type of design? I mean it's not going to be blocking anybody else backing out or anything. Guho: Yeah. That's -- in fact, that's probably a great idea Zaremba: I missed that. Say it again. Borup: Well, I'm not trying to design their project, I'm just saying that these last two spaces, that parking could be here, straight in here, because now it would come clear out that space and they are going to have 20 some feet. Guho: So, the spaces that are going this way would -- we would lose those, but gain some this way. So, the net effect we would probably lose maybe two spaces, in lieu of four. Rohm: I think the point is just to adhere to the fire marshal's -- Guho: Sure. Right. I will agree to that. Rohm: And whether you eliminate four and bring them back at such time that you have a cross-access or otherwise, as long as you address the fire marshal's concerns, then, we are covered. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 46 of 52 Moe: Which means, then, you do agree to item number four in the conditions? Borup: On the entrance? Is that -- Rohm: There we go. Borup: So, that's -- you plan on redesigning that entrance to get it wider? Guho: Correct. Yes. Borup: On probably the entrance? Guho: We will provide that additional width. Borup: Okay. And I don't think -and you said everything else you had no concerns with on staff comments? Guho: No problems. Borup: Okay Guho: I would like to maybe comment a little bit on what Craig had stated. And this is sort of a -- somewhat of a unique problem that we have and when we started the project out, we submitted just for the subdivision process and upon -- here about a week ago Craig -Craig brought it to our attention that we were in the need to file a Conditional Use Permit on the project, which involves a considerable delay of maybe an additional three months and we would like to see if the Commission, possibly, has any ideas or maybe some insight on filing for amendment to omit that ,process. We are not necessarily trying to get around anything, we are just trying to gain three to four months of time. Borup: Is this still the site plan you would be using? This would be the building footprints and everything or would that change? Guho: No. No. That's -- we are going for that. The building exact footprint -- Borup: Well, how about the parking? Guho: Yeah. We are -- our intentions are to go ahead and build the complex like it is right there and develop -- Borup: The building may change a little bit within those -- Guho: Yeah. Continue it. Borup: That makes sense. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 47 of 52 Guho: We have -- currently we have in the upper - it would be the northwest corner, we have lot number one and Idaho Gastroenterologists is going to be building a surgery center there and so we are in the process of right now to submit plans to the city for that project and, yet, we just found out here last week that we have this Conditional Use Permit, which could take us another three to four months in time. Borup: Mr. Hood, has staff contemplated a solution for this? I mean in - I'm trying to remember why a conditional use got put on everything in there. I think it was from some concerns on some of the stuff to the west, but -- Hood: Well, it's mainly because the applicant at that time submitted a conceptual plan for this. Like the other application you had tonight, if they would have just asked for annexation and zoning of the property, there wouldn't be that second step in the CUP process. They got conceptual approval, therefore, you need detailed on the next one. Borup: But where this is - I mean it's an all L-O zone, they are keeping the same parking configuration and - Hood: They are subject to that development agreement and that approved conceptual CUP. So, that's what we are playing with. We are trying to see if we can't amend the development agreement to either exempt this lot from having to go through the CUP process or possibly --and it doesn't -with that initial building it won't save the applicant that three or four months time, but with that first one, go through a CUP for the whole site, so not every single building has to come in, but you submit that first one for the gastroenterologist surgery center and show the other buildings and all those other buildings will, then, have just CZCs, rather than CUPs. Borup: So, is there any recommendation that this Commission can do to help? It doesn't sound like it at this point. Hood: I think he was just wanting to brainstorm. Those are the two that staffs come up with. I'm waiting to here back from legal, because that development agreement now has other parties that -- at that time it was the G.L. Voigt Company that entered into that agreement with the city, now there is several property owners that are subject to that development agreement, so do they all have to be a party to amending the DA or do they all have to consent -- so I'm just waiting to see if that's the correct hoop to jump through to get the applicant at least before the City Council to say this is what we want to do, so -- Borup: It seems like a logical change in this situation. Zaremba: Yeah. I can see why the decision was made several years ago to go the direction they did. I mean the high school wasn't there, none of this was anything but open property, and the Commission and Council at the time wasn't probably willing to just leave it so open, but I think there has been enough development around it that it certainly is reasonable at this point to say, okay, now we can understand how this is going and if it's going to be an L-0 and fit in, I would be comfortable working out some Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 48 of 52 arrangement not to have a CUP on every one of these buildings. That's a reasonable request at this point. Hood: And staff is supportive of that, too. Like I stated earlier, it saves us a ton of time and the applicant time and money as well. So, we would be supportive. And just to follow up on that, I can also see why that development agreement and requirement for the CUP was put in place. There is a lot of visible frontage on Overland Road. This property is back in and you will have buildings and similar to Magic View, it's kind of hidden back and most of the buildings -you're not going to get a lot of traffic by these buildings. Not that we don't want to see a nice development, but a Public Hearing just doesn't seem to be the right process, so -- Zaremba: Well, then, who would come? The school is probably the only thing within 300 feet, right, that would get notified. Rohm: All those students. I think, though, to address the applicant's concern about the three month delay, Idon't -- it doesn't sound like there is any way to get around at least one Conditional Use Permit application being generated, which would address the first building and any additional buildings that would be part of this development. That seems like that's the only option that's available. Zaremba: Would a CUP as a planned development just covering the whole piece of property -- I mean it's going through the plat process now -- Hood: Yeah. That's what we were -- Zaremba: -- so each property is separately identified and if he -instead of calling it the first building, just call it a planned development. Hood: And that's what we are trying to do. I think what Mr. Guho's problem is is that this first building is the most important one and the rest after that one. So, it's that three or four month time frame for that initial CUP approval. To answer Commissioner Rohm's question, the development agreement modification is the other way to go and even that process is a six to seven, eight-week process. So, they are picking up a few weeks by modifying the DA, but there is no guarantee with that. Rohm: Well, I think you will ultimately have to work that back through legal counsel to see if you would have to get buy-in from the other property owners that have now purchased that are part to that original agreement. Hood: The a-mail has already been sent out. I'm waiting for a response. Rohm: Okay. Cool. Guho: He's all over it. Rohm: It sounds like staffs addressing your issue as we go. Meritlian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 49 of 52 Guho: We just wanted to see if anybody else had any creative ways to solve the dilemma, so -- Rohm: It sounds like we are working the process. Guho: Well, thank you very much and I appreciate everybody's cooperation. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Let's see. I don't think there is much, really, to discuss. Pretty much everything was agreed to. Moe: Yeah. Borup: I did maybe want to -- Zaremba: Did we want to make clarifying comments about the southeast corner or just leave it 150 feet and let the applicant work out how they are going solve that? Rohm: I agree. Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: I would like to encourage the eventual resolution to be cross-access into the east property, but I think we have heard from them that they are not planning to develop for a long time. We will just leave it the way it is. Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 14 on our agenda, PP 04-010, request for preliminary plat approval for six commercial building lots on 5.23 acres in an L-O zone for Valencia Plaza Subdivision by Aspen Grove Development, LLC, east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Overland Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 3, 2004, with no changes. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Thank you for sitting through this.