Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Hearing Minutes from 7.20Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 23 of 34 Cassanelli: Okay. Beach: So -- we noticed that as well. Cassanelli: Otherwise the project looks good to me. I don't see an -- I don't see an issue with the drive-thru and the other drive-thrus that exist there. McCarvel: Yeah. I think they have some items in the staff report about making some markings and stuff to make drivers aware that there is more traffic coming. So, I think -- Wilson: Pretty standard. McCarvel: Yeah. So, I think it's covered in the -- Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2017-0087 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 20th, 2017. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2017- 0087. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Trust Storage (H-2017-0082) by John Day Located Northeast Corner of S. Locust Grove Road and E. Puffin Street Public Hearing 1. Request: Combined Preliminary / Final Plat Consisting of Two (2) Building Lots on 9.28 Acres of Land in the C-C (Community Business) Zoning District 2. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Self- Service Storage Facility in the C-C Zoning District McCarvel: Okay. At this time we will -- I will open the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0082, Trust Storage. We will begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 24 of 34 Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next item -- the last item on the agenda this evening is the Trust Storage, combined preliminary/final plat and conditional use permit application. The site consists of 9.28 acres of land, currently zoned C-C, and it's located at the northeast corner of South Locust Grove and East Puffin Street. To the north of the site we have a C- Store and fuel facility and a car wash, zoned C-C. South we have an LDS church, zoned R-8. Multi-family residential and Mountain View High School zoned L-O and R-4 to the east. And to the west we have Locust Grove and assisted living facility and single-family residential uses, zoned L-O and R-4. In 2000 this property was annexed in with a C-N zoning designation and in 2010 it came back before the commission as -- with a preliminary plat and a rezone application, known as the Summerton Subdivision. The portion that is currently developed with the Fast Eddy's site was phase one of that subdivision. The subsequent phases were never completed and so that preliminary plat has expired and that's why the applicant is here this evening to replat the remnant portion of this particular property. I would mention to the Commission that with the rezone of that property, a new development agreement was required. The plan that is before you this evening is consistent with the recorded -- so, the applicant is not required to modify that agreement with City Council. The combined preliminary/final plat consists of two building lots. There is a Lot 1, Block 1, which is along Locust Grove and, then, Lot 2, Block 1, will be where the -- the Trust Storage facility site is proposed. At this time Lot 1 is not -- does not have any development proposed for it. It will come back through whatever process or whatever use is proposed for that site, whether it's staff level approval or a conditional use permit approval, but once the plat records that will be a legal lot for future development and, then, Lot 2, Block 1, again, as I stated for the self- storage facility, which will house 14 storage buildings and an office building on approximately seven plus acres or so. Or eight acres or so. Access points to this development were approved with the previous preliminary plat and are currently constructed, so there is a shared cross-access agreement that runs east to west that ties into a main north-south cross-access driveway that heads -- connects to the Fast Eddy's site and, then, there is a full access to Locust Grove and, then, also a full access to East Puffin Street along the south boundary. Here is their proposed site plan and landscape plan before you this evening. As you can see here the development is bisected by that cross-access driveway. To the east as part of the development of the site the applicant is required to construct a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Locust Grove. You can see on this graphic that Lot 1, Block 1, is exclusive -- does not include the required landscape buffers, so the applicant has been conditioned to include that prior to signature on the plat. East Puffin Street is a local -- designated a local street, so the UDC requires a ten foot wide landscape buffer along that roadway and because this site sits adjacent to multi-family on the east, the applicant is required to construct a 25 foot wide landscape buffer between the multi-family use and the proposed storage facility. The landscape plan before you -- or at least this portion along the east boundary currently does not meet current UDC standards. The UDC requires that any trees that are planted along that boundary Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 25 of 34 be touching at maturity and you can see these trees are approximately based on one tree for every 35 linear feet. So, additional plantings will need to be added along that side of the proposed storage facility. You can see the -- because of the cross-access here between the two developments, staff has some concerns with maybe vehicle stacking and entering into the eastern portion of the site, so staff has recommended that the applicant work with the adjacent property owner and include some kind of traffic calming in that north-south ease -- or cross- access driveway here to mitigate any of those concerns. You either put in some speed bumps or put in some -- maybe some stop signs here or controlled intersections to slow down traffic as they head through the two developments. I would also mention to you that this landscaping on this site is pretty minimal for a storage facility, but the UDC does require that landscaping be placed along the drive aisles and so as I noted in the staff report, the applicant is proposing landscaping along the east side of the drive aisle and the south side of Building D here, but it does not include the required trees. So, they will have to increase the plantings in those areas and, then, also if you look at the west side of the west half of the storage facility a buffer isn't even proposed for that side of the drive aisle. So, staff -- I didn't catch that in my review of the staff report, so I am recommending that you add a new condition this evening that includes a -- at a minimum a five foot wide landscape buffer with trees every one per 35 linear feet along that east boundary of Building C. Here are the proposed -- well, one other additional item that I noted in the staff report. If you look at the eastern portion as well you can see that the applicant is proposing some outdoor storage on the site. Some of these areas are also open to view from the adjacent streets, so staff has asked the applicant provide you some details on how they plan on screening those areas. The UDC does require that the applicant screen it with a wall or solid material. Typically these facilities are all screened by buildings, but in this case there are some open areas, so the applicant will have to address that for you this evening and, then, also address for you how they intend on using this outdoor storage area, whether it's for parking internally in the site or is it for RV storage or boat storage or something to that effect. I think they have some information for you on that as well. So, that's something that staff has asked for clarification for you this evening as you take deliberations on this application. The last item that I want to touch bases on are the proposed building elevations for the site. As I mentioned in the staff report, the elevations as submitted do not comply with the current design standards manual or architectural standards manual. The applicant has proposed the entire facility be constructed out of metal siding. The architectural standards manual does allow the use of metal siding, it just doesn't allow it as a primary building material. So, it needs to be limited as an accent material only. If you look at the surrounding developments in the area -- and this is what I noted in the staff report -- is there is some pretty high quality office buildings in the area and if you look at Mr. Eddy's fuel facility site there north of this, there is some pretty substantial architectural details of those building. So, staff has recommended that the applicant incorporate some of those design elements into the storage facility and I think they want to address that with you as well. So, staff did receive an e-mail this afternoon from Alisa Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 26 of 34 Barrett in regards to this application. Her primary concern was that the Commission allow the north-south shared driveway to remain open as part of this development. She was concerned about people having to get onto Locust Road and they turn back into the Steve Eddy site and with this application, again, those cross-access agreements are in place, so staff is not in favor of losing any of those cross-access driveways or changing any of the proposed access -- approved access points with this development. So, the way it's constructed today is the way it will remain if you choose to move this application on to City Council with a recommendation. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. With that I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. McCarvel: Okay. Cassanelli: Madam Chair, quick question. McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: Bill, the -- you cover everything in your conditions, except for the -- what is it, five -- minimum five foot wide landscape buffer. How many trees were you -- can you repeat that? Thirty-five? One per 35? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that is correct. Code requires a minimum of five foot wide landscape buffer and, then, one tree for -- per every 35 linear feet. Cassanelli: But in your conditions you do have -- you're calling out for some sort of traffic mitigation in there? Parsons: Yes. I'm asking for traffic mitigation somewhere along in here, whether it's speed bumps or controlled intersection or some kind of choker there to try to minimize or slow down traffic through there. McCarvel: I believe there are stop signs there right now. Parsons: Okay. If you feel that's adequate and we can strike that condition and just -- McCarvel: But the one we will need to add will be the five foot landscape buffer along -- Parsons: That's Building C. McCarvel: -- the access or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 27 of 34 Parsons: Yeah. That's Building C is this -- where you see my cursor going up and down, that's labeled Building C on the site plan. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? And as you approach the mike, please, state your name and address for the record. Day: John Day. 3501 North 32nd Street. Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners. Yeah. So, we are here requesting approval for this combined -- excuse me -- combined and preliminary plat and conditional use. I think Bill spelled out the details for you on the project. We are -- we are accepting of all the staff's conditions with the following clarifications or revisions requested. So, item -- specific conditions of approval number -- item 1.1.3.C states that the plat shall be recorded prior to applying for a building permit. We would request that we would be able to apply for a building permit prior to the recording of the final plat. We understand the requirement after that would be that we would receive approval and recording of final plat prior to occupancy. Reason being is we are trying to get this constructed and get it paved prior to November. So, we are up against a time limit. Item 1.1.4, the parking lot landscaping and landscape buffer. We did meet with Bill earlier this week. We did discuss the additional five foot landscape buffer on the west side of the north side -- north-south access street and we are in agreement that that's -- that's all right and we will construct that. And, then, also regarding the landscaping in further discussions with Bill earlier this week, we would like to state that -- for the record that the owner has decided to implement some water-saving landscape techniques and so we are going to be applying those. That will meet -- you know, to meet the municipal code and so the revised landscape plans will -- will be reflecting those conditions. Regarding the traffic calming, if the stop signs are already there, that's fine. We are accepting putting those in if they are not. I'm curious -- I have been out there on the site. I don't remember exactly where they are, but I would assume that they are on the north-south -- or, excuse me, they are on the west access and so the north-south is a through street and that's probably the way we would like to see it, but we are okay with calming methods there. Regarding the exterior look of the building, again, we met with Bill prior to this hearing. We understand the issues that staff takes with the proposed design. I think we had a very good meeting discussing these and I don't see any reason why we are not going to be able to meet the requirements of the development code on the design review submittal and the certificate of zoning committee -- submittal. So, again, work we are confident that we can meet those requirements moving forward with them. As far as the fencing goes, again, we are in agreement that solid fencing will be proposed and will be constructed. We would request, though -- I guess -- so, on Puffin Street we have no -- no issues on the north side of Puffin Street, south side of Lot 1. We take no issues with the solid fencing there. One thing we would like to see, if we could put some kind of wrought iron open fencing that would be between -- sorry, Bill. Those two little openings on the east-west of -- what is that building? F? So, the small little openings on the east and west side. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 28 of 34 Right there. Uh-huh. And, then, over on the other side. It's our understanding that these aren't necessarily open to the public right of way and, therefore, they are not necessarily required to be solid screened. We would like to keep them open a little bit -- a little bit transparent for some safety reasons within the complex. So, again, we propose in those two areas we would like to see kind of a wrought iron open fence. But, then, all along south -- the south side of the buildings on Puffin we are okay with solid and, then, to address the -- and the solid parking in the parking area, H, you know, we are accepting of solid fence along there as well. That parking area is for surface storage of small vehicles. It is not for RV parking. The buildings you see on the larger lot on the north and the east, those are all RV parking. They are covered. Three sides. Two sides and a roof, each unit. So, the surface storage is only for smaller car, smaller boats. The parking sizes are about 11 by 22 feet, so they shouldn't be big enough for large RVs and that's not the intent of them, so -- other than those clarifications or revisions we are accepting of the staff's report. Is there any other questions? McCarvel: I have got a question. I'm hearing a couple of different words here. I just want to make sure we are all on the same page. I hear you using the word solid fencing and I heard Bill use the words wall and to me that means some sort of concrete wall. What -- are we close to the same page there? Do we all have the same meaning? What are we all actually talking about here? Parsons: Good question, Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission. When I met with the applicant earlier this week it was -- we had discussed the possibility of a -- of a block wall and that's why I spoke to the -- the terms of a wall. I can certainly scroll up into my staff report and speak to what the standard says and we can go from there. McCarvel: Okay. So, I guess I'm asking you what -- what is your interpretation? I'm hearing you use the word fence -- solid fence -- Day: Well -- and I guess in this case it would be a wall. It was something solid that you cannot see through. McCarvel: Right. We are not talking about some chain link or -- Day: No. McCarvel: -- some PVC fence -- Day: Gosh, no. No. McCarvel: That's not -- that's not what you meant using the word fence. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 29 of 34 Day: Yes. Sorry. A solid fence. So, something that you cannot see through, so -- McCarvel: Okay. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? In addition to that, Bill, if you're looking that up, what -- what's the height requirement? Parsons: Madam -- Madam Chair, Members to the Commission, the height in that zoning district would be up to eight feet. Minimum six. Cassanelli: Minimum six, up to eight. Six to eight feet. Parsons: That's your range. McCarvel: I would guess we would want to probably go eight on that open area there where there is no building. That could be part of our discussion. Parsons: So, Madam Chair, Members to the Commission, the specific use standard as it's written in code, it says storage facility shall be completely fenced, wall or enclosed and screened from public view. That's why -- Cassanelli: Bill, can you repeat that? Did it say entire? Parsons: Shall be completely fenced, wall, or enclosed and screened from public view. McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: So, that's -- that's why they are asking for the -- wrought iron fence on that one, but it's still -- it says completely screened. McCarvel: Right. Okay. And, then, another question -- I mean the elevations -- you have to show it -- do we have any other elevations on what your thoughts are going to be on those exterior materials? I mean -- because I don't think the metal is going to obviously -- Day: No. No. And we are in agreement with that. You know, we had talked with Bill about replacing some of the metal with stucco and either CMU block to break it up and, then, use just the metal as the accent colors, just some of the -- the panels you will see will be constructed out of -- out of stucco. So, for instance, the blue or specifically let's talk about the tan panels, those would all be one kind of -- one panel made out of stucco or one panel made out of CMU block. The blue would be one panel as well, with a different building material. McCarvel: Somebody -- see how it -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 30 of 34 Day: No. I will say -- well, and so -- the colors are part of this. This is the second storage unit that the client has constructed and so the client has put out a brand and these are the colors that he's used. So, we try to stay consistent with the brand, hence the colors. So, we understand the city's -- you know, the staff's concerns with the materials and the colors and, again, we feel like we can work with -- work through this with them -- with the proposed materials. They just talked about CMU and/or stucco and using metal as an accident. And additional to that -- which isn't reflected very well in these elevations, just that those panels are popped out from the face of the wall by eight inches, approximately. So, there is some relief horizontally and vertically as you can see from the parapet. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant at this point? Okay. Thank you. Day: Thank you. McCarvel: We will move forward to public testimony and, John, you were the only one signed up; right? Okay. Is there anyone else here that wishes to testify on this -- okay. And I assume you don't want to come forward again. Okay. Cassanelli: Madam Chair, I have a quick question for the applicant. McCarvel: Oh. Could the applicant come forward before we close the public hearing. Cassanelli: He may be able to shout it out. The -- the two towers there -- Day: There is two different perspective view of it, so -- Cassanelli: Okay. What's the height of that? Day: Gosh, you got me there. I want to say we were the 28 foot range. Cassanelli: You say 28? Day: Yeah. I honestly can't remember. It was either 24 or 28. Cassanelli: Okay. Thank you. Wilson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move we close the public hearing on H-2017-0082. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 31 of 34 Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017- 0082. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: I can go first. I just -- I really want to see these building materials upgraded, just based on what the surrounding area is. I think -- I mean nobody's allowed to just go put metal buildings on their own property when the subdivisions are on there and you have got a gas station, the car wash there, that's went way overboard. It looks beautiful. It gorgeous. You know, as well as the school and all the other things around there are substantial building materials. I think it would be a shame and they can't do it with code, but -- yeah. The building materials shown scare me a little. I don't know if we want to have them bring another elevation back or if we just want to -- is staff okay with what's in the code and they are going to have to meet code? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly the way the condition is written it -- it says they need to comply with the design standards and that's going to require a change of materials. Now, what I will mention to you is this is a conditional use permit, so I mean anything is on the table for you, if there is something that you prefer to see, something that you could add as a condition of approval. I think in meeting with the applicant earlier in the week I was comfortable that at least -- at least the roof lines and the building façade does modulate. As he mentioned, some of those panels do stick out eight inches, so it's not going to -- my concern is looking at this perspective was that you have one long straight blank wall with really stark colors and only a variation in patterns and so that could be a little daunting, particularly along a local street -- a public street. That's really where design review kicks in and we really want to see something that blends in with the surrounding development. That's really the intent of design review is to get something that is consistent with the surrounding development, so it doesn't look out of place. One could argue -- now what I will say to the Commission is that we don't regulate color and to me the green and the blue are probably going to be the starkest thing out there to anything else, because everything in that area are earth tone colors and that's what I shared with the applicant earlier in the week, too, is it's -- if we can get some of that material as accent, I think we can be supportive of it, but we have got to try to get it to blend in better with the surrounding area. That's the intent of the design manual and limiting that metal siding and providing some of those other materials, that stucco, some rock, something on the office building to blend in. I mean there is ways to do it. Again, as far as the modulation of the building, I think we have got that covered with those panels popping out and the changes in the roof line. We just need to come to a consensus on the appropriate metal accent and color scheme and potentially how they are going to -- what else they are going to use, whether it's going to be stucco or block. It's certainly within Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 32 of 34 your purview to kick it out to see additional elevations before you kick it on to the City Council or if you feel comfortable with the way the condition is written right now it says they need to compliment the surrounding development and they need to comply with the architectural standards manual. And that's how we have it structured at this point. McCarvel: Okay. Yeah. I think -- I mean it's a great place for a storage unit. You got apartments there and -- I mean the way things are being built in Meridian with all the apartments and smaller homes, storage units are in demand. But I agree that -- that corner has potential of being a really nice corner. There is a lot of storage units, you kind of -- it just blends in and there is others that kind of stick out, so I just want to make sure the design standards are met. Bernt: And I get why they want to -- you know, it's his brand, you want to create a brand when people are, you know, driving on the street they -- you know, you want them to look at your facilities and know who you are and what you do and I get that. So, the only thing that I feel -- and I agree -- you know, this is a great location for a storage facility. It's fantastic. I would feel more comfortable probably, you know, asking them to redesign knowing exactly what those materials are before we send it off to City Council. Like I want to be able to see it -- I mean I feel like I don't -- I don't want to blankly say I want this changed -- want this changed and send it off without knowing what those changes are. McCarvel: Right. Bernt: So, I would rather have like a completed project, you know, before we send it off to City Council. I think that -- that would be my only thought with regard to that. McCarvel: Okay. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: There was also a request to get the building permit before the final plat. In the past we have I think kind of shied away from doing that. I understand they are wanting to get -- to get some pavement down before the weather turns, but I think that's -- McCarvel: I think at the rate things are being built we don't want to miss crossing the T's and dotting the I's I think. Cassanelli: And, then, other comment that -- that I have -- two comments, I guess. I would like to see -- I would like to see us along the side of eight foot, not six foot -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 33 of 34 McCarvel: Right. Cassanelli: -- that you mentioned. And any -- what -- I kind of want to get an idea of -- of everybody's else's thoughts on that -- on that tower, if you will. Quite a bit higher that stands out. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Yeah. And I realize it's good for advertising, but on the same token usually people who need a storage unit have -- are seeking out the ones that are fairly close to them. The -- do we want to just move to continue to see the elevations? Cassanelli: I think so. And, then, have them add in the landscape -- McCarvel: Yes. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: Based on the information I move to continue file number H-2017- 0082 -- we haven't chosen a hearing date, have we. McCarvel: You want August 3rd or the 17th, Bill? Does the applicant have -- Parsons: Does the applicant have a preference? 3rd? Okay. August 3rd. Cassanelli: Okay. I move to continue file number H-2017-0082 to the hearing date of August 3rd for the following reasons: More elevation images showing -- showing approved building materials and fitting in with surrounding developments, as well as the addition of the landscape buffer on Building C. McCarvel: And fencing. Cassanelli: And fencing. Bernt: Do you want to be specific with the fence? Cassanelli: The fence. Thank you. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2017-0082, Trust Storage, to the date of August 3rd, 2017. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 20, 2017 Page 34 of 34 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. McCarvel: One more motion. Bernt: Madam Chair, I move that we adjourn tonight's meeting. Cassanelli: Second. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded twice to close the meeting for July 20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:30 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED _____________________________________ _____|_____|_____ RHONDA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _____________________________________ C. JAY COLES - CITY CLERK