Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 16, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 89 of 93 Zaremba: We have four ayes and one opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05- 028, to include all staff comments for the hearing date June 16th, 2005, and the transmittal date -- transmittal date of June 9th, 2005, with one change, that we include in hours of operation maximum of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. Mae: Are you going to need her-- Zaremba: I would suggest that you tie the Cup to the owners or the -- Rohm: Oh. Oh. Yes. And this Conditional Use Permit be only to the applicant that's before us. Mae: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Zaremba: We have four ayes and one opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 05.022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 building lots and 1 common lot on 1.74 acres in a L-O zone for Woodpenn Subdivision by Pennwood III, LLC - 429 SW 5th Avenue: Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 05-030 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial Planned Development on 1.74 acres in a L-O zone for Woodpenn Subdivision by Pennwood III, LLC - 429 SW 5th Avenue: Zaremba: Thank you. We will move onto Items 15 and 16. I will open the Public Hearing for PP 05-022 and CUP 05-030, related Woodpenn Subdivision at 429 Southwest 5th Avenue and we will begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This application is for Woodpenn Subdivision. It's a preliminary plat for four building lots and one building -- and one common lot on 1.74 acres in an L-O zone and also for a Conditional Use Permit approval for reductions to the minimum requirements for street frontage in the L- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16, 2005 Page 90 of 93 0 zone. The site is located in Troutner business park. On Southwest 5th Avenue in the L-O zone. That portion of Troutner is zoned L-O as above if you will, from the C-G zoned lands within Troutner and the -- I believe R-8 -- yeah, the R-8 zone subdivision to the west. And it is located near the intersection of Pennwood and Southwest 5th. The applicant has proposed four office buildings, with a common lot that provides parking and landscape areas. The reason for the planned development is the configuration of this common lot as a cross, if you will, here in the middle, it does give frontage to the common lot and these two front lots, but the two lots in the rear do not have any frontage, therefore, requiring a PD to reduce those frontage requirements. Just a few brief things to touch on. As a planned development it does require two amenities. The applicant has proposed -- and here is a nice overhead isometric drawing here of the buildings and landscaping. As amenities the applicant has proposed two things. A seating plaza with a picnic table located here at the north end of the development and, then, also they do meet the ten percent landscaped open space requirements for the second amenity, a large portion of that being in the extra large land use buffer here. From single family residential to an office use would require 20 feet of land use buffer. I don't have an exact measurement, but it's in excess of 40 feet across that landscape berm. And, then, there is also the landscaping adjacent to the buildings and on the perimeter of the site. So, those -- providing those two amenities are a condition of approval. One other condition of approval. The street buffer -- same situation as we saw earlier. We do like to see those placed in an easement. In this case to benefit the business owners association and what that does is to simplify and facilitate maintenance of that street buffer by the business owners association, if it's in that easement, and it also protects -- protects that buffer from any encroachments or structures. One small item -- and I'll let the applicant address this. I did mention to them that with the 20-foot parking spaces and six-foot sidewalks they have depicted, we would require some parking bumpers, wheel stops, the concrete blocks. We want to keep that five-foot clear sidewalk. It has been staff's policy and we would -- we would require those wheel stops to do that. What an option for them is is to increase that sidewalk to seven feet, drop the stalls to 19, they don't lose any -- any footage in the big picture there. That 19 feet does meet our requirements and, then, the seven-foot sidewalk eliminates the need for wheel stops. We figure about a two-foot overhand from vehicles and so you still have that five-foot clear sidewalk. So, I will let the applicant address whether they prefer wheel stops or just widening that sidewalk. One issue that wasn't mentioned earlier today and I will go over the elevations here just briefly. It seems to be a fairly standard limited office product we see. The residential type single story building with the large slopping roofs and some building materials that are pretty consistent with what we see in our residential areas. One issue that was mentioned earlier today is is Pennwood Drive or street, whichever it is, and why it doesn't extend through this property. You can see here this is Pennwood Drive within this subdivision. And, then, there is also -- Pennwood continues over on this east side of the property, with a slight jog and the question was raised, you know, why was Pennwood not brought through here. I was not able to find out a definitive answer. I believe -- and maybe Brad can help me with his recollection, but as part of the Pennwood Subdivision platting process, that was determined not to continue through there. ACHD has not asked for it to be continued. There is a permanent fire Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 91 of 93 department turnaround provided at the end of it in the neighborhood there, a hammerhead-type turnaround. That's -- and that is -- you can see with the little notch out of this lot there that that is part of his property, that is a permanent fire turnaround. So, I guess, basically, I don't have a definitive answer on why Pennwood didn't come through and that was determined before this proposal and ACHD has not required the extension of Pennwood through this property. Could be because they don't perfectly line up. It could be to keep some traffic out of that residential neighborhood. I'm not exactly sure. Maybe the applicant has a better understanding of that then staff does. And with that I think I will stand for questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Zaremba: I don't see any. Mr. Hawkins-Clark were you indicating you wanted to add something? Apparently not. Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward. Newton-Huckabay: He's just trying to stay awake over there. Newton: Good evening. Matt Newton. 25370 Volendam Drive, Caldwell. Representing Pennwood Three, LLC, as the member who drew the short straw, so I'd love to answer any questions. Newton-Huckabay: And, boy, if you had any idea. Mae: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: You guys agree to all of the staff comments? Newton: Yes, we do. Mae: And what about the parking bumpers or wider sidewalk? Newton: We have chosen to use a seven-foot sidewalk and eliminate the parking bumpers and the 19-foot parking stall. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I'm just curious. Do you know anything about the road? Newton: I'm not familiar with the road, but one thing I do know is that at this point there is a permanent walk path right here. It's also an all service -- it's a fire department access, there is a knock box or break away bollards, so fire trucks can access from here the subdivision. So, it's a -- it's been established somewhere in history, but there is fire department access, but I don't know why the road doesn't continue. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 92 of 93 Zaremba: Okay. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Thank you very much. We have no one else signed up to speak on this, but would anybody care to add anything? In that case, we don't need any rebuttal from Mr. Newton. Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: The benefit for going last. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I guess I'd ask staff. As far as the seven foot walk or whatever, that's -- nothing needs to be noted in the -- Wilson: No. The condition said that the applicant needs to either provide wheel stops or do the seven-foot walks, so we just want to see one of those two. Mae: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on PP 05-002 and CUP 05-031. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: 030, I believe. Moe: Excuse me. 030. It's getting a little late. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Mae: Okay. Good. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Mae: I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 05-00 -- excuse me. PP 05-022 and CUP 05-030, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of June 16th, 2005, received by the city clerk's office June 10th, 2005. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 16,2005 Page 93 of 93 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Mae: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Mae. Mae: I move we adjourn. Zaremba: Did you -- did we approve just 05-022? Mae: No. I approved them both at one time. Zaremba: I'm sorry, I wasn't listening that close. All right. Thank you. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: We are adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :39 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED DAVID ZAREMBA - CHAIRMAN I I DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK