Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 4, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Pianning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 43 of 64 Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 04-036 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 5 commercial building lots on 7.16 acres in a C-G zone for Waltman Court Subdivision by Buffalo Hump, LLC - 420 Waltman Court: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 04-044 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a contractor's yard in a C-G zone for Waltman Court Subdivision by Buffalo Hump, LLC - 420 Waltman Court: Borup: Thank you. Okay. Next item is Public Hearing PP 04-036, request for preliminary plat approval for five commercial building lots on 7.16 acres in a C-G zone for Waltman Court Subdivision and accompanying that is CUP 04-044, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a contractor's yard in the same project. I'd like to open both hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I, too, am filling in for Craig Hood tonight, so bear with me and we will try to point out all the highlights that we need to on this project. It is for Waltman Court Subdivision. It is both a preliminary plat and a Conditional Use Permit. You can see the vicinity map before you. The property is outlined in black. It is located about 1,000 feet west of Meridian Road, just south of the Troutner Business Park, which is in the area north of it. Waltman Lane, which most of you are familiar with, runs along the south and the storage facility for a public storage is to its east. The application is for a preliminary plat of five lots shown here. It's on 7.16 acres. The area is designated commercial on the Comprehensive Plan and it is already zoned C-G, so we are not dealing with a zoning issue tonight, it already has the commercial zoning. They are proposing to construct on Lot 3 of Block 2 in this location a 10,000 square foot shop office building and the Conditional Use Permit is for that use. You can see that use -- the site plan here. I'll go through it in a little more detail shortly. I believe north is to the right on this map. Many of you have -- that have been on the Commission for a while will have -- some of you may remember having seen this plat before. Borup: Twice before. Siddoway: Twice? Borup: About twice before. Siddoway: Most recently, anyway, in 2001, so about three years ago, John and Sandra Goed did receive preliminary plat approval on this site for a six lot subdivision. It was also called Waltman Court Subdivision. That plat has since expired. It was never recorded with a final plat. One of the -- the project that is before us now is consistent with that plat and the conditions of approval on it from us and the county highway district are similar, with one notable exception. One of the issues that caused the demise of the former plat was a requirement to contribute 50 percent of the cost for a bridge to go over Ten Mile Creek at this location. ACHD is no longer requiring a road trust for that bridge, because their property does not go to the center line, it ends at the northern Meridian Pianning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 44 of 64 bank. They are, however, requiring a road trust for the remaining on-site portion of Corporate Drive that's not currently being constructed and I'm not completely sure which part is not being constructed, so I may look to the applicant for a little bit of clarification on that. But the plat does propose the proper location as envisioned by the city and ACHD for the Corporate Drive extension that would eventually cross the Ten Mile Creek and connect into Waltman Lane to the south. It also does have a short extension of Southwest 5th Avenue that T's into Corporate Drive at that location. I need to give a brief history of the project before moving on. When the project first came in and the staff report was written, we -- the staff report was written under determination that the use for the lot that's requiring the Conditional Use Permit would be called a contractor's yard. We are wanting to rescind the definition. We don't think it meets the definition of the contractor's yard for these reasons. The entire use of the lot is not as a contractor's yard. This area that we were calling the contractor's yard is serving as outdoor storage for the business, but most of the business activity is contained within the building. Outdoor storage in the C-G zone is a permitted use. Contractor's yards are conditional, but also have other issues related to distance from residences and other things we can get into if there are questions, but we have made the determination that this area should not be called a contractor's yard, but would be deemed outdoor storage for the business. However, the Conditional Use Permit is still necessary, because of the existing development agreement. The development agreement on this property requires a CUP for any use. So, we -- we wish to no longer call this a contractor's yard, but we still wanted to have the CUP continue on as required by the DA, but that will necessitate a few changes to the conditions that I'll point out in a moment. I'd like to go over the special considerations on the preliminary plat beginning on page five. The first is regarding the multi-use pathway adjacent to Ten Mile Creek. Ten Mile Creek runs along the south border of the plat and the applicant is proposing, in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, a multi-use pathway adjacent to it. The majority of that pathway is located on their own site. However, near this corner it does cross off their site onto adjacent property and staff is recommending that they either get a -- they either provide consent from the property owners to the south or construct the entire pathway on site. And there is also a condition in here that they provide to the city an easement for public access and maintenance along that pathway. Number two deals with some existing structures on the site. There is a barn that spans between Lots 2 and Lots 3 that would -- and other outbuildings that would need to be removed that currently span lot lines and we are saying that those need to be removed prior to signature on the final plat. Let's see if we have the landscape plan. Number three on page six states that the landscape plan is not approved as submitted and request ten new copies prior to the City Council meeting. It specifies three specific things that need to be changed. The first is that a ten-foot wide landscape buffer needs to be added both along Corporate and Southwest 5th in compliance with ordinance. The second is that there needs to be a five foot buffer minimum adjacent to the multi-use pathway, with trees along it every 35 feet. And the third item is that there are a number of existing trees on the site greater than four inches. They show up probably better on the hard copy site plans that you have, but there is a condition that any tree greater than four inches in caliper needs to be mitigated for and we need to work out a mitigation plan for healthy trees that are removed from the site. All of those are already delineated in condition number six. Item Meridian Pianning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 45 of 64 number four on page six is a question about the fencing that would go along the pathway, both in terms of its location and type of fencing. We'd like to get some specificity about what would be done along that pathway and how close to it it would be. Five and six are standard items, so I'm going to skip those and number seven is more discussion on the bridge crossing, which I have already discussed. I would just point to the next to the last sentence that says to insure that the right of way for vehicular bridge across Ten Mile Creek is preserved, the applicant should stub Corporate Drive to the southwest property line, which they are proposing to do. We want to make sure that that is a condition, because this is an important connection for us to -- as an alternate route for the Waltman Lane traffic in the future. Those are the issues with the plat. Now moving to the Conditional Use Permit. The findings that begin on page ten just all reference to contractor's yard needs to be stricken. There are some mentions of it throughout, but item A is probably the biggest one in the first two paragraphs, but other references should also be stricken to the contractor's yard. In that same vein, the performance standards for contractor's yards on page 13, that section should be deleted. Then, moving to page 14, special considerations for the conditional use, the first one talks about a five-foot landscape planter along all interior lot lines. Again, north is up, so Corporate Drive that comes around and stubs to Ten Mile Creek is on the right side here. The entrance would be a shared access with the property to the west and they are proposing to come in -- they do begin a five-foot planter, but it just doesn't extend along that property line. The condition would require that the five-foot planter be continued, but I would like to clarify on the record that we would allow cross access between the two lots in a location deemed appropriate by the applicant to allow cross access between those lots and vehicular circulation between them. Item number two talks about the storage loading area that we are now calling outdoor storage. We do want to see that improved with some form of dustless material. We are suggesting recycled asphalt. Changes to the site-specific conditions, the main one is item number three. Everything except for the last sentence we would propose to be stricken. That's site-specific condition number three on page 14. That was a condition related to additional buffers for the contractor's yard. We still would require the screening fence as mentioned in the last sentence. Then, we would like to add one condition to the Conditional Use Permit that's not here now and that would require the applicant to amend the existing development agreement. There is some other language in the existing development agreement about the city being able to revert the zoning back to its previous zoning if it's not developed within two years, which has been longer than two years, so in order to clean that up, we would like to have that development agreement amended and just a condition of approval that an application to amend that DA be filed prior to approval of this CUP at the City Council level. We have already talked with the applicant. I believe they are agreeable to doing that. There is some other language in there they would like to clean up. They may even consider removing the condition for CUs on every lot, regardless of zoning, and staff is supportive of that, too, and have heard suggestions from the Council that when -- when it make sense, that we should no longer be requiring CUs for every use, unless it's a particularly sensitive area. But this area may be one where that is not needed and they can at least bring that forward through a Public Hearing process to see if anyone objects to that. That is the last change and I will stand for any questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 46 of 64 Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay. Would the applicant have anything they'd like to add? Is the applicant here? Oh. Anything you'd like to add? Sorry. Erickson: I'm Ross Erickson, 5293 North Schubert Avenue in Meridian. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a few things I'd like to bring up. Steve, thanks for the report. I know it kind of got thrown on you at the last minute. We have worked through a lot of the details with Craig before he left town, but he did a good job, so -- just a few things to clarify on Steve's report. For the road trust, what that is for -- we are actually going to be building the road to this point right here and we will be putting a fire truck turn around in. It didn't make sense to extend the roadway all the way to the property line at this time, just because when ACHD comes back in and actually designs that bridge, they are going to come back and set grades and it's likely it will have to get torn back into Corporate either way, so it just didn't make sense to do it. So we proposed to trust for those improvements at this point. I'd like to talk just real quick about the pathway. We are going to take -- you can see right there where the pathway jogs onto - - actually, off site from our plat. We are going to take and realign that, so that the south boundary of the pathway is actually -- matches our south lot line, So it actually matches our south lot line. And, then, in addition, we will propose, I guess consistent with staff's recommendation, is a five-foot landscape buffer along the north side of that pathway. In the staff report that it did make mention that a fence plan wasn't submitted and I could just run you guys through what our proposal is for the fencing for the plat real quick here. What we are proposing is along the north side of that buffer we will put a six-foot chain link security fence that's open vision and the fence will actually go from Corporate down to this point here and, then, jog across to the east property line. Along the east property line there is, actually, an existing six-foot fence. Along the Waltman lot there on the south side there is a six-foot wood fence and, then, just north of that there is a six-foot open vision security fence along the storage unit that goes all the way up to Corporate. Along the north side a four-foot chain link was built as part of Troutner Park Subdivision and we will just be retaining that as part of our project. So, really, the only fence that we are talking about with this plat is just along the north side of that buffer that parallels the pathway along the south property line. Borup: So, you're saying that you're differing from the staff report on that item? Erickson: There, actually, wasn't a fencing plan submitted with the application. At the time it was kind in flux as to whether or not the pathway was going to be aligned on our property or if it was going to be on the south side of the drain at the time the application was made, so Craig did some research on that and went through and found -- you know, what he actually did is look next door to see if there was easements reserved for the pathway on the north side and, sure enough, there was, so we need to include that in our project, our application. Moe: Mr. Chairman, on page six, item four, that's why he went ahead and explained what he was going to do. That was a request to have done at the Public Hearing. Meridian Pianning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 47 of 64 Borup: Okay. I guess I was making reference to the eight-foot fence that they talked about. Erickson: Yeah. The eight-foot fence is actually called out in the CU and that's part of the language that Steve had mentioned as going to be struck from the staff report. Borup: Because of the contractor's yard? Erickson: Because of the contractor's yard, that's correct. Borup: Okay. Erickson: I can speak to that fence real quick, too. What we are proposing is a six-foot close vision chain link security fence around that outdoor material storage area for the site development. A couple other questions that Steve had when he was giving his report. We are going to be removing one building. It's the building located right there and that's the only building on the plat that actually falls on a lot line that's going to require to be relocated or removed before we come in. We will go through and inventory the trees. Any trees greater than four inches we will work with staff and figure out how we can mitigate those, you know, with this project. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, could I just clarify with the applicant that the outdoor storage area would be a screening fence and not an open vision fence; is that correct? Borup: That's what he said. Erickson: A closed vision fence, yeah. Siddoway: Okay. And is that one chain link with slats or is that one -- Erickson: That's correct. Siddoway: Okay. Erickson: Yeah. And it will be a security fence as will. Moe: While we are on that subject, I just want to make sure, that is a storage area only, not equipment storage, just materials? Erickson: Material storage area. That's right. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, we do have some concerns that we would need to workout on whether those slated chain link is truly sight obscuring enough. We would like to have some kind of solid fencing around it and we need to work out -- we would propose something solid like a wood fence or something similar. Oftentimes you can see Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 48 of 64 through those slats. I know that there are some slat type fences that come pre- assembled that are quite closed, but the typical slat fences are still -- Borup: You're talking a slat fence in a chain link fence? Siddoway: -- quite see through. Borup: You mean -- you're referring to slats in a chain link fence? Siddoway: Slats in a chain link fence, whether or not that would be screened enough. Borup: Understand the concern there? Erickson: Yeah. Why if you look next door -- I don't know, you guys probably haven't seen this, but the storage units are located right here and they have a fence aiong this boundary and it's an open -- it's just a chain link security fence, that's it, there are no slats, there is no sort of screening or anything and if you look on the other side of this fence, there is just -- I mean it's accumulated a bunch of junk, really, and there is a bunch of old cars, RV's, parts of boats, things on blocks. You know, even if we were to propose -- or even if we were to construct a slatted chain link fence, it's going to improve the view corridors from the south and from the west and provide some additional screening for those people as well. Borup: But you can work with staff on that? Erickson: We can work with staff on that. Certainly. Can you flip to the site real quick, Steve? Thanks. Steve mentioned this part right here, how that the code states that the drive aisles adjacent to property boundaries need to have landscape planters. The reason why we left this open was for future cross access into the lot to the west. My client intends to some day expand his business to the lot to the west. He, actually -- owns the subdivision and he will own this site, too. And that's why we left it open, just so we didn't have to come back and tear it open. I think what we will do after hearing Steve's recommendation, probably extend that planter a little bit further and come up with an agreed upon cross-access width, so that we can -- so we don't have planter all the way across there, but we can still kind of meet both of our goals with the planter. I think that pretty much summarizes a lot of the questions that Steve had with the report. He mentioned the development agreement and, really, the development, the only reason why this site's here tonight is because that stipulation was put in. This would, typically, be just a CZC applicant to the city, but here we are. And, like you said, we will be working with staff in the upcoming weeks to try to get that development agreement amended and get some changes put in place and you guys will probably be seeing that in a forthcoming hearing in a couple weeks. With that I will close and stand for any questions that you might have. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 49 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Sure. There was one comment about the asphalt in the outdoor storage area or putting asphalt. Did you address that one? Erickson: No, I didn't, but thanks for reminding me. Staff made a comment like that we have a dustless surface in the material storage area and we concur, we are going to put a lift of a recycled asphalt material at the surface, something similar to like -- I don't know if you guys are familiar with the Meridian bus facilities. I think, David, you probably are, but it's effective out there, it's been working well for them, it's a good surface, and that's what we will put down in the storage area. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Steve, the only question I had -- yeah, it was on -- comment on the road trust and a turn around. I assume that's okay to have a distance back from the property line to allow for future bridge construction? Siddoway: Yeah. As long as it is road trust for and that is what they are doing. Borup: Yeah. Siddoway: That little bit of extension is not needed for access to any other site, so it would just be needed at the -- during construction of the bridge across. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Okay, Thank you. Erickson: Thank you. Borup: We didn't have anyone signed up. Is there anyone here to testify? Okay. Seeing none, Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Do we want a little discussion first or is there any concerns on -- there was quite afew-- Newton-Huckabay: A lot of addendums. Borup: Yeah. Rohm: That's why I'm not doing this. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 50 of 64 Moe: Me, too. Newton-Huckabay: Good job for Dave. Zaremba: I would be happy to attempt a motion if staff and the other Commissioners will chime in if they need something. Borup: Dave has probably got them all, so we will see how he does. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 04-036, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 4th, 2004, with the following changes: On page six, paragraph four refers to a fencing plan. The applicant has described a fencing plan and I would add the comment that they have agreed to work with staff to make that a reality. Siddoway: I would just make that part of the site specific condition number seven, which deals with the fencing as a condition. This is just a discussion item in the special considerations in number four. But site specific condition seven deals with the fencing requirement. Zaremba: Thank you for that. I will move the same subject to page eight, paragraph seven, and, again, state that the applicant has offered a verbal fencing plan and we agreed that they can work with staff to make that a reality. That's the end of the comments for the preliminary plat. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-044, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 4, 2004, again, with the following changes: Beginning on page ten there are references to a contractor's yard and the subject is being changed to being a storage yard, as opposed to contractor's yard, and this Commission agrees with that change and any change in verbiage that would cause, specifically to paragraph A and any subsequent paragraphs. On page 13, performance, it discusses contractor's yard again and, again, we acknowledge that we are not talking about a contractor's yard, but a storage yard. On page 14, under site-specific conditions, paragraph three, the first sentence may be removed and leave only the last sentence in accordance with MCC 11-13-3.E, et cetera. On page 16 we will add a paragraph 17 that says an amendment may be made to the original development agreement. The applicant shall work with staff to provide the amendment before this goes to City Council. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 4,2004 Page 51 of 64 Siddoway: If we just make it prior to City Council approval, that may give a little more flexibility in the timing of getting that in, but as long as we have it before approval I think we will be fine. Zaremba: Okay. The amendment to the development agreement shall be agreed upon between staff and the applicant before City Council approval. I believe those are the only changes, unless I missed something. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: RZ 04-013 Request for a Rezone of 1.674 acres from C- C to C-G zone for Westside Body Works by Westside Body Works - 210 East Fairview Avenue: Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 04-042 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a body shop in a proposed C-G zone for Westside Body Works by Westside Body Works - 210 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Thank you. Our next two items are Public Hearing RZ 04-013, request for rezone of 1.67 acres from C-C to a C-G zone for Westside Body Works and accompanying that is CUP 04-042, request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a body shop in the proposed C-G zone. I'd like to open both hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This application for Westside Body Works is in the current -- the same location as the current Bobby's Transmission site. It is located on the north side of Fairview at 210 East Fairview, approximately one quarter of a mile east of Meridian Road. The aerial photo is a little hard to see, so let me go back to the zoning map. I was just going to talk a little bit about the surrounding land uses. The area immediately north of it in this large lot is owned by Cherry Plaza Associates and, then, north of that is La Playa Manor Estates and it's zoned R-8. To the south there are commercial properties, including Jack-in-the- Box directly to the south and Rocky Mountain Collision RV and Repair, which is, actually, zoned R-8 at the current time. To the east is the Big-O Tire property and to the west is several commercial properties, including immediately to the west is the cigarette store and, then, Schuck's Auto Supply and, then, the strip mall that's adjacent to the Albertson's project. Again, this is a proposed rezone for the 1.7 acres of the site from C-C to C-G. You can see this pink area is the area currently zoned C-C. The red area is what's currently zoned C-G. The changes of zoning from C-C to C-G would not be a spot zone, but would be a continuation of this C-G zone that continues for over a mile to the east. The Conditional Use Permit is for the automobile repair shop. I'd like to point out that the existing use on the site is also classified as an automobile repair shop.