Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 5, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Pianning & Zoning May 5, 2005 Page 17 0132 Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 05-020 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for commercial! office ! industrial and multi-family uses in proposed C-G, I-L and L-O zones for Pine bridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - east of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue: Zaremba: Okay. At this time I will open the Public Hearing for Items 10, 11 and 12. This is AZ 05-013, PP 05-015, and CUP 05-020, all relating to Pinebridge Subdivision and, again, we have a request from the applicant to delay this to either our meeting of May 19th or June 2nd and I'm proposing that we chose the June 2nd date. Comments from the Commissioners? Rohm: June 2nd sounds good to me. Borup: I'm assuming that's based on the 19th is full. Zaremba: The 19th is pretty full and part of the reason for delaying this one is that ACHD has not acted yet and both the applicant and I'm sure staff and Commissioners would like to see the results of the ACHD. Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue Items 10, 11 and 12 of our agenda to the regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of June 2nd, 2005. End of motion. Moe: Do you not need to call off -- Rohm: I just said Items 10, 11 and 12, but I can read the items. AZ 05-013, PP 05-15, and CUP 05-020. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 05-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit ! Planned Development for two buildings on one lot in an I-L zone for Ferguson Enterprises by Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. - north of East Franklin Road and west of Nola Road: Zaremba: Moving right along. I'd like to open the Public Hearing for Item 13. This is CUP 05-016, request for a Conditional Use Permit planned development for two Meridian Planning & Zoning May 5. 2005 Page 18 of 32 buildings on one lot in an I-L zone for Ferguson Enterprises by Ferguson Enterprises, Inc., north of East Franklin Road and west of Nola Road and we will begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. Ferguson Enterprises has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application for a planned development for two buildings on one lot. It began with staff comments when a certificate of zoning compliance application was submitted that showed two lots -- or two buildings on one lot and, unfortunately, we had to make the applicant aware that Meridian City Code only allows one principal building per lot, except in the case of a planned development. So, the subject Conditional Use Permit is before you. The property is located directly to the south of the recent Nola Subdivision, on the west side of Nola Road, just south of the Pine Avenue and north of Franklin. Also bounded on the east by the future Locust Grove extension. Our department did issue a certificate of zoning compliance for the northernmost -- for the top building on the plan here, the northernmost building, and, then, did inform them that they needed to get their planned development for their southern most building on the lower portion of the lot there. The applicant has proposed a ten-foot landscape buffer on Nola Road, which complies with the Meridian City Code and a 25-foot landscape buffer on the future Locust Grove extension, which also complies with Meridian City Code. The planned development section of Meridian City Code does require that the applicant provide two amenities. The applicant has provided ten percent landscaped open space. Meridian Code does require that that is above and beyond the required street buffers or land use buffers and it is, so that qualifies as the first amenity. The applicant did not propose a second amenity. Staff recommended -- staff -- staff has recommended condition of approval number one that the applicant provide a second amenity in accordance with the code and that's on -- that's on page five of the staff report. Staff does recommend that a seating area or -- in past cases the Commission and Council have approved a simple bench or, you know, small seating area for customers or employees to use, that that would be an appropriate second amenity. Other outstanding issues. The Comprehensive Plan does -- and if you will recall this issue from Nola Subdivision that was heard a couple months ago, the Comprehensive Plan does designate a multi-use pathway along the west side of this property, because the Nola Road crossing of the railroad tracks is going away, staff has, effectively, made a decision to move that multi- use pathway to Locust Grove where a new railroad crossing will be gained. In the Nola Subdivision, it was determined that the seven foot sidewalk provided in ACHD's design plans is sufficient to serve as a de facto multi-use pathway and we would feel the same way about this application. In discussions with Director Canning, ACHD is not really open to the widening of that sidewalk at this point, to meet the ten-foot that we would like to see, because the design of that -- of that road extension is so far along. So, we do feel that the seven-foot will function as a connection to the multi-use pathway system. Another outstanding issue. The fire department in our department -- in our department comments meeting did have a strong desire that this property be addressed off of Locust Grove once the Locust Grove extension is completed. In discussions with the applicant's representative on the phone, I believe that's the applicant's preference as well. The applicant did mention that they would like to initially address it off of Locust Meridian Planning & Zoning May 5. 2005 Page 190f32 Grove to eliminate the changing of the address from Nola Road to Locust Grove. In discussions with Public Works Department that isn't possible. The road has to exist in order for this property to be addressed off of it. So, at the time of construction, if it proceeds, that Locust Grove extension, it will have to address off of Nola and, then, it would be the applicant's decision to change to Locust Grove at their cost and, obviously, considerable difficulty of changing the address of a business. The staff would like the applicant to address the number of vehicles that will be used in the conduct of the business. They have provided parking that would be sufficient for the required parking per square footage of the buildings and, then, 15 vehicles to be used in the business and we don't anticipate that the business would exceed 15 vehicles, so we feel that parking is more than likely adequate, but we would just like some confirmation on that tonight. With that, I will end staff's comments and accept any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, questions? Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I'm just curious, is there a time line on the Locust Grove extension as to when they are going to start? Newton-Huckabay: 2006, isn't it? Zaremba: I know the answer to that and I'm trying to think of it. It's within two years, a year and a half, perhaps. Newton-Huckabay: 2006. Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, I'm hearing confirmation from this side of the table that 2006 would be beginning of construction. Moe: Okay. Thank you. That's alii had. Zaremba: Has ACHD looked at this plan, do we know? Wilson: I did not receive a staff report from ACHD yet. Zaremba: What occurs to me -- and I know we talk about this on residential properties and I don't know -- I do know we do on residential. I don't know if we do on commercial properties, but we discuss through properties and not having access on two opposing streets and the reason I noticed it on this one is since their driveways align with Commercial Avenue on one side and Commercial Street on the other side, I am concerned that when Nola becomes the cul-de-sac that it will, that it's going to be very tempting for people using Commercial Street to cut through this property to access the new Locust Grove without having to go up to top Pine Street and I wonder if any thought has been given to maybe not aligning their driveway and having it come off the cul-de- sac or -- do we care about that? Meridian Pianning & Zoning May 5, 2005 Page 20 of 32 Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, the applicant has proposed gates on the Nola Road side there and on the Locust Grove side. That would -- that large interior asphalt area is for storage of inventory. This is an HVAC and it sounds like pipe supply company. There would be inventory of large product out in that area and it would be for access by the business. So, it would be gated, actually, on both sides. I don't -- Zaremba: I think that answers my question. I looked for a fence plan and I didn't notice one, but if that's the plan, that answers my question. Any other questions, Commissioners? Moe: Well, we are already behind schedule, then. April was the start of the planning building. Zaremba: Last month. Okay. Would the applicant care to come forward? Kinghorn: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Mark Kinghorn with Kinghorn Architecture, Incorporated. I'm the representative for Ferguson Enterprises, Incorporated, and we agree with all the Findings of Fact by Planning and Zoning on this and I have just a couple of questions for clarification. The only item that seems to be unresolved that I did not get a chance to fully resolve with Josh would be the addressing issue, in the sense -- I guess is what the client would prefer to do would be -- I guess advertise, rnarket their business as being a Locust Grove address and in that sense we would like Planning and Zoning to be able to give -- the City of Meridian to give us a Locust Grove address that will exist once the extension is completed. As far as addressing currently right now, I mean we are happy to put the address numbers on the building on the Nola Road side and we are -- as far as permitting and whatnot, we are happy to use the Nola Road address, but it's quite a hardship for the client in order to change their address after they have already opened up business for a year or so to the Locust Grove address. I don't know if the city's capable of just telling us what that address is going to be once Locust Grove is completed. I guess that's the question. Zaremba: I'm not sure I know the answer to that. Isn't it the post office that makes the addresses? Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I may defer to Mr. Freckleton on this, but in discussions with Vickie in the Public Works Department, she did indicate that it isn't possible to address off of Locust Grove, because it doesn't exist. I'm not familiar with the exact process and I'll let Bruce take over. Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the addressing is, actually, done through my department. It's a committee decision. The committee consists of emergency services, county officials, fire -- you know, fire department, police, and it's the policy that the road needs to exist prior to the address being issued on it -- on a street frontage. Postal Service also has input into that. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 5, 2005 Page 21 of 32 Borup: That makes sense to me. A road has to be in existence. But would it also be logical that the same numbers could apply whether it was Nola or Locust Grove? Zaremba: It would be an even number on Locust Grove and an odd number on Nola, though, because of the side of the street they are on. Borup: You're right. You're right. You're right. Kinghom: Just as an example, in a recent project that I had last year over in Pocatello, Idaho, we had a similar situation where we kind of made up a number by looking at the streets and the existing numbers from the other streets coming from the other directions and realized that once this street is complete, that that particular address number, fictitious number, would fit, you know, and we just kind of put that on the file, that when that street was completed, that that was the number that that building would receive, even though at the immediate time the number was fictitious, it was easy to implement at a later date. Is that a possibility? Borup: Are you asking for the -- Kinghorn: The reason I'm asking for this is just for their marketing and sales that they can advertise themselves as being a Locust Grove address, because, eventually, they will be. That eliminates the requirement that they will have to change their address at a later date. Borup: I think staff has already answered that. They can't really do an address on a road that doesn't exist. My question would be if you could get the number, if you could have this same number, maybe, and they could advertise for -- how can you advertise and be off Locust Grove if the road isn't built yet? Kinghorn: Well, it's just, you know, you put a big sign over there where Locust Grove ends and it says, you know, Ferguson entrance over here. Nary: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Nary. Nary: I think part of the problem is -- and I don't -- I don't know that the Commission or the Council could solve it, but from what I heard -- from what I heard them say, they were going to be operating this business for a year or more before the road was actually in. From a safety -- from the safety services standpoint, for fire and police and EMS, there is no way in this -- in this area that they are going to be able to address it off a street that doesn't exist and everybody is going to know that this business is the one that's got the wrong address on it and if there is a person there injured, if there is a fire, if there is a break in, there is just no way to be able to make that happen in this size of county that we have here. I don't know the circumstances in Pocatello, but I mean I Meridian Pianning & Zoning May 5. 2005 Page 22 of 32 think the staff -- you know, it's following a consistent policy and I don't know that the Commission or the Council can really change that and provide, again, adequate public safety service to this facility. Once they have people there, they want to make sure the fire truck can find it. Kinghorn: Correct. Zaremba: Thank you. If -- you can tell we certainly sympathize with the issue and the desire, but as has been said by other members, I support the reasoning behind not allowing addresses on not yet existing streets. I'm not sure we can help you with that one. Kinghorn: In answer to Josh's other comments, the number of actual company vehicles on the lot would be four. Typically, they would be located on the east side of the HV AC building, outside of the designated parking areas, and would not affect the 72 spaces. I don't know if he's referring to those specifically or employee vehicles. Wilson: Any vehicle, actually, in the conduct of the business. That wouldn't include employee vehicles. Kinghorn: And may as well designate it on the side there, the HVAC building in the lower left corner and outside of the designated spaces, Wilson: Okay. And from those comments -- and this is what I anticipated -- staff recommends that parking is vastly sufficient such for the site, so -- Kinghorn: And in the last matter, we would be happy to create an outdoor amenity for public and employee seating as well. I guess I still struggle with the address issue. I guess even if Ferguson Enterprises were to advertise and market a Nola and Locust Street address, it doesn't seem to me that it would be terrible to create a fictitious address that would be implemented at a later time, but I guess if that's impossible, that's impossible. Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question? You're just asking the city to agree on a building number and a street address when Locust Grove -- Kinghorn: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: -- when they start assigning addresses just for everybody. Is that what you did in Pocatello, everybody agreed it's going to be -- Kinghorn: Yeah. We had two streets that came together in a similar situation like this and, for example, the one street stopped at 1500 and the next street picked up at 1700 and so we knew that that building was going to be somewhere in the 1600 block and so, you know, we just kind of evaluated where it was and we decided to assign it the number 1634, because we knew that it was before the halfway point of the -- you know, Meridian Planning & Zoning May 5, 2005 Page 23 of 32 the second area, and so we just knew in the future that that street was -- that address was going to be 1634 and at the time that the street was built, the city officially logged that 1634 address number. Newton-Huckabay: Pocatello? And what benefit did you get from that on your business in Kinghorn: This same situation, actually. The city -- that building did not have to use the back street address and for the first six months they were able to -- their clientele was able to access that facility off of the other street, in which they normally would have facing, but it's not that that particular street was going to be closed in the future, that particular street was a secondary street and the future street was going -- is, with a continuation of a primary street, and it behooved the public traffic and the city and the business as well to have that primary street as their address. And so it was just something we kind of did. Put a little note on a yellow folder going when this street gets built this will be the number for that building and even though it had to -- still had to go through its legal process. We just kind of fictitiously pre-assigned that number to it. I understand the concems as far as the emergency access. I guess -- I would think that Nola -- Ferguson Enterprises would probably be willing to utilize both addresses on their marketing, I guess, that they are off of Nola -- listed first and Locust Grove listed second. Their clients would be able to find their facility from both addresses. But I certainly am willing to go along with whatever this Commission decides. Rohm: And I think that from the Commission's perspective, we can't dictate to you how you market your property and if you want to market it as a Locust Grove property, that's your prerogative, but we can't -- it doesn't look like there is a vehicle to give you that Locust Grove address and that's the best that we can do for you, just empathize with your position, but we have got to move forward based upon its current street configuration and if you want to market it as a Locust -- I don't think there is any objection by this body, for sure, however you want to market it. Kinghorn: Even though they can't get there. Rohm: Even though -- but the point is we can't -- we can't do that. Kinghom: Well, I understand. I appreciate your consideration. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Commissioners, any other questions? Moe: No. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: I think that covers it. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 5, 2005 Page 24 of 32 Zaremba: Thank you. Let's see. On this item we don't have anybody else signed up, but, again, this is the opportunity for anybody that wishes to. Okay. Hearing no comments from the general public, Mr. Kinghorn does not need to provide a rebuttal again, so -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing for CUP 05-016. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-016, to include all staff comments of the hearing date May 5th, 2005, received by the city clerk's office May 2nd, 2005. Rohm: Commissioner Moe, did you want to add the second amenity? Moe: Well, it's already in the site specific -- Zaremba: It's asked for in the -- Moe: It's asked for on their -- on page five, item number one. It's in there already. It's already there. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's there, but the applicant actually has to agree to it and that part of it wasn't. That's all right. Good enough. Borup: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 5, 2005 Page 25 of 32 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 05-018 Request to amend the existing Conditional Use Permit ! Planned Development to allow for a maximum building height of 58-feet in a C-C zone for Lots 1 & 2 and the southern portion of Lot 9, Block 5 for Marriott Courtyard at EI Dorado by BRS Architects - NWC of East Tarpon Drive and South Eagle Road: Zaremba: Okay. Moving ahead. I'd like to open the Public Hearing for Item 14 and this is CUP 05-018, request to amend the existing Conditional Use Permit slash planned development to allow for a maximum building height of 58 feet in a C-C zone for Lots 1 and 2 and the southem portion of Lot 9, Block 5, for Marriott Courtyard at EI Dorado by BRS Architects, northwest corner of East Tarpin Drive and South Eagle Road, and we will begin with staff comments. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is -- I'll start by showing this in EI Dorado. The two lots are immediately west of Eagle and north of Tarpin in this location as shown. The applicant's request is to increase the height requirement or height limitation and this is from ground to the highest point of the building. I detailed that in the staff report, so there is no confusion that -- if we are talking about building height versus any type of architectural features on the top. This is from ground to the highest point of the building. This is -- the use as a hotel on this site has already been approved under an existing Conditional Use Permit. The request is right now to make the allowance for the height of 58 feet. This is not going to impact any of the height restrictions of the existing EI Dorado Conditional Use Permit, which was -- I'll go back one slide -- in what they call the Ridenbaugh section, which is these lots in here. Just a point of clarification, that it has no impact on that. They will be providing a cross-access agreement to the north, which is the -- there is a convenience store, as well as, I believe, a Jack-in-the-Box restaurant in that location and their other access will be to Tarpin to the south and the already pre-approved designated location for the access. Their only major requirement was to upgrade the classification for fire from an R-3 -- it's in the Meridian fire department comments and that was the only change that would need to be done to the building through construction in order make allowances for the height increase. And I will stand for questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Borup: None. Moe: None. Zaremba: Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward? Strite: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante in Boise. I'm here on behalf of the hotel partners and, obviously, we are pleased with the staff report. I do have one question, if I might, and it pertains to page five,