Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 16, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16,2004 Page4of41 Zaremba: Sometimes with these applications we actually have letters from those that are interested in the easement already giving them up. Do you have any anticipation of this being a problem or is it likely to happen? Hawkins-Clark: No, Commissioner Zaremba, the -- there is no easement -- in this case it is right of way that's owned by the highway district. They are the sole -- Zaremba: They'll give it up? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, they are. I think their staff report for Redfeather Estates -- actually, even, you know, conditioned that they needed to get this taken care of, so -- Zaremba: Mr. Chair, I -- Borup: Your staff report said that was one of the original conditions of the city. Zaremba: Okay. But I knew it wasn't the city, I was just confirming that ACHD agreed with it. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of VAC 04-009, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date December 16th, received by the city clerk December 14th, 2004. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Public Hearing: RZ 04-018 Request a Rezone of .74 acres from L-O to C-C zone for Kinetico Quality Systems of Treasure Valley by Irma Jean Phillips - 544 West Cherry Lane: Borup: Next item is Public Hearing AZ 04-031 -- or, I'm sorry, it's Public Hearing RZ, a rezone, 04-018, request for rezone of .74 acres from L-O to C-C zone for Kinetico Quality Systems. I'd like to open the hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Wilson: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the application before you is for Kinetico Quality Systems of the Treasure Valley, 544 West Cherry Lane, an application to rezone .74 acres from limited office to commercial, to the Community Business, which is the C-C zone. The applicant is proposing to use the existing residence on the property and convert it into a retail -- some retail, some service business. The applicant has stated that it's a neighborhood friendly business that is retail in nature, but has minimal site visits by customers. Most of the business activity takes place in a customer's home, with the business site used for supporting office activity, light retail of accessory products and storage of the product as installed into the customers' homes. Bring up the site plan here. It looks like it didn't make it into the presentation. This is a site plan of the property with parking for customers in the front and, then, parking in the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 PageS of41 rear for business vehicles and employees. As a rezone it does not require a detailed site plan, only a conceptual one, which they have provided here. A few of the key concems that staff had was adequate land use buffering in the rear of the structure, which would be the north, to the left there on the site plan. Meridian City Code does call for a 25 foot landscape buffer between the retail use and residential use to the north. It appears from this plan that that would take up about half of that area in between the house and property line. In speaking with the applicant on the phone today, he did state that on this conceptual site plan here it does kind of appear that the asphalt is proposed to go all the way to the fence just the way it's drawn, but he did state that there was ten to 12 feet of landscaping in between that property line and what would be the asphalt and there are more trees and shrubs that show up on this plan as well. If it's found that this is an appropriate use for this site, the applicant would need to work with staff on alternative compliance for that land use buffer and also the western property line requires a 20 foot buffer between the multi-family residential that's on the adjacent lot and this retail business. There appears to be about 18 feet available, so they would also need altemative compliance for that two feet that they can't provide there as well. Also in discussions today with the applicant, the question about whether or not they had adequate room for parking and the applicant will probably speak to this, but I can kind of go over what we spoke about. They are proposing approximately 225 square feet of retail space, which would require the -- at one per 200 -- at one parking space per 200 feet, that would require the one parking space and, then, approximately 600 square feet of office space, which is a space and a half at one to 400, which we would round up to two spaces. And, then, we also require for storage area, one parking space per 1,000 square feet, plus one for each vehicle used in the business. I'll let the applicant address how many vehicles they do have, but in kind of going over the site with them, it did appear that they had room for at least eight or nine parking spaces and that it appeared to be sufficient room to work with. One of the other issues raised in the staff report was the need for cross-access to the commercially zoned lot to the east. It is a parking lot currently for an existing commercial enterprise, Excel Hospice. It's a little bit difficult to see, but to the east of this lot there is a lot with frontage on Cherry Lane, with a lot kind of behind it that has frontage on it. I believe Crestwood is the street that goes there. That's the actual Hospice business that exists on that rear lot and, then, that front lot with frontage on Cherry Lane is their parking lot. Staff has recommended that because of the commercial use of these -- the proposed commercial zoning and the current commercial zoning of that lot, that the applicant provide an asphalt drive to the property line to provide for cross-access and also record an easement to facilitate cross-access for the future development of that lot commercially. Also, the staff has recommended that the business hours be limited from 7:00 in the morning to 7:00 at night. With the applicant requesting the C-C zone, that does open up this site for retail use. The C-N zone, which the land next to the east of it is zoned, retail use would be a Conditional Use Permit on that land. So, you know, in anticipation of future commercial uses or -- and in light of the residences to the north of here, we did feel it was appropriate to limit the hours of operation 7:00 to 7:00. And the cross-access to the east, the restriction of hours of operation and those would be the two items we'd like to see in a development agreement for the applicant to enter into with the city and, then, anything else that the Commission feels like is appropriate. We did not receive the staff report from ACHD. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page60f41 The applicant did mention that they are wanting the drive expanded to the west. It's a little bit difficult to see in the materials we have here, but there is a street that lines up with this property across Cherry Lane and in order to line those up better ACHD has requested that that drive be expanded to the west a little bit and also widened. And with that I will end staff's comments. Borup: Anything from any of the Commissioners? Moe: I just wanted to -- could you go back over and -- just briefly in regards to the landscape buffer, what would be on the north, I assume? Wilson: Yeah. The landscape ordinance does require 25 feet along there, because it's a difference in uses. The applicant could maybe address the exact distance between the rear of the building here and the north property line, but it does appear that that buffer would take up at least half of that area, reducing the area that they have proposed for parking for the business's vehicles. Moe: Okay. Wilson: And so they would need to work with staff on alternative compliance on -- for that buffer for the 10 to 15 feet that they can provide. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: With that, plus the moving and widening of the driveway access to Cherry Lane, are they still going to have adequate parking? Wilson: Yes. The applicant represented that ACHD only wants them to expand the drive about five feet to the west, so it really doesn't interfere with the area that they have proposed for parking. Borup: Would the applicant like to add anything, make their application? Burton: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I'll just stand for any questions or -- I think staff has done an excellent job of presenting what we had asked for. If there is any clarification about the issues that have been discussed here, I would be happy to -- Borup: I think maybe the aspect of the buffering along the north side. Burton: Yes, sir. Borup: If you could -- how much distance you have between that and the building and -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16,2004 Page7of4l Burton: May I use a pointer pen here to illustrate? What we have, if we take the north boundary here, if we start in the northeast corner, from that northeast corner to this shed, about three or four feet off the fence line there is already a grape arbor in there that stands about seven feet tall. Canning: Excuse me, sir. Chairman Borup, we need to get the gentleman's name. Borup: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. State your name and address. Burton: My name is Don Burton, I'm the owner of Kinetico Quality Water. Home address is 1949 North Pear Tree Avenue in Meridian. So, we do have a grape arbor along here and, then, from the shed here for, I don't know, probably 10 or 15 feet the arbor extends on that side as well, so it's a nice buffer and the fence back there. In addition to these two trees here, there are other shrubs, landscape shrubs, that are in this area right here. As staff has said, 25 feet would severely curtail our ability to just use the area for parking. Our purpose or this area is simply to park two company service vans in this area overnight when they are not in use. They go out in the morning, return late in the afternoon, and just to simply park them there. So, we are not talking about any traffic back there to speak of, just simply parking the company vehicles. This area in here will remain in line with the trees to maintain a nice -- just a nice atmosphere and environment for company and employees everyone else that -- there will be much of that left around the property in the plans. Does that answer the question on that north boundary? What we just asked for, as staff has alluded to, is some sort of -- I don't know what you would call it, I don't know the terms, variance, if you will, if we leave the asphalt, you know, that 10 or 12 feet off the back line and our purpose is simply to park those company vehicles during the nighttime when they are not in use. Moe: But I guess what I -- the question I would have is if you did have to put the landscaping, you would still probably have enough room to take care of both your service vans; right? Burton: If we leave about 10 or 12 feet. As it is now, the asphalt line will probably run right about in there. If we take 25 feet that would severely compromise our ability to park those vans back there. And, then, what we would like to do over here on this side is just have two parking spaces there in front ofthat grape arbor and that would be for office staff parking, principally myself and my office manager. Rohm: I think that it's suffice to say as long as you can work with staff and come up with alternate compliance, then, that is what we are looking for here. Burton: Absolutely. In fact, the request to extend the asphalt over to the contiguous east parking lot over there is -- I had no idea it was going to come up in the staff report. It was something I had hoped to do, to work with the neighbor over there to be able to do that, so I'm certainly amenable to doing that. In fact, that's desirous for us. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December] 6, 2004 Page 8 of 41 Borup: And you had mentioned that alternate compliance. What that normally would be, rather than the ordinance standards on the amount of landscaping, with the reduction in that setback it would be an increase in the amount of vegetation and stuff there. Burton: If that is needed. Borup: Yeah. Depending on what you have already got there. That's what you would need to work with staff to see what's there and if there is some area that would need to be an increase in the amount of vegetation, that's how it can accomplish some of the same things with that buffering. Burton: Certainly. Yeah. Let them review what is there, if it's not sufficient, if there are deficiencies in the landscaping, I have no problem with adding to that to extenuate that buffer, but we'd like to keep that a little wider than what we would have if we had to give up 25 feet for parking back there. Moe: And, then, on the other conditions here, you have no problems with any of these? Burton: No, I have no concern with any of those. Rohm: The cross-access agreement and associated easement for that cross-access? Burton: That's very desirable to me. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: And I will pick the ACHD question. I'm sure you have read and you agree with their site specific condition, which is remove the existing eight feet -- 18 foot wide curb cut driveway approximately 25 feet west and reconstruct the driveway to be a curb return type that is a maximum of 36 feet in width and in alignment for Crestmont? Do you understand that you're required to do that? Burton: I do, I understand -- well, I didn't understand it at first. I spoke to Mrs. Tunning, who is the contact there at ACHD, to get some clarification, because I didn't understand it and -- because, basically, what I was seeing as I drove out of the property, as you drive out of this driveway, you're looking right at the cars that are egressing onto Cherry Lane from Crestmont straight across. That's why I asked her how far do you want to move the east edge of the driveway and she said, oh, five feet. But we need to widen it and I needed to widen that anyhow. So, we will move the west edge five feet, widen it on down here to make it about a 24 foot wide driveway, put in the 15 degree radials as required and that's very workable. Zaremba: That's doable with your plan? Burton: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 16, 2004 Page90f4l Borup: Okay. Burton: Thank you, Commissioners. Borup: Do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Any questions or comments? Thank you. Seeing none -- Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 04-018. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Before I make a motion, I guess I do have one question, which would be I would assume that we should, probably under special considerations, add a number four in regards to working with staff for alternate compliance for the area of the landscape buffer. Wilson: Yes, I would agree. That, actually, should have been in there. Moe: All right. Zaremba: Actually, on page six my suggestion would be to add it as another bullet under the development agreement. Wilson: Okay. Moe: Okay. Put it there. We can do that. That's where we'll put it. Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-018, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo dated for the hearing date December 16th, received by the city clerk's office December the 10th, with the following changes: On page six, under the site specific conditions, I would like to -- paragraph three, I would like to add another bullet point, after any other conditions desired by the Commission and Council, I would add another one stating to work with staff for altemative compliance for the area of the landscape buffer. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.