Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 17, 2006 p&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning August 17,2006 Page 8 of 52 Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council on file numbers AZ 06-029 and PP 06-029 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 17th, 2006. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-029 and PP 06-029. All those in favor say aye. Opposed the same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 06-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.85 acres from R-1 to C-G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker - east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road: Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 06-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots on 4.31 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Cope Subdivision by Ronald Van Auker - east of Meridian Road and north of Overland Road: Rohm: Thank for coming in. By the way, for those of you that may have come after we started this hearing tonight, the reason the lights are off is because the bulb on our projector is going out and if we turn the lights on you wouldn't be able to see anything. So, that's -- it isn't our intent to keep you in the dark, but it just happens to be that way. So, there you have it. Okay. All right. With that being said, at this time I'd like to open the public hearings on AZ 06-037 and PP 06-035. Both of these applications are related to Cope Subdivision and I'd like to begin with the staff report. Veatch: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. We are going to shift gears a little bit. This is a commercial project. The applicant is Ronald Van Auker of Van Auker Properties and the subject applications are an annexation and zoning of 4.85 acres from R-1 to a C-G zone and preliminary plat approval of four commercial lots on 4.31 acres. The site is located in the northeast corner of Meridian and Overland Road. It is surrounded primarily by commercial areas here. We have a light office area here and, then, R-4 density just to the tip here. Let's see here. Wanted to note that we have received comment from the applicant in agreement with the staff report. However, there is one condition of the development agreement which I will go into more detail, but it's a condition that has already been met. There is existing sewer and water in Overland Road and so it's not necessary for it to be stubbed to the property and so I believe it's the second to the last condition that says a 25-foot wide commercial drive aisle. Sewer and water shall be stubbed to the property located at 130 East Overland Road. And I'd like to delete that from the staff report. We have an aerial view. It's very near the interchange. This is the site here. We have Gold's Gym located up here. The Ten Mile drain is on the Meridian -- or, excuse me, the Overland side -- or Meridian side. Sorry. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 17, 2006 Page 9 of 52 Having trouble looking at this. Anyway, it goes through two of the back lots here and we would like to see elevations for this project, so that we know where things may sit, what the building may look like, what the intent of the property is, what parking lot landscaping may look like. Right now we do have landscaping for the perimeter of the site. Some of the other things that we were concerned with as far as a development agreement would be that we have some sort of design review for these two properties along the principal arterial. This access here will be a right-in, right-out access only and principal access will be taken off of South Country Terrace. Most of the improvements are in this. The applicant has proposed to provide additional off-site improvements and so that will also be a condition of the DA. This, again, shows some of the off-site improvements with landscaping. Let me make sure there is no other things to point out as far as the development agreement are concerned. As we said, we would like to see elevations. If you approve this tonight, before this would go to City Council, just as we said, it's not something that's required in the UDC, but we would like to see how it's going to be developed. I guess I will go ahead and stand for any questions that you may have. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I do have one question and it's one of the points in the development agreement that you have talked about, the 20 foot wide commercial drive aisle. I'm a little bit confused. It says it shall be stubbed to the property at 130 East Overland. This is 130 East Overland. Veatch: Correct. And that's why we wished to delete that, because it's already been -- Zaremba: It's talking about stubbing into it, as opposed to stubbing out of it. Veatch: Right. Zaremba: Okay. That clarifies it for me. Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Van Auker: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Ron Van Auker, 3084 East Lanark Street in Meridian. Basically we are proposing four one acre lots, more or less, on this piece of land here. We are going for a C-G zone and our proposed uses, people we have been talking to, we have had some interest from hotels, office building -- we might put an office building in there. Doctor's office. Physical therapy office. Uses like that. We believe that the location will attract high quality businesses with the very attractive elevations and we think it's a good thing to annex. This is the last piece of un-annexed property around that area and we think it will be very good for Meridian Planning & Zoning August 17, 2006 Page 10 of 52 the city to get that in and get a development going there. So, I'd stand for any questions that you might have. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Just one. Are you anticipating that you're going to put four different structures on these properties or are you going to possibly do one and develop the whole site? My concern is is, basically, your lot to the southwest right there, there would be really no access into it, unless it's going through the rest of the property. So, I assume you guys are planning to do that. Van Auker: That's correct. We are planning -- it's a requirement of ACHD to provide cross-access easements throughout the whole property for the purpose if we have multiple buildings, they can all access through each other. Moe: Okay. Van Auker: Right now we don't have anybody committed to any lots, but we -- Moe: Access will be afforded. Van Auker: Yes. Definitely. Moe: Thank you. That's alii had. Rohm: Anybody else? Zaremba: Yes. One question. Would you be able to provide elevations to staff before the City Council hearing? Van Auker: Yes, we would. Zaremba: Thank you. Van Auker: Conceptual elevations of what we think might -- examples of what we would propose in there. We could do that. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: I'm a little bit uncomfortable moving forward with this without having an opportunity to see them myself. I -- I think that this is -- is kind of an entrance to the city from the south and as you come in -- as you come towards the city from Kuna you're going to see all of the development on either side of Meridian Road all the way over to Gold's Gym and everything between there and Meridian Road and as we have taken Meridian Planning & Zoning August 17, 2006 Page 11 of 52 applications from others in -- that are developing properties in the entry corridors, we have requested that we see a very -- not -- a conceptual drawing of how it's to be laid out and it should be something that is actually doable, it's not something that just -- this is just one plan and, then, have it end up being a single box after the zoning has been approved. And from my perspective it just seems to me that before we pass this on we should have an opportunity to see it first and I -- my personal opinion is I think we should continue this and have you come back to this body with a conceptual plan and, then, if, in fact, there is concurrence, then, at that time we will make our recommendations onto the city -- City Council. That would -- that's kind of my thought on this. I would be interested in what the balance of the Commissioners had to say. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I certainly agree on having an opportunity to look at the architecture in the buildings, especially as it is a gateway, but I can also see at this point they have no tenants, they have no -- you know, he had mentioned all the way from a doctor office to a hotel and I don't know how you come up with conceptual plans to try to meet that criteria. It's -- you know, the marketplace is going to dictate that. I know in previous things we have kind of left that up to the applicant. We can wait until we have some pretty precise conceptual plans or the other option was to go in with a conditional use, which is not something you normally need to do. I'm comfortable with the annexation and zoning, it's just being zoned a C-G and that seems an appropriate area at that location for a C-G. But where we don't have -- we don't have a design review committee to go through, so this Commission is, essentially, that and, then, the staff does a good amount of the design review, but I would like to see another alternative, rather than wait until they do conceptuals that aren't going to mean anything. I mean they can come up with a lot of conceptual plans, unless the applicant has a comment on that. Van Auker: If I could interject. We are agreeing to the staff's report that says some sort of design review will be necessary for this project as it fronts on Overland Road and I'd just like to add that this will be very high quality, probably a lot of block, brick, or concrete tilt up construction. There is not going to be any attractive structures that we are going to put in there, so I'd just like to add that. Rohm: Okay. And I appreciate your comments. That's -- you know, in some ways having commitment via this discussion that you're going to put in, you know, quality construction and it's not going to be something that would be an eye sore as an entryway into the city, that is well appreciated. What -- how does the balance of the Commission feel about making it a requirement that a Conditional Use Permit be made a requirement as each lot's developed and -- so that we could see the specifies of the project as it unfolds? Zaremba: We have done that other times. I would support that. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 17, 2006 Page 12 of 52 Rohm: This is a real -- in my opinion, this is a real important parcel of ground and we want to make sure that it's done right and we'd just like to have a little hand -- I'd like to have a little hands-on with this parcel and if -- if we can move forward with the annexation and, then, with the understanding that a CUP will be required for a specific development, then, I think that you will get your annexation and we will get our opportunity to take another look at it. How do you feel about that, Commissioner Borup? Borup: Makes me ask another question and maybe we need an opinion from the attorney. The condition says it will be an administrative design review. I assume that would be from the staff. Is there any way that a condition can be put on here that there will be a design review by this Commission, rather than a Conditional Use Permit required, where we don't have a design review committee? I mean if a Conditional Use Permit, a CUP, is that only way for us to have that design review, then, I would be in favor of that, if there is other options -- because that's all we are trying to accomplish, right? Rohm: That's right. Borup: We are not looking at any other conditions, other than review of the structures. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, I guess one of the things I'd recommend -- and I don't recall if the staff report indicated that, but if you want those types of conditions you may want that as part of a development agreement. It's probably easier from an enforcement standpoint to deal with it that way. But I don't -- I can't think -- and maybe Mr. Hood has a suggestion. I can't think of a method for your Commission to, then, act as design review body. The intent I think of the -- unless it's a CU. Unless you just require a CU that all you're going to be approving currently is the annexation and zoning with part of those conditions of the plat being that they have conditional use requirements on each of the structures they want to put on those parcels, so, then, you would have to see each of them again. I think the intent we have been working from recently is trying to develop design standards for staff level review, so I think that's what we have been trying to do. But to simply just put a requirement that all the design comes back to this Commission seems more of a stretch. I think you're going to probably have to do the CU route if you want to do that. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may chime in there. Mr. Nary's correct, I mean there is standards in the design review section and all you would be doing is a staff report that says, yes, they comply with all of them and you would just be saying, yes, they comply with all of them and if they comply there is not much else you can do. There isn't really any leeway in those design review standards, that's why it's built in for staff to just go down our checklist, essentially, and say do they have varied roof lines, do they have 30 percent glazing on the front, do they have a pathway to the adjacent sidewalk, those types of things is what we are looking for. Now, I would say if you want to put your stamp on this, so to speak, this is your opportunity. This is an annexation. If you want Meridian Planning & Zoning August 17, 2006 Page 13 of 52 to see all, you know, stucco buildings or you want to see 30 percent windows facing Overland Road, or you want to see maximum two stories or you want to see -- whatever it is, you tell them what a good development for this is. And, then, they have to kind of work within those guidelines. I think that's -- that's easier to do if you have some idea of what you would like to see here to put that into a development agreement and say you shall build it this way. This is, really, your one shot at it. A Conditional Use Permit in the future -- there is no standards for staff to evaluate it at. If they are proposing either an office or a hospital, staff says they are both principally permitted, what are we -- you know, what are we looking for here. There is no guidance and, then, at that point you're -- you know, they have a possible tenant that has to go through a Public Hearing process and we have no guidance for them and it gets to the Commission and the Commission says yea or nay, and we don't know what -- how to guide them in saying this is what the Commission is looking for. So, really, this, I believe, is your opportunity to put your stamp on the development and if there isn't that detail now or the applicant can't conform to the detail that you're saying you want to see, then, it needs to be continued or there is some other avenue to go down, but the CUs really -- we are trying to get away from that, because, again, the UDC covers uses that are principally permitted in the C-G zones and just to let the applicant know -- I'm sure they have heard it before, but the Council is going to be wanting to see the elevations, too. That's something they have been harping on staff and applicant as they come in. You know, seeing a blank slate of just zoned C-G, they are going to want some commitments of what those buildings are going to look like. And it doesn't have to be exact, but there are going to be, you know, okay, all of them are going to have columns out front and they are going to have -- you know, I mentioned, you know, a certain percentage of glazing and varying roof pitches and things like that where it doesn't say it needs to be red, white, and blue, but you need to have these concepts for the development. So, depending on how you all are comfortable with that, but, again, I'd rather not put the CU requirement, because it -- it really doesn't do any good for the applicant either. I mean they get -- you know, perspective tenants, they are looking a four more months before they come in, they are going to lose those tenants. I mean you need to have something up front where they can see what those requirements are and work within those guidelines up front, I think, unless you guys see something different, but if we can kind of give them the parameters to develop in, I think they are going to be better off and the city is going to be better off, because you don't have to have four additional CUPs on your agendas in the future, so with that I will shut up, so -- Rohm: Well, there you have it. Borup: See, I don't know that I'm comfortable with us telling -- us dictating the design. There is a lot of good designs. I mean whether it's brick or stucco or -- or other things that's added in there. But I don't think it's up to us to design the buildings and I think we all know what an esthetically pleasing design is going to be. We don't want to see a blank wall facing Meridian Road. And so I don't know if that -- I don't know if I know whether I feel anymore now than I did before. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 17, 2006 Page 14 of 52 Hood: So, Mr. Chair, can I just real quick chime in on that. Tell them what you don't want to see. We don't want to see concrete tilt up or we don't want to see a blank facade facing the street. Your front door must face the street. If there is some things like that that can at least give some guidance on what you don't want to see, that's another way to approach it. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I have a real problem with, basically, us sitting up here and trying to design a project for the developers who are doing this morning, noon, and night. I don't think that's our job to do that. I do believe that within -- within this report and whatnot they do have to follow the UDC. There are definite requirements within the UDC that they have got to follow. You know, we have had other projects that have come through here that we have been able to make changes, you know, esthetically and whatnot to some of the buildings to verify that they were sticking with the UDC requirements and whatnot. So, I think, in my opinion, I'm willing to go forward as this report is tonight, basically, because they do have to follow the UDC and as well it's noted in here that the design review will be done and that would be at staff level or whoever is going to be redoing that, so -- and Mr. Borup has made the comment that they don't know what they are going to put in here as of yet. Borup: But -- and if City Council is going to require something, it -- I don't know. I have seen so many -- so many preliminary designs and sample buildings shown to this committee and when the project gets done there is no similarity at all. So, I consider most of those things kind of useless, unless there is -- I mean not always, but -- a question I have for staff, then, is those guidelines do have a lot of leeway and I mean if you're just going down -- you don't need to look at what would be considered a minimum standard, I assume, where this is the -- the back of the building is probably going to be facing Meridian Road on most designs, unless you have got a parking lot out around that direction, but it doesn't look practical with this layout to me. I don't know. I think from my standpoint we don't want to see what's going to be a normal back of a building. You know, if it's -- I mean it's usually back in -- you know, with the loading areas and that kind of thing, which is -- which would be a normal thing. But this is -- I mean you have got two -- two major roads intersecting here. So, I think there is probably going to be some -- some little more difficult design criteria that needs to be taken into consideration. And how that works, it needs to be up to, you know, your engineers and architects how that works out. But I would like to see on -- at least on -- on those two roads something maybe on the upper end of the design criteria. I mean saying there is going to be modulation and height variation, it doesn't say how much, you know, you can do -- you know, two feet could be a variation, but that may not accomplish what I think we are trying to do here. Van Auker: We would definitely work with the design review and make it acceptable to their standards also, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning August 17, 2006 Page 15 of 52 Borup: Caleb, I mean do you feel staff has a little bit of leeway in -- I mean just go through and basically a checklist, yes, it has this and, yes, it has that, but staff can use a little bit of their own ideas on what's appropriate for this location. Veatch: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Borup, the design review checklist itself is pretty specific, as Caleb was saying, as far as percentage of windows facing the street, it asks for them to call out the entrance using certain design features, like a parapet or an entryway. It also calls for a number of different -- like two or three different types of materials to be used in the building, facade as well as color variation, and, then, also the roof line, as well as things that make it less -- I mean more than, rather, a slate -- a blank slate or a box. Now, we have put the condition for it to be on those two parcels down on Overland. If you would like to see also, perhaps, the other one that's up in the northwest corner that will be also kind of visible from Meridian or at -- my thought is that they were already building some on that one side of the road, they continue the concept throughout the entire development, but if you would like to hold them to that standard, we can certainly condition that it be for all of the lots. Borup: I'd like to see it on all three at least. Veatch: But I don't know if we can say we want it to look like an Italian villa. Van Auker: And with regard to the design, we -- we except that we will maintain the properties and own -- we will maintain ownership of all the properties. We usually don't sell off lots. We maintain ownership and lease out the facilities to businesses. So, it's going to be our interest to make sure they are of very high quality design, so they will be easy to lease out. Borup: Probably the only reason we have spent so much time on this is because it's a very visible location -- Van Auker: Right. I understand. Borup: -- and a very prominent gateway area to the city. Rohm: It kind of sounds to me like after having listened to staff and applicant that everybody understands that this is a gateway location into the city and if, in fact, you're aware that City Council is going to want to have some conceptuals and some elevation commitments in terms of possibly the type of product used for your walls and varying roof lines, if you are going to be prepared to discuss that and make that available as part of the presentation before City Council, maybe that's suffice to address the issue and we will just deal with the annexation and move on from there. That seems appropriate at this time. Van Auker: And we are. We will work with the city -- or City Council to do that. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 17, 2006 Page 16 of 52 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: If I may, I would suggest some guidance. I'm very comfortable with the designs that are intended for gateways and arterials. I think the guidance that we are looking for is those pretty much refer to the front of the building and we need to know that anything that's facing a street is going to have a similar treatment, so that it's not just a boring back of the building. I don't know if that's sufficient guidance, but we just don't want blank walls facing the street. So, something similar to the front needs to be on the back, if that's the way the building is oriented. Van Auker: Okay. Zaremba: Is that a good statement? Borup: Yes. I agree. Rohm: Yeah. Good. Thank you. Van Auker: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. And, again, we do not have anybody signed up to testify on this application, but at this time it is open and if there is anybody that would like to come forward and offer testimony, now is that time. Seeing none, discussion amongst the Commission or additional questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Just a couple of comments. I would add to the development agreement another bullet that says provide building elevations to staff ten days prior to the City Council, if that's what we are -- the direction we are going. Rohm: I think that's a good add. Zaremba: And the other question is on Exhibit B, page one, the very -- the paragraph that introduces the development agreement gives the applicant 18 months to talk to the city attorney. I would like to see that shortened to something like six or less. I know that's been a topic of discussion. Nary: Ninety days is plenty. Zaremba: Ninety days? Okay. And, then, I have one other comment. It's not really an issue, but I just want to make sure that people are aware of it. Exhibit B, page six, Ada Meridian Planning & Zoning August 17, 2006 Page 17 of 52 County Highway District requirements, the first one is that the driveway that we have talked about be a right-in, right-out, and that the applicant will supply a center median. This driveway aligns with the street that comes out of the project to the south of this. Putting a median in will make that a right-in, right-out also. I just want to make sure everybody's thinking about that. That was it. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Dave. Appreciate that. Any other comments from the Commission? Borup: Maybe a clarification. Did you -- Moe: No. Go right ahead. Borup: I'm trying to see if one of the original comments got over into the requirements. Let me -- and that was on page -- page seven, stub streets. It's -- it was a little confusing to me. It says staff supportive of connecting -- of the connection to the stub street from the south from Country Terrace. Is that released or are we talking about another stub street? Veatch: I believe what I was referring to is -- Commissioner Borup, Chairman Rohm, with South Country Terrace here, if you go across Overland, South Country Terrace continues. Borup: But that's not a stub street from the subdivision, is it? Veatch: From the subdivision to the -- Borup: Yeah. So, there is a stub street from the subdivision. You mean the continuation? Veatch: Yeah. I think so. Yes. I think I misinterpreted that as far as they are aligning that together, so that there is interconnectivity. So, if someone were to come from the south, they would be able to go across Meridian and those would be aligned with each other. So, it's not, actually, a stub that they are providing. Borup: Okay. That's kind of what I assumed, then. I mean that's what I was wondering. All right. Thank you. Veatch: Was that in my comments on page seven or the highway district? Borup: No. That was on yours on page seven. Veatch: Okay. Thank you. Borup: At the top of the page there in the analysis and I'm not -- can't remember if it got over in the comments. Commissioner Moe, you had something? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 17, 2006 Page 18 of 52 Moe: No. Go right ahead. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-037 and PP 06-035. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-037 and PP 06-035. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-037 and PP 06-035, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 17, 2006, with the following modifications: On Exhibit 8, page one, the first paragraph under annexation comments, the applicant shall contact city attorney Bill Nary -- ta da, ta da, change 18 months to 90 days. Initiate this process within 90 days. Then below that same paragraph where there are bullets, I would add one more bullet that says provide building elevations to staff ten days prior to the City Council hearing. Did I miss anything? Moe: The development agreement on that -- the drive aisle. Is there a change to that or am I mistaken? Borup: Oh, yeah. Zaremba: I missed -- what was the change there? Hood: The stub to this address with sewer and water. Zaremba: Say it again. Veatch: The second to the last bullet. If we could delete a 25-foot wide commercial drive aisle sewer and water shall be stubbed to the property. Zaremba: We delete it; is that what you said? Veatch: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 17, 2006 Page 19 of 52 Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Okay. So, I add to the motion to delete that bullet. Borup: Did we also add Lot 4 to the design review? Did you say design review only included Lots 2 and 3? Veatch: Correct. Those along Overland Road. Zaremba: I would agree. I would add that -- Borup: Add Lot 4. Zaremba: -- number four that faces Meridian Road. I don't believe there will be anything built between there and Meridian Road. Borup: No. It's just that pond -- that parking lot. I just thought -- I wasn't sure which paragraph that was for you. Veatch: Commissioner Borup, I believe that's under 1.2.6 that -- Borup: There we go. Yeah. Veatch: -- the lot being subject to a design review application. Hood: And I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, to jump in here again. That provision should really be in the development agreement and not a condition of the preliminary plat. So, if you could just cut and paste that 1.2.6 with your amendment to add the lot and add it as a bullet point to the DA, that's, really, where it should be, so -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, as part of the motion I would move 1.2.6 into the development agreement and add also the buildings that would face Meridian Road. Borup: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-037 and PP 06-035 to include the staff comments -- ail staff comments with the amendment as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? The motion carried. Thank you for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 06-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 14,315 square foot multi-tenant retail building with one drive thru window for Grandview Marketplace, Retail Building #1 by W.H. Moore - NWC of Overland Road and Eagle Road: