Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 1, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 61 of 90 Moe: I would agree. Zaremba: Are we ready for a motion? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on PFP 05-004. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PFP 05- 004, to include staff comments for the hearing date September 1 st, 2005, and received August 29th, 2005, in their entirety. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 05-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify the Conditions of Approval for CUP 05-030, in order to allow the existing building at 703 North Main Street to remain and to allow a public use in the O-T zone for Farmers and Merchants State Bank by Farmers and Merchants State Bank - 703 North Main Street: Zaremba: We are ready for Item 13 and I will open the Public Hearing for CUP 05-040, relating to Farmer and Merchants State Bank and begin with staff remarks. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Farmers and Merchants State Bank as applied to modify the conditions of approval for CUP 03-050, which was an approval to construct a new bank facility on their -- on the same property as they had an existing older bank facility at the corner -- at the northwest corner of Broadway and Main Street in downtown Meridian. A condition of approval that was the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 62 of 90 project by City Council was that the remaining building shall be torn down upon occupancy of the new structure. The applicant did not request that condition and staff didn't either. So, the proposal before you is for the building to remain, to modify the conditions of approval to allow the building to remain. It would, then, be leased as office space to the City of Meridian temporarily. And also the conditional use before you is to allow a public use in the Old Town zone. I will mention that when the new Unified Development Code takes effect shortly, public uses are no longer conditional uses in Old Town zone, so just coincidentally at the timing of this, before this even gets to Council the public use will be a permitted use in the Old Town zone, so the need for that kind of goes away. The need to modify the conditions of approval for this original CUP do remain. So, there is a matter before you. I will mention a couple things. One is a letter from Washington Federal Bank that was received and should be part of your packets, relating to access from their parking lot to the north of the site and how their customers access and use the site. When the original approval for the Farmers and Merchants State Bank came through this was proposed to be a public seating plaza with a little bit of landscaping and some associated benches. And, then, this parking lot area would be constructed and that access would be blocked. For reference, this is the Washington Federal Bank. This is the building that Farmers and Merchants is proposing to keep. And, then, this would be the new Farmers and Merchants building over on Meridian Road. When the new Farmers and Merchants Bank was constructed, Farmers and Merchants did put an extruded concrete curb across right here. What that effectively did was stop a gentlemen's agreement, so to say, that Washington Federal Bank and Farmers and Merchants had that the Washington Federal customers entered, used these angled parking spaces, and, then, exited through the Farmers and Merchants property onto Broadway Street or Broadway Avenue. The placing of that curb has stopped that as referenced in the letter submitted from Washington Federal. Staff would be supportive of some sort of requirement that they allow -- or sign a cross- access agreement with Washington Federal. Washington Federal has represented that they would pay for the removal and, then, the reinstallation of the curbing. So, staff would support that to help this block of downtown function properly in terms of vehicular traffic. The other thing to mention -- I did mention the public use in the UDC. The property does have an existing driveway onto Main Street. It was the old drive-up for the bank. There is a canopy in this area. Staff does have concerns about cars accessing that and using that in a couple of ways. Washington Federal customers could exit the Washington Federal parking lot and move onto Main Street, causing conflicts with vehicles coming in that couldn't see them. And also you have possible conflicts from the customers that come in off of Main Street and use this as kind of a back way to get to these parking spaces and, then, you would have some conflicts with cars coming in there. So, staff does have some concerns with that and, you know, is open to some recommendations that that be blocked off or that Washington Federal, as part of the cross-access agreement with Farmers and Merchants, do something to block that off. Kind of I guess leave that up for discussion and at your discretion. Other than that, I think I'll stand for questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Mr. Stewart, who wrote the letter on behalf of Washington Federal, is signed up to speak, so apparently he's here this evening. So, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 63 of 90 after the applicant we will have him speak. But just -- actually, I was a little surprised by the comment that there is a -- my light's not working. That the curb that you referred to was there. I remember some discussion when we were talking about this building being removed -- this building being removed and they talked about adding a curb, but I thought they were talking about here, which would block off the driveway that's being a concern. So, you know, if it works into the discussion, I would support removing that portion of curbing and asking for a real cross-access agreement. We will discuss that with both the applicant and Mr. Stewart. Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? If the applicant would care to come forward. Who is that? Let me see. Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, I believe I mentioned earlier that I'm aware that the applicant might be out -- the applicant's representative might not be able to make it tonight. Zaremba: Okay. In that case, we will move onto the sign-up sheet. Mr. Stewart. Thank you for your well-reasoned letter. Stewart: Thank you. Mr. Chairman and council and staff, Mark Stewart, from 1119 West 11th in Meridian, and I am the branch manager of Washington Federal, which is the site to the north that we just spoke of, and we don't know exactly how old these buildings are. We know our building was built is '67 and Farmers was before that. So, these buildings have stood side by side for a long time and as far as I know, yes, it was just a gentleman's agreement to cross those properties, nothing legal has been found. Most of the people that did this are long gone. First of all, we are not against Farmers and Merchants doing what they want with this property. We -- they have been good neighbors with us and we welcome the city or whoever else uses that building also. Our issue is with partially the flow of traffic through downtown, those parking lots there that we are talking about. As you're all aware, we are kind of all undersized and even in today's standards those parking lots are kind of tight and the safety -- I was led to believe all along that that curb was not going to be between the two sites. This is the first you have heard of anything from us. So, we have wanted to remove it and wanted to do since. Or even before. But now we are finding that because of that small size of our parking lot, customers generally are elderly, are just backing back out into that alley, which is this area, causing just as much grief as accessing across the new parking lot there. We -- I guess we don't have a car count or anything like that we could really give you to give you an indication of how many more cars would pass through, but we have the indication of anybody who does park here that goes with this building, they also pass through this exit also. So, we will be going with their flow. As part of the parking plan that was originally proposed, this drive-up was not going to be there, so this is kind of a new issue we are dealing with. If you're really in that parking lot and looking at the flow, it would be hard for you to really think you could drive up that way, but never say never, because we get people do everything you can imagine. So, we would be -- I think personally that that has no value to the existing tenant and that we would like to also work with Farmers and Merchants maybe to do something that would at least stymie the flow of people back up if they did want to keep it open. And as per our letter Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 64 of 90 we would be willing to pay to have that cut down. We have had people look at it for that process. Again, we thought it was going to be grade level and it wouldn't be an issue anyway. So, we would be willing to stand that cost just to help our customers go through that. And also we will do whatever we can to patch up a couple places here in our parking lot that will help direct that flow through there and encourage everybody to go the direction we are hoping they will anyway. Any questions? Zaremba: Any questions? Borup: No question, just a statement. I mean I agree and supported everything in your letter, that if those buildings were built side by side today we would require cross-access agreements. That would be part of anything that would happen today. Zaremba: Thank you. Stewart: Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Anybody else care to address this issue? All right. Thank you. Everybody's had an opportunity. The applicant doesn't need to rebut anything and is not here. I think I agree with the consensus that I may be hearing. It would make sense to remove that piece of curbing and require a cross-access agreement as a condition of this approval. I would also like to make another suggestion and that is that on the -- what was the original drive-thru, that something like a park bench or maybe removable planters with small trees in them be put at both ends. That would leave visibility for the police driving by on the street, they could still look down that little alleyway and see if there was anything nefarious going on, but it would signal before you turned into the driveway that it was not a through passage from both ends. And I would ask for some discussion on a solution there or a condition like that. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I think that's an excellent solution and I'd support that. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: I feel that's probably the only thing that we even need to discuss, but I'm -- it seems to me like it may be a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. I don't know. I don't think there is really traffic through there. Rohm: Well, there won't be if we put planters there. Borup: Right. So, I don't know that it matters much either way, but I don't know, it may be -- I don't know if it's a benefit to tenants using the building that it may be handy to pull in when you're coming down Main Street, if you're going just directly to that building. I don't think there is going to be a lot of -- there is not going to be use from anyone else, other than tenants going to that building. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 55 of 90 Rohm: My only concern would be the customers to the property to the north try and make a turn and exit and cause a problem right at that juncture. But that's not the normal flow of traffic, but if there is a will, there is a way. Borup: Yeah. And it's normally traffic on that street that doesn't make sense to do that. It's too hard to get out there. That -- well, anyway, I don't know that it matters either way to me, but I don't know that there is really a problem there. Rohm: The only reason why I would support putting some planters in there is the original thought process was that this building was going to be removed and this whole area was going to be kind of converted into a park type area and -- Zaremba: The driveway at Main would have been closed off. Rohm: Exactly. Zaremba: And the entrance wouldn't exist. Rohm: And this wouldn't exist. So, by making it a requirement that a planter be placed there in the interim seems to cover the intent of the original approval process, while at the same time allowing for them to utilize the property as requested. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: So, you're ready to make a motion, I assume? Rohm: I'm tired. Mr. Moe. Moe: You said it so well. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-040. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Will those items, then, just become new site-specific conditions? Zaremba: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 66 of 90 Moe: Is that what those will do? Zaremba: I think so. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Since no one else was saying anything yet, I move we recommend approval to City Council of file number CUP 05-040, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date September 1 st, with the following modifications and that is to add some type of planter or benching or something to prevent traffic flow through the previous drive-thru access -- Zaremba: I would say at both ends of it. Borup: Right. At both ends coming from -- yeah. That previously went from the parking lot to Main Street. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Moe: No cross-access? Borup: Yes. Right. And there will be a cross access. Zaremba: That requires removing the curb. Borup: As stated in the letter from Washington Federal. Rohm: I'll second that also. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 05-039 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.99 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Pisa Place Subdivision by Howard Jenkins - 3893 South Locust Grove Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 05-038 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 single family residential building lots and 1 common area lot on 4.99 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Pisa Place Subdivision by Howard Jenkins - 3893 South Locust Grove Road: