Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 17, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17. 2005 Page 34 of 76 Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of application AZ 04-033, to include all staff comments for the hearing date February 17th -- and I don't have a date of the staff comments. Newton-Huckabay: Here it is right here. Rohm: Staff comments dated January 3rd, 2005, for the hearing date February 17th, 2005. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from February 3, 2005: CUP 04-055 Request for a Conditional Use Permit I Planned Development for office, retail and daycare uses in an I-L zone as required by CUP 04-009 and a request for a building height modification from the previously approved 40- feet to 52-feet for DBSI Realty Corp. by DBSI Realty Corp. - north of West Overland Road and east of South Linder Road: Zaremba: We are ready for Item 10 and, Mr. Moe, you have a comment? Moe: Yes. Before you open this hearing, I need to make a point. I received a phone call this morning from the applicant of Item No.1 0 in regards to what she explained that the company I work for at a later date will be one of the companies able to bid this project when it comes up in a couple months. We have not done any work for DBSI in the past, but because they did call make and that statement I wanted to go on record as stating that I think I probably should -- I'm a little bit concerned, a little bit of conflict of interest, come two months from now, if, in fact, we bid the job and we were awarded it, that even though this is a height issue on this, I'm not sure that I should be in this hearing, so, therefore, I'm asking the Commission your opinion as to whether or not I should excuse myself. Zaremba: That is something that I would ask for input from our legal counsel first. Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commission Moe did speak to me before the meeting. Under Idaho Code, the only conflict of interest that the Idaho Code addresses is financial interest that a Commissioner would gain or benefit from. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 35 of 76 Commissioner Moe indicated that certainly his company -- his position in the company, the salary he receives, and all of those things, have no pecuniary benefit by any particular individual job that he may -- that they may have, so there is no financial gain for him to be received by the relationship between his company and the applicant in this case. So, there is no legal conflict of interest. But there is also in government a very strong perception of conflict of interest that I think is just as concerning to the public and his fellow Commissioners and so that's why he raised that. Basically, from a legal perspective I think Commissioner Moe has raised the appropriate concern that there may be a member of the public that might have a concern or a member of this Commission that would have a concern. If you don't have a -- if he doesn't have a personal conflict to participate with this, then, I think it's up to this Commission. If the Commission has a concem, you should probably raise that concern and you folks can vote on that if you wish on whether to re-cuse him from participating. If you have no objection, you should all make note of that on the record and he can certainly continue. But there is no legal conflict, just the perception of a conflict. Rohm: Well, Mr. Chairman, with that being said, I think, Dave, you have been a welcome part of this Commission and I appreciate you sticking with us, along with that. Zaremba: Yes. I would have him participate in this item as well. I'm not sure that there is a direct financial interest in this decision. I think you can -- I think he can be fair and that's not an issue. I would ask legal counsel if during public testimony the applicant or someone else from the public objects, could we at that point maybe suggest that he not vote? In the meantime, I would include Mr. Moe. Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly in the' course of this, as the testimony evolves, what I told Commissioner Moe before the meeting is I certainly would never advise someone that they have to participate for some reason if they personally felt uncomfortable with it, as long as he's comfortable with it and this Commission is comfortable with it, he can continue to participate. If, during the course of testimony that position may change, I think the Commission certainly always has the opportunity to revisit that and, again, articulate the reasons for that. Newton-Huckabay: I'd just like to comment that by -- if Commissioner Moe recuses himself, we don't have to deal with any of those issues and I think where we have a full quorum tonight, it wouldn't present a problem. And we can maintain the appearance of it without having to deal with those potential issues down the road. . Borup: And my only comment would be along the lines of has been said in this situation -- I mean and under these circumstances I have no concerns. It's a very very indirect relationship. Zaremba: In that case-- Newton-Huckabay: I'm really not concerned, I think it would simplify the process. Meridian Piannìng & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 36 of 76 Zaremba: All right. And we have some support and one suggestion that perhaps not and let's leave it up to Commission Moe -- Moe: Well, having said that -- Zaremba: -- for participating. Moe: -- I'm fine with it. I'm not too concerned. Again, we would still have to be awarded the project in a bidding mode, so I'm not too concerned with that. But I did want to bring it up to the Commission tonight. So I will stay. Zaremba: Thank you for your candor. We will now open the Public Hearing on CUP 04-055, request for a Conditional Use Permit planned development for office, retail, and daycare uses in an I-L zone as required by the previous CUP 04-009. And also this is a request for a building height modification from the previously approved 40 feet to 52 feet for DBSI Realty Corp by DBSI Realty Corp, north of West Overland Road and east of South Linder Road and we will begin with staff comments. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This, actually, was approved under CUP 01-009 back in 2001 on April 3rd. The site is, actually, 32 acres-- a little over 32 acres, but the actual building pad that we will be looking at tonight is in the south and west corner of the site fronting Overland Road. With this, the commercial uses that were approved through the original CUP planned development do include all of the proposed uses that the applicant is requesting tonight under the CUP that's 04- 055. Again, this site is located about a half a mile west of Meridian Road, directly north of Overland Road. The Westem Electronics is on this site, as well as it is the only development that has occurred on the DBSI's site that was approval in 2001, until this application is heard here. The only significant feature on the site is the Kennedy Lateral, which was in the original condition of approval that I have restated in the staff report that it must be relocated as per the conditions of approval for Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. With that, the site plan shows that they have an access directly to Overland Road. That would be shared with Western Electronics, as well as they are proposing another access point for the two buildings in the middle of the location here and, then, on the western portion of the site would be, I believe, Stoddard Road. With this, ACHD has made the comment in their staff report and I have discussed this with the applicant that they do not wish to have this access -- take access to Overland Road. The applicant has filed an appeal and that has not been finalized through ACHD. However, as a condition of the certificate of zoning compliance when they actually come in to get their landscape screening, final site approval, and condition -- and assure that the conditions of approval have been met, they will be bound by whatever conditions and agreement they work out with ACHD. So, that might be a future modification to the site plan that we see in front of us, as well as they have just some minor modifications to the landscaping and screening plan that you received in your application. This is for two buildings and each approximately 60,000 square feet. The site plan does show that the drive aisles and the width of the drive aisles would support the fire trucks that would be required to serve the 52-foot building. When it was discussed at the fire department, Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 37 of 76 they made their comments and said that they would have no problem servicing the height of the building and in the location that this is it should not -- the height requirement -- the additional height requirement over the 40 foot should not affect any of the health, safety, and welfare issues. Again, I will try and be brief, so if there is any questions, please, feel free to -. oh. Okay. I think -- yeah, she did put in the elevations. There we go. Zaremba: I'm glad you went to the elevations. My only question would be the confusion about what architectural height is, where would the 52 feet be -- Guenther: The 52 feet would be measured from ground level to the top of these features that -- Zaremba: Okay. So, theoretically, you could fly an airplane across this property at 53 feet and not hit anything. Guenther: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Sometimes when there is peaks and other things, those aren't' the highest point and just wanted to clarify that. Moe: Mr. Chairman -- Guenther: I'll just ask that you clarify that with the applicant's engineer, who is here tonight, just to be a hundred percent sure. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, and, then, just to further confuse matters, the building ordinance measures it one way and, then, the building department measures it another way. So, if you want to clarify a maximum height to the top of any structure, then, you can go with that, if you want, just so -- if you have concerns aboutit. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I have one question for Joe. Under the conditions of approval, Item number two in regards to the landscape and parking, you are requesting that the applicants submit a new plan. Has that been done yet? Guenther: No, it has not. I believe that can be better addressed. through the certificate of zoning compliance. This is such a small scale, it doesn't show up very well. When the applicant's landscape architect brought it in, the only issue that I really found that stood out was that they had 13 parking stalls before a landscape island and our code says 12. In the long run it's not going to be that big of an issue to amend that. That's why it was not approved with this. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 38 of 76 Zaremba: Okay. We are ready for the applicant to provide further discussion. Yancey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Wayne Yancey, 2621 Autumn Way, Meridian, Idaho, and I'm with DBSI Realty Corporation and we are the developers of the property and I think pretty much we are in full agreement with the staff report. The main exception is the -- we are making an appeal to the' ACHD Commissioners next week and that will be Wednesday and the basis of our appeal, actually, is they have allowed for one additional drive, which if we were restricted to that, we would make that on the west side of the property, so that that would serve industrial buildings for the two north. With the center -- first of all, the drive access points meet the ACHD policies for location and distance apart on an arterial street like Overland. Secondly, we feel that it would be better for emergency vehicle access to these buildings that there is direct access. The building on the .. the access from this west point of entry to this property -- or to the buildings would be, actually, along this drive and, then, around and so you have more direct access for emergency vehicles at this location. Second -- or another point that we are making with that and just for your information, we will actually be -- we'd like the City of Meridian-- we were supported that -- available from the fire department and emergency people. Another issue in that regard is separation of types of traffic. The west would probably be supporting industrial or truck traffic. The center drive would allow for traffic directly involved with these two buildings. And the last comment that we have in front of them is that this would also support some retail development on the first floor. It's our intent to initially build the building on the west to be occupied by offices for DBSI. We will occupy on the second and third floors. And I'm available for any other questions. Guenther: Can the applicant clarify the overall height? Yancey: The overall height is -- actually, what we would like to do is measure to parapet height, the building standards height. What we are looking at for floor to floor height is 58 feet on the -- 15 feet on the first floor, 14 and 14 on the second and third floor, with four foot parapets. We, actually -- we allowed for the building probably would be-- parapet height will probably be less than the 52 that we requested, in reality. Zaremba: So, the top of the parapet is the absolute highest thing on the building? Yancey: The top of the parapet would be -- if you go back, would be this location right here. Zaremba: Okay. Yancey: There also would be a penthouse to service for mechanical that would be on top of the roof as well. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2006 Page 39 of 76 Newton-Huckabay: I might have missed it. So, how tall is the building with the -- I think I'm getting caught in semantics here. That's the parapet or that's the -- Yancey: This is the building parapet. This would be an architectural extension of the parapet here. Borup: You mentioned -- you just mentioned earlier are different from the plans that are submitted, though. Is that your understanding? Yancey: I think that that's -- Borup: This shows 14 feet per floor, 42 total. Yancey: Well, we would -- what we would like to do is make an amendment to that 14 feet to allow for additional attic space within the -- Borup: Okay. Yancey: Well, we would like to design that right now, 16 feet for second floor elevation, and 14 -- or 15. And that's primarily just for attic access for -- Borup: But you still have 52 to the top of the parapet. Yancey: Still not getting to 52 anyway. Sixteen and fourteen and fourteen is 44, plus four feet is 48. We could live with a 52 restriction to it. That's the protrusions above roof line. Borup: That design there but it says 51.4. Yancey: It might be -- Borup: But you have added -- where you have added several feet and you only have eight inches to spare. Yancey: You would have six -- Borup: Six? Okay. I was off two inches. Yancey: I think we were looking at rounding the numbers off. Borup: But 52 is still the number? Yancey: Fifty-two is doable. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 40 of 76 Zaremba: Any other questions? Yancey: The other thing I'd like to add, if I could, is this is consistent with the master plan that was done in 2001. In that plan it provides for a Conditional Use Permit for each of the buildings as they were being developed. So, we are at that point now, so that's why we are coming back. Okay. Zaremba: We don't appear to have anybody signed up. Does anybody care to add any testimony? Any comment? All right. Thank you. Commissioners? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close Public Hearing CUP 04-055. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-055, to include all staff comments and conditions of staff's memo dated February 3rd, 2005, for the hearing date February 17th, 2005, as written. Rohm: Second, Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye? Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 05-001 Request for an amendment of the Preliminary Plat for phases 7 & 10 of Saguaro Canyon Subdivision consisting of 21 single family residential building lots on 6+/- acres in a R- 4 zone by Farwest - 6210 North Meridian Road: Zaremba: Next is Item No. 11 and I will open the Public Hearing for PP 05-001, request for an amendment of the preliminary plat for phases seven and ten of Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, consisting of 21 single family residential building lots on six plus or minus acres in an R-4 zone by Farwest, 6210 North Meridian Road, and we will begin with staff comments. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, Josh went home sick today, so I'm filling in for him tonight. This is just an amendment to the original Saguaro Canyon Subdivision approval. As you may recall, it's located north of McMillan Road between Meridian and -- that would be Locust Grove; right? There we go. And this is the proposed preliminary plat at this time. I'm going to come back to it. I want to show