Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 2, 2006 P&Z Minutes :: #. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 65 of 113 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 05-022. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 05..066 Request for Annexation and Zoning of .50 acres from R-12 to C-G zone for Meridian Veterinary Clinic by Architecture Northwest - 415 West Franklin Road: Rohm: Moving on. I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 05-066. This pertains to the Meridian Veterinary Clinic and start with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Meridian Veterinary Clinic has applied for annexation and zoning of approximately .50 acres from an R-12, Ada County zoning designation, to a C-G, general retail and service commercial designation within the City of Meridian. The property is located on Franklin Road west of Meridian Road. I lose track of this area a little bit, but I believe Centennial Motors is, actually, down -- is, actually, east a ways and there is an undeveloped property and, then, there is this -- the subject property and, then, there is the Troutner Business Park and the associated road with Troutner Business Park. The majority of the area is commercial in use. There are some residential uses on Franklin and Meridian and, then, also further to the west. The applicant has applied in this -- the parcel in question is a flag parcel with some frontage on Franklin Road and, then, extending to the back of the property and enlarging. There is an existing veterinary clinic fronting Franklin Road. This proposal is -- this proposal for annexation is to build a new building. The existing building will remain and a new veterinary clinic will be built on the rear of the property. As a permitted use in the C-G zone, it will only require staff level CZC approval once it is annexed and zoned. So, tonight -- the issues before you tonight are simply those of annexation and zoning to that C-G zone. I did bring up some issues and some comments that will need to be addressed when this application does reach CZC level. Those relate to a required landscape perimeter strip along the western boundary. Due to some constraints of the existing building and the configuration of this lot, it doesn't appear as though there is room for that. That is a standard that -- that is -- qualifies them for alternative compliance, essentially. It's says that if you cannot provide this perimeter landscape strip over here, then, additional landscape materials placed elsewhere on the property can make up for that. That's a staff level approval that would go through with the certificate of zoning compliance. So, again, not an issue that really is up for decision tonight, just kind of a heads up to the applicant more than anything. There was also some concerns with the design of the site in terms of fire and SSC access. This was not shown as the 20 feet that they would require for fire access to the side of this building and, then, also to their dumpster location right here for SSC. Also, a turning radius issue for SSC and it probably makes more sense looking at the plan. It's kind of hard to work with the report, but SSC was concerned about this turning radius after they accessed the dumpster to, then, make this movement and, then, go out to Franklin. We did recommend that the western most parking space be eliminated and Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 66 of 113 also that by eliminating that space, then, placing the required landscape plan to there, that increases that turning radius and SSC was satisfied that they would be able to make that movement. We did ask for a development agreement with this application and that is for -- and that is to require a cross-access agreement between the two properties, cross-access and cross-parking, because although it's one owner and one business, they are separate parcels and, then, to allow for any future uses we do need to insure that both buildings have the access and parking that they need. So, that was the sole reason for the development agreement. Like I said, you know, the issues of the site design, that's kind of a staff level thing. Just wanted to give the applicant a heads up and kind of get those issues out in the open tonight. Staff has recommended approval with the development agreement. That does require that a cross-access agreement between the two parcels be submitted prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance. I think with that I will end my comments and take any questions. Rohm: Good. Thank you. That was a nice report. Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have two. The parcel where the existing building is, is that in the city or is that county? Wilson: That is in the city and that is currently zoned C-G. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Then, the other question is in talking about eliminating that one parking space, are you envisioning that there would be a curb -- essentially a mirror image of the planter on the other side? Something that shape? Wilson: Essentially. Probably narrower. That looks like a pretty -- we do -- we require five feet inside of curb to inside of curb. That one looks like substantially more than that. I would anticipate that that one is a little bit narrower to really open up that turning radius. Zaremba: But it would have the curb on the outside so that -- Wilson: Yeah. Zaremba: Yeah. Okay. Works for me. Thank you. Rohm: At this time would Joe Thompson like to come forward? Thompson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Joe Thompson, I'm with Architecture Northwest. We are representing Meridian Veterinary Clinic. And staff did a great report on it and I really don't have anything to add to it, but I am here to answer any questions you guys might have. Rohm: Thank you. I think the staff report was pretty straight forward as well, but if there is questions -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 67 of 113 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would only comment, really, for your confirmation. On the conceptual site plan that we were given it identifies the new building as a new small animal hospital and the reason I bring that up is that the new Unified Development Code does not allow for veterinary services to large animals. And since you're building this on probably the only place you could put large animals at the current time, I assume you're aware of that condition and this is going to be small animals; right? Thompson: Yeah. This is going to be small animals. No horses. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Thompson: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: We have one more person -- Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. Rohm: -- to testify. Larry Rackham. Did you need to speak, Larry? Rackham: Larry Rackham. You want the residence? 1608 North Kedwick Place in Eagle. I was just questioning whether there was going to be any landscaping in the front or not. Or if there wasn't, if there is a reason for that. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I believe we can have staff comment on it, but the front parcel is not part of this part and we aren't able to require that landscaping along the front parcel be done. Staff could correct me if I'm wrong, Wilson: That's correct. Now, when the applicant does submit for alternative compliance to make up for that landscape strip, they can't provide on that western boundary. You know, we can look at the site as a whole in terms of where they can provide that landscaping. If it was their proposal to provide some along the front, we could certainly be supportive of that as their alternative compliance to that landscape strip they can't do. Rohm: Was there a place that you were specifically interested in landscaping? Rackham: Well, I thought they required it along any improvements along Franklin Road, is what I thought. Rohm: Well, that's not where the -- that's not where the improvements are being made. They are being made off Franklin. Here is Franklin Road up here. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 68 of 113 Rackham: And I wasn't aware that that building was not owned by the same owner. Rohm: Well, it is owned by the same owner, but this is already developed. This portion is already developed and they are -- this application is, actually, for this back parcel. Rackham: So, that only applies to where the improvements are? Rohm: Exactly. Rackham: All right. Thank you. Rohm: Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Let's see. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-066. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the hearing on AZ 05-066. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move to recommend approval -- I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 05-066 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 2nd, 2006. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto the City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-066. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Moving right along. CUP-- Borup: I was just going to maybe ask on that one -- I would like to see the staff encourage them to put that landscaping along Franklin. Wilson: And I think we would.