Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 6, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 9 of 54 Zaremba: Keith Borup seconds. Okay. We have a motion and a second to continue to February 3rd, 2005. . All in favor? Anyopposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 04-042 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18 commercial building lots on 33.1 acres in a CoG zone for Boise Valley Commons by Boise Valley Commons, LLC - 2200 East Overland Road: Zaremba: Item No.6 is the next on our agenda and this is a Public Hearing. I'd like to open the Public Hearing for PP 04-042, request for a preliminary plat approval of 18 commercial building lots on 33.1 acres in a CoG zone for Boise Valley Commons by Boise Valley Commons, LLC, 2200 East Overland Road and we will begin with the staff comments. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, this is just a straight preliminary plat. They have not asked for any reduction to city adopted dimensional standards, so there is no planned development with this one today. The property, as you see, is currently zoned CoG and it has 1-84 on its north boundary and, then, Overland Road on the south boundary. It's currently vacant, but not really, because there is a building with walls that are going to go up any day now under construction. The subject of the subdivision is actually three different tax parcels, one of them being a 13.9 acre piece that was divided off through reduction in platting requirements, this large parcel here, and that's where the new theater for Meridian is being constructed. So, that -- one of the conditions of approval was that it be included as part of this plat. So, they are meeting that condition. The property is shown as mixed use regional on the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning is consistent with that. They have not asked for the zoning, they already have theC-G zone. And as I mentioned before, up to the north is Interstate 84, to the south are the professional medical offices of Resolution Subdivision, as well as the high school, Mountain View High School, all owned L-O. To the east is vacant property, all zoned CoG, and to the west is the commercial tractor sales and, then, Playground Subdivision, which is also zoned CoG. I'm going to move forward to the special considerations listed on page four. Several of the properties do not have direct access to a street. We have got two streets coming in. We have -- wait a minute. Did I get them right? We have streets coming in here and, then, I believe this will be Cinema Drive coming here, so it will be a third street, but as you see towards the north end of the property, they don't have direct access to a public street, so we have required a cross-access agreement across all the properties, so that they have that ability to get through. This is Millennium and, then, that's Celebration. There we go. And, then, the fire marshal has provided a memo for tonight that I believe just got handed out to you. These conditions do need to be added to this project, and, basically, what the fire department wants the applicant to do -- there is a drive aisle noted on the plat that goes to here, across and down, so that will be a common drive aisle for the parking lot. The way our ordinance is structured, they would not be able to call those a private lane or a get private street name on those, so all the addressing will still be off Cinema Drive, so the fire marshal has asked that they just place monuments -- I believe Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 10of54 he wants one in the -- at the entrances here to the drive aisles and, then, on each property, just indicating the address of that property, so they can get there quickly. It's particularly for medical reasons. When a building's on fire, they can usually see it. When there is just someone having a heart attack, it's hard to spot them. There were some deficiencies in the landscape plan, so Craig has pointed those out and just what's necessary for the final plat landscape plan when that's submitted. There is also several existing easements on the property. You can see some of them on the east boundary and, then, there is another one here, I believe. There is some little ones across the property. We can't just vacate those with the new plat, they have to actually go through the vacation process, so the applicant will need to submit separate vacation applications for those easements. And, again, this is -- I'm not just being brief, there is really no outstanding issues on this subdivision, it was a pretty clean application. So, with that I will end staff's presentation. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions for the director? Moe: No. Borup: None. Zaremba: Just one. And you mentioned it, but clarify it for me. One of the other options that the fire chief suggested is to provide a private street, which was, actually, the thought I had while I was reading this packet and you seem to say that the private street was not possible or practical or something. Can you clarify that? Canning: Yeah. It's not practical from the applicant's standpoint. He was -- he read the memo just a moment ago and he said, sure, I will do a private street, but, unfortunately, the way our code is written, the private street would have to be 42 feet in width, with the sidewalks -- a five foot sidewalk on each side, so you're going from a 30 foot drive aisle to, basically, a 50 foot right of way and, yeah, built to ACHD standards. So, it's really not what's necessary in this instance. I think one of the things as staff that we will look at is moving more towards like what our neighbor to the east does is they only allow private streets, basically, on commercial and situations like this and that drive aisle does become a private street and, then, you can get the addressing that the fire marshal needs and he was very supportive of that when I mentioned it to him. So, I think we will look at changing our private standards. They don't get used much. I think in the last two years I think we have had one private street come through, it was on light office property that needed the frontage, so I think it's a way we can move toward getting better addressing of not only commercial properties, but also multi-family residential has become a big property for the fire marshal as well. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We are ready for the applicant to provide information, please. Hallett: Good Evening. My name is Ray Hallett. I'm the general manager of Landstar Northwest, one of the co-applicants on this application, and I'm here to answer your Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6,2005 Page 11 of 54 questions, I think, but we concur with the staff, that we like option two better than option one, because didn't have the room there to make it a public street, but we are intending to sweep the access to the 30 foot drive aisle in a city streetfashion, so it's not going to be like your coming out to a curb cut and monument signs at the end of the road and along each parcel, an obvious benefit to the lot owners, as well as to the public. I think that pretty well covered it and I will be glad to answer any questions that you have. I don't have anything else that I need to add. Zaremba: Commissioners? Rohm: I just have a question on this drive aisle. Are you going to stripe it in such a way that it will be obvious that it's not additional parking as -- Hallett: Yes. In fact, we have several plans in that regard. One is we have worked out with the city fire department to post signs at the beginning of each of the drive aisles that will specify the drive aisles are fire lanes and that no parking is allowed and that they will be towed and the destination to which they will be towed, similar to the signs that are used at Edwards 21 theater complex, the whole Spectrum property, and we will be painting the curb edges red with fire -- no parking, fire lane on the curbs along those drive aisles to make it obvious it's not additional parking. And there will be a center stripe. Rohm: Good. And the center stripe is really what I was looking for on this. Hallett: Right. There will be a center all the way around. That's the horseshoe-shaped portion there that goes up to Cinema Drive, up across and back down, is what we are talking about. Rohm: Right. Hallett: I guess there is a pointer here, so - oh, we got lots of pointers. Too many pointers. Starting right here. Starting right here and going up to there -- it comes across and comes back down and those are already recorded -- on this portion, at least, the description of those are already recorded as part of the deeds for the original theater parcel and on the other side there will be the legal descriptions on the plat, so public access drives. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: I had one question on a note that appears in your file that I have not seen in any other file before and it's from the Idaho Transportation Department warning you that there is noise from the freeway and requesting that you either do something about buffering the sound for yourself or write a letter back to ITD saying that you have heard their warning and you're not going to do anything about it. Do you have an opinion about that? Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 6.2005 Page 12 of 54 Hallett: Well, as the developer of the theater building, I can tell you that that's not a concern, the theater is sound proof inside between every room and so that's not a problem for the theater, and we would be more than happy to provide a letter to the ITD, if they are worried about that, so that these three lots are on public notice. We already are on notice by our deeds that we don't have access to the freeway and that the freeway exists. That's part of the -- building of the interstate system 20 years ago. So, I don't think it will be a surprise to anybody, but I understand your concern is that jet overflights were a problem with the other theater and maybe they got complaints about the interstate and jake brakes or something, but we are not worried about it. We will be glad to provide a letter, if that's what they'd like. Zaremba: Well, that was their request. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that. Hallett: You bet. Zaremba: Okay. No further questions? Thank, Mr. Hallett. He, actually, is the first one signed up to testify. He would have anyhow. Next on the list is Gene Schaffer. Schaffer: My name is Gene Schaffer. My address is 250 South 5th in Boise. I am the architect on the project. Basically, we have no exceptions and, basically, would indicate that we fully support what the applicant has submitted. Any questions for us, I'll certainly answer those. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you, sir. Kevin -- is it Kingston? Pardon me if I'm not reading it correctly. Okay. Subject covered. Thank you. Bill Curt I think it is. No further comment? Supporting the previous comments. Okay. And even though those are the only ones signed up, if anybody else cares to comment, we would accept your testimony. It sounds to me like all issues are covered and resolved. Commissioners? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on PP 04-042. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say aye? Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 04-042, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo dated -- Public Hearing date of January 6th, 2004, which should be 2005, and transmittal -- received date by the city clerk January 3rd, 2005, with the following change -- or addition, I should say: Let me get back to the page. Under the site. specific conditions on page eight, I'd like to add another paragraph 12 to include -- to provide Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 13 of 54 monument signs at both ends of the 30-foot wide access easement and at each curb cut where a given lot intersects the access drive. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries as well. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Public Hearing: AUP 04-016 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a home occupation for a family day care for five or fewer children in an R-8 zone for Marina Galushkin by Marina Galushkin -- 2843 North Wolverine Avenue: Zaremba: Thank you all. Okay. We are ready for Item 7. Ladies and gentlemen, I will open the Public Hearing for AUP, Accessory Use Permit, 04-016, request for an accessory use permit for a home occupation for a family day care for five or fewer children in an R-8 zone for Marina Galushkin by Marina Galushkin, 2843 North Wolverine Avenue. And we will begin with the staff presentation. Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, as you stated, this is an accessory use permit application for a family child care home for up to five children at 2843 North Wolverine Avenue in the Finch Creek Subdivision. The property is zoned R- 8 and it's located approximately a quarter mile south of Ustick Road and one half mile west of Locust Grove Road. Some quick background on the accessory use permit application. The -- there is only a Public Hearing if we do receive letters of objection within a set 15 day period. Within that period we did receive three letters of objection -- of objection and we have received three since then as well. The applicant has provided a site plan. As part of the accessory use permit, no detailed site plan is required. Staff does need to be able to evaluate the -- the provided drop-off and pick-up area and parking and also that there is screening on the property and we were able to confirm that from the site plan provided and the comments provided in the application. Staff is aware that a daycare has been operated at this home since this summer. It is procedure when somebody comes to us that is operating a use like this without a permit and are working proactively with us to remedy the situation, then, we do allow it to remain open while the application is in process. I would add the condition -- one of the concerns from the neighbors was the presence of a sign on the property. Meridian City Code does have a couple of conflicting areas when it comes to signs with home occupations. However, the more stringent rule does apply, which in this case would mean that signs are not allowed with a home occupation, so I would just like to add the condition that any signs on the property be removed upon approval of the accessory use permit. A comment that this will be a decision, not a recommendation to City Council. You are the only body that will hear this application. With that I think I will end staff's comments.