Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 21, 2002 Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page 7 of 65 Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I have -- and we probably all have received a note from staff indicating that the next item on our agenda was not properly noticed and asking that we table it. I so move. Borup: Okay. We'd like to do that, unless the applicant has any evidence that it was posted. Zaremba: I would be happy to move t hat we move it to 0 ur next meeting, which is December 5th. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second to -- Zaremba: Table. Borup: -- table Item 5 to our next December 5th meeting. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 6. Public Hearing: CUP 02-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Pediatric Clinic on 1.22 acres in an L-O zone for Treasure Valley Pediatrics by Treasure Valley Pediatrics - Between South Locust Grove Road and South Eagle Road 0 n the southeast corner 0 fEast 0 verland Road and South Celebration Avenue: Borup: It doesn't have to be right at seven days you can do it earlier. Okay Item Number a Public Hearing CUP 02-034, request for Conditional Use Permit for a Pediatric Clinic on 1.22 acres in an L-O zone for Treasure Valley Pediatrics by Treasure Valley Pediatrics. It's on Locust -- between Locust Grove and Eagle on the southwest corner of Overland and Celebration. 'd like to open the Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission. Again, on the overhead you can see the property that we are talking about. It's approximately half a mile west of Eagle Road, located on Overland, just a little bit to the north of the New Mountain View High School. The applicant has requested an 81 -- a roughly 8,200 square foot pediatric clinic. This is a site view of the project with the landscaping included. This property was part of the Resolution Business Park when it was annexed and per the annexation, all uses within this project are required to go through a Conditional Use Permit. Were it not for the Development Agreement that required the Conditional Use Permit, this would have been handled at a staff level, with staff level approval. This project meets the requirements of the Meridian City Code and it meets Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page 8 of 65 the requirement of the approved Development Agreement. If I could have you turn to Page 3 of the staff report. There are essentially three site-specific comments that we need you to be aware of tonight in making your motion. One is that the landscaping be installed and be maintained. This is going to be somewhat of a struggle for the first little bit of this project, because they are only proposing to develop half of the lots at this time, so all the landscaping on this south side will be immediately abutting up to a vacant piece of property. We have not received an application yet for the subdivision of this property. They are only developing half of it and they need to maintain the other half of the property in a weed free manner or non-nuisance -- in a non-nuisance condition. Then Item Number 3 is that the undeveloped portion of the lot cannot be developed without further approval, either to the subdivision and the Conditional Use Permit or a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for multiple buildings on a single lot. Other than that, this is a very straightforward application. Staff recommends approval of the application with the staff comments as noted. With that, I would ask if there is any questions and turn the time back over to you. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Yes. You brought up the Paragraph 3 under site-specific when I read that I wasn't clear. They are developing half of one lot? These are not two separate lots? McKinnon: This is half of one lot. Zaremba: And that causes the need that if they want to build a second building on the same lot, they need to divide the lot or do they need a Conditional Use Permit? McKinnon: There are two options for them. They would -- you can get a Conditional Use Permit for two buildings on a single lot. That's through the Planned Development Ordinance. Or you can subdivide it and then get a Conditional Use Permit for that use. The reason for the Conditional Use Permit in the future is the Development Agreement says all future uses require a Conditional Use Permit. Zaremba: Okay but that decision doesn't need to be made for the first building, it can be made for the second building? McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: It just hangs over their head. McKinnon: That's right. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Any other questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page g of 65 Wollen: I h ad a question for D ave. Was i tt he intent 0 f staff that the developer be required to maintain the landscaping on both lots, even on the undeveloped lot as well, during the time before it is developed? McKinnon: Nick, the reason -- they would have to maintain the landscaping as they submitted with this Landscape Plan. Wollen: Okay. McKinnon: The undeveloped portion of the lot would have to be maintained in a non -- I guess just a weed free manner and water free manner. Borup: So you're saying that landscaping on Overland Road would be included in that, since they submitted it -- McKinnon: The landscaping on Overland Road, to highlight that, is handled by the subdivision, which is already installed landscaping. The rest of this landscaping that's more in the bold area is the responsibility of each applicant. The other is handled by the business owners association. Borup: Okay David, just one question. Maybe -- I don't know if this is a typo or not. On Page 2, Paragraph B, it says staff requested that childcare use -- McKinnon: There are a couple of those, actually. I'm surprised you only caught one. If you could make that correction as to pediatric use and site-specific requirement Number 1 ,it should not read landscaping hall be installed, landscaping shall be installed. Borup: I already changed that. McKinnon: Yes sorry about that. Borup: That's all right. I guess with that -- I mean that's -- is that enough notice that the changes in the staff report have been made there? Okay. Is the applicant here and would like to come forward? Tumey: My name is Steve Turney. I'm with EGA Architects. I live at 4096 East Driftwood Drive in Meridian, Idaho. I'd like to thank you and your staff for the review that has been done. It is quite thorough and we reviewed the recommendations in the staff report and we have -- we have no concern with those recommendations. For your information, we do have the owner here, the owner's representative, and we also have the contractor. If there are any questions that I -- that are outside of my realm of addressing, they are here for -- at your requirement to answer any questions that you may have. There are a couple things on the Site Plan I would like to address and I apologize to the staff, because I just noticed this. There are a couple things that we would request that you consider on the Site Plan. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would pass out a Site Plan. The reason I wanted to pass that out is I wanted to have you follow Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 10 of 65 along with me. A couple things -- modifications tot he Site Plan that we have done since we put in for the application is particularly right in front of the entry. We have a landscaped area here and here and when we look at the path of travel from the users, we can see that they are kind of walking around that planter and we are concerned that they will be walking through there. If you noticed the revised Site Plan, we still have the raised planter in the center -- excuse my hand shake here -- but we have side walked the concrete walk all the around that and then we put a bominate or stamped concrete texture there to show that it's a raised planter and seeding area right there in the center. I'd like the Commissioners to consider allowing that modification. In addition to that, there is one landscape area right here in this island in the parking lot that we would like to request permission to remove that, mostly due to snow removal. That would allow us one extra space. We are well over the required parking spaces, but it would allow us that one extra space and it would also allow for a safe removal of snow and a place to put the snow. Those are the only two requests that we'd like to make at this point. With that -- regarding the subdivision of the remaining piece of property, it is the owner's intent to subdivide that and sell that off or develop it at a later date. We are aware of that requirement and prepared to -- we will be moving forward with that subdivision of the remaining portion of that lot. With that, I'd like to open up for questions and for -- Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I guess only because it was brought up. This is a general requirement all over the city, not just put on you. You understand that on the undeveloped part you have to keep the weeds, the dust from blowing, and all that sort of stuff. Turney: Yes, sir. Rohm: 'm curious, isn't that a condition that has to be maintained even now? Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Yes. Rohm: That isn't anything that's changed. Borup: No. Nothing -- it was just emphasizing it. Sometimes people have a tendency to forget. Any comments from staff on the revised plan? McKinnon: I just have one comment and it has to do with the final landscaping island that he was referring to earlier. Steve, you're probably aware of this, but the new Landscape Ordinance that was recently adopted about a couple years ago requires that there is no linear group of parking spaces in excess of 12, without an internal planter island. Taking that out gives them 13 spaces in a row without an island and so it's in violation of our ordinance the way he presented it to you tonight and -- Borup: Does that apply on the perimeters also? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21, 2002 Page 11 of 65 McKinnon: It does. Doesn't make any difference. It's -- I got it open right now. It's Section 12-13-11-3-C and I have a hard time being able to make a recommendation to take something that was presented as required by the ordinance and then taking it and changing it from the ordinance. There are some things that we can do. Possibly, they could bump out one of the landscape buffers. Like the applicant mentioned, they do have ample parking and this would just give them one more parking space. It could be possible to either bump the landscape island a little bit in on both sides. You could add more landscaping and go down to your 12 and then there is no issue and we increased the landscaping, which is a good thing, and we really haven't eliminated any required parking. So -- and it would make it easier for snow removal without having that island right in the middle. If the applicant is okay with that, we could probably wordsmith something really quick and make it a condition of approval. Zaremba: That works for me. Borup: Any comment on that? Turney: Mr. Chairman, I think that's a fine suggestion. It accomplishes our concern of getting snow out of the drive area and we do have plenty of parking. That requirement would be appreciated. Borup: Okay so, Dave, I assume you're saying it would be at their option whether they want to increase one landscaping area a whole parking space or take half out of each side, whichever you'd prefer? McKinnon: That would be fine if that's the way you would like to word that. I'm okay with that. Zaremba: So the end result is that it's only 12 spaces wide. Borup: Okay. Any other comments? Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Any public testimony? Seeing none, Commissioners? Did you have any questions from any of the other representatives that were here? Okay. Mathes: I make a motion to close Public Hearing CUP 02-034. Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our agenda, CUP 02-034, request a Conditional Use Permit for a Pediatric Clinic on 1.22 acres in an L-O zone for Treasure Valley Pediatrics by Treasure Valley Pediatrics, between South Locust Grove Road and South Eagle Road on the Meridian Planning & Zoning November 21. 2002 Page 12 of 65 southeast corner of East Overland Road and South Celebration Avenue. To include all staff comments and to include the knowledge that the Site Plan has been slightly modified in the decorated planting area at the building entrance. That the southern most parking area along East Galla Street, the center landscaped island may be eliminated, as long as the side landscaped areas are enlarged enough that only 12 spaces remain along that site. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Anyopposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 7. Item 8. Item 9. Public Hearing: AZ 02-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 15.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Public Hearing: PP 02-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 building lots and 15 other lots on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Public Hearing: CUP 02-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD for 64 single family detached homes, 6 single family attached homes and 1 single family existing home on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Borup: Okay. Let's see if we can slow things down a little with this next one. Zaremba: M r. Chairman, I , a ctually, wouldn't 0 bject to a bout a five minute break. I received statrs notes just as I was arriving this evening and wouldn't mine two minutes to review this. Borup: On this item? Zaremba: Yes. They were not in my box yesterday. At least not when I came. Borup: Okay. No, I don't think they were. I also thought we would probably have a little lengthy presentation that may give some time, too, or-- Zaremba: All right. Either way. Borup: Are you okay with that? Does anyone else need some time? Let's try that. We do have three Public Hearings here that we would be 0 pening a II at t he same time. Item Number 7, AZ 02-024, request for annexation and zoning of 15.4 acres from RUT