Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 15, 2007 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 3 of 49 Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the public hearings PP 07-006 related to Moose Creek Subdivision for the sole purpose of continuing this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. Moe: So moved. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items PP 07-006 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. Good. That's just a little housework here before we really get started. Before we open up any of the rest of the hearings, for those of you that do not attend these meetings on a regular basis, the process by which we use on these hearings is we will open up a hearing and we will ask the staff to give their report and, basically, the staff will comment on any proposal based upon its adherence to both the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code. Once they have given their presentation, the applicant will, then, have an opportunity to present the project from their perspective. Once those two presentations are completed, then, it will be open to public testimony. At the end of the public testimony, the applicant, then, will have an opportunity to respond to any public testimony given on their project. Once all that process is done, generally speaking, we will close the opened hearing and we will talk about the project amongst ourselves in full view of the audience and make a decision at that time. And so that's the procedure and there is this little timer up here and the applicant basically gets ten minutes and each respondent gets three minutes and if, in fact, there is a little bit more than -- we will usually just turn the light off and give you a few more moments. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from March 1,2007: CUP 07-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an 11,000 square foot multi-tenant retail building on .75 acres in a C-G Zone for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren Blaser - North of East Fairview Ave and West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision: Rohm: But with that being said, at this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from March 1 st, 2007, of CUP 07-001, related to Jamaca Me Tan and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Get to the right spot here. Okay. There we go. The application before you is a Conditional Use Permit to construct an 11,000 square foot multi-tenant retail building. Jamaca Me Tan is proposed to be one of the businesses housed within the subject building. The property is generally located on the north side of Fairview Avenue, approximately a half a mile Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 4 of 49 west of Eagle Road, and is currently zoned C-G, as you can see on the slide show. The site totals about three-quarters of an acre and is located on Lot 3, Block 1, of the Mallane Subdivision. And this is the Mallane Subdivision right here. A Conditional Use Permit would typically not be required for this project, as retail uses are principally permitted in the C-G district; however, per the conditions of the final plat for Mallane Subdivision, all development within Mallane must obtain Conditional Use Permit approval prior to submittal for a certificate of zoning compliance. Let's see. The access to the site will be from the extension of internal drive aisles that connect to previously approved access points to Fairview Avenue and Hickory Way and that will be over here and up here and over at the side here. No direct access to the Fairview Avenue is proposed on this site, nor is it allowed. The applicant is also proposing to construct a new driveway near Fairview Avenue that is off site on this property to the west. This application was originally scheduled to be heard on February 15th, 2007. As a condition of approval for the project staff required of the applicant a cross-access agreement with this property to the west to allow this property access to that off-site driveway. The applicant requested continuance of the previous hearing to negotiate this access point with the neighbor. Staff isn't aware if an agreement has been reached at this time. Additionally, the Commission should note that the applicant has submitted west and south facing elevations for the proposed structure. Until today staff did not have elevations for the east facade -- and that's not working quite the way I had hoped. Staff is supportive of the proposed west and south facing elevations. However, the east facade will also be highly visible from Fairview Avenue. The Commission can decide this evening if the submitted elevation, which you cannot see very well, is acceptable or whether changes are warranted to the design in materials of said elevation. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: I guess my only question is did you bring the -- a blueprint of the elevation? Hess: I did. I was not given a reduced copy of it and for some reason when I -- I had worked on this slide show prior to the hearing and it was fine at work, but here it doesn't seem to be showing up -- Rohm: That's fine. Hess: -- the way that I had arranged it. Rohm: That's fine. As long we have this, that's just fine. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? And just state your name and address for the record. Moffatt: Curtis Moffatt and I live at 77 Silverwood, Eagle, Idaho. Rohm: Thank you. Moffatt: I'm representing Darren Blaser on this. He's the owner. And Bill Cafarelli also. And that's the plan to just put Jamaca Me Tan in there. Other plans were health, fitness -- we have another guy who would like to move in, Reid Merrill with the Idaho Fitness. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 5 of 49 He might even want to join us. So, it's mainly just health, you know, in the other and that's what we are looking for. Rohm: Good. Good. Thank you. The cross-access agreement, do you have anything to respond on that? Moffatt: Well, Bill -- now, is that with the Ewings? And I was told by Bill that that was a verbal agreement, that we would be willing to move that and do that for them. Rohm: Okay. I think we -- albeit that that's -- that's a good step forward -- Moffatt: Yeah. Rohm: -- I think we will need something a little bit more formal than that -- Moffatt: Yeah. Rohm: -- before it's consummated, but that's -- Moffatt: Yeah. I think that's -- that was the verbal discussion, I agree, and I -- you know, standing in for him, that's just what I have heard. Rohm: Okay. Actually, this is your time. I apologize for jumping in there. Moffatt: No. No. That's fine. You know, this is the first time I have been here, so -- Rohm: Okay. Basically, the process normally is that you review the staff report and if, in fact, you have got anything from the staff report that doesn't set will, then, it's your opportunity to rebut anything that might be in the staff report or -- Moffatt: No. The only thing that, you know, Bill mentioned was that easement. Rohm: Okay. The cross-access agreement? Moffatt: Yeah. Rohm: Okay. I guess, then, at this point probably we should talk a little bit about that -- is it the west elevation -- Moe: East. Rohm: -- the east elevation that was brought in to us this evening. Moffatt: That will be similar to the west, so -- is that what he's got on there, the windows, stucco, and the rock? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 6 of 49 Rohm: Yeah. It doesn't have very much definition there. Borup: It doesn't have the windows. The blueprint does not show any windows. Moffatt: It's not showing windows on that side. Borup: That is the plan? That's the side the parking is on, isn't it? Moffatt: Yeah. I would think -- if we got it on the west, we'd put it on the east. Rohm: Well -- and that's -- that's kind of the way it looks as it should be to us, too. Moffatt: Yeah. Rohm: And that's one of the reasons why we'd like to see these elevations before we act on an application, because we want to make sure that the building presents itself well-- Moffatt: Right. Rohm: -- and are you willing to commit to placing windows on the -- Moffatt: Yeah. Whatever -- I think he -- he'~ willing to do that. You know, we are just taking the center section there -- Rohm: Uh-huh. Moffatt: -- so, if that's something that we got to do to throw it in just to make that elevation the same as the other, then, yeah. Rohm: I don't know that it has to be exactly the same, but I think that -- Moffatt: Just to give it a -- Rohm: -- by placing windows on that off to the side it breaks up the facade some and -- Moffatt: Yeah. Rohm: -- it's -- I think we would like to see something along that line. Moffatt: More symmetrical and -- Borup: Mr. Chairman, there is some break up -- there is some undulation a little bit in the design. Each unit looks like about two feet different than the unit beside it, which does not show in a two dimensional elevation. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 7 of 49 Moe: Are you aware of this elevation? Moffatt: You know, I just -- I had a glance at it. I was kind of thrown one at me. looked at it, but -- you're saying that the -- there is not equal -- Borup: No. I'm saying there is -- well, at least the plan that -- well, right there. Moffatt: And you're showing -- Borup: I'm not saying that -- Moffatt: The floor plan dimension. Borup: Well, I'm just saying there is -- there is some break up in the -- the facade with some of these jogs in and out, which the other side does not have. Moffatt: Yeah. Now, that's facing -- that's not facing the main road there. Borup: Well, the main road is right here. This is your parking here. This is what's labeled as the front elevation. Moffatt: And you're saying you'd like to see something there, the jogging? Borup: No. There already is. I was just pointing that out. That was just an observation. Moe: A couple of things I'm curious about. Moffatt: Okay. Moe: I assume -- you know, we have got brick going here on the vertical side and am I assuming this is a horizontal piece of the stucco or efface and whatnot and, then, this body is the rest of the efface or stucco that you're putting in here? Moffatt: Yeah. That's what I -- Moe: And I would anticipate these are signs, as opposed to windows; correct? Moffatt: Right. Yes. Moe: So, basically, what we have got is we have got a fairly blank rear of the building, except we are doing some break ups of the field of the wall itself and these are just signage above it identifying the back side of the buildings that are nicer on the front here that face the west. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 8 of 49 Moffatt: Okay. And so are you -- now, see, with those being TI's, though, they have the option, right, of putting in -- Moe: I don't know what your construction is on this thing, but -- Moffatt: That would be the construction there. Moe: But I don't know whether you're doing a tilt up building or frame building -- Moffatt: It will be wood framed, yes. Moe: Yeah. Well, I mean whatever your developer wants to do. But just to make sure we are all aware -- there is really no windows planned back here at all. Rohm: And I think that that's the direction we were kind of wanting to take this, is to have possibly -- Moffatt: A little more detail. Rohm: -- a window maybe from each back door or adjacent -- not necessarily adjacent to, but for each unit. Does that seem reasonable? Moffatt: Yeah. I -- you know, I don't -- I don't see why not, just to make it look -- the appearance -- yeah, I don't see why that wouldn't be a problem. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Moe: Not right now. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Sherry Ewing. Ewing: Hi. I'm Sherry Ewing. I reside at 2934 East Lake Hazel Road and tonight I'm representing Tico One, who has the property which is just west of this property. So, I'm reading my little script here. Tico One wants it to be public record that at one time there was an agreement with the developer for an easement on the Tico One land located west of this development. However, due to an ACHD requirement which changed the location of the access onto -- onto Fairview, that agreement was voided and at this time there is no agreement, either verbal or written, for an easement, but Tico One is still willing to negotiate. Do you have any questions? Rohm: Okay. I guess my question would be do you believe that this negotiation can be completed prior to City Council hearing this project if we were to move it forward contingent to -- Moe: It's a CUP. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 9 of 49 Rohm: Oh, we can't -- no, we can't do that. We are going to need to let you folks work that out and -- because I don't think that we can really act on it favorably without a cross-access agreement and if, in fact, there is not one in order, then, we will have to either continue it or deny it. Anyway, that's from my perspective. Thank you, Sherry. Borup: Well, I -- Mr. Chairman, I think -- I still have some questions. Rohm: Okay. Go ahead. Borup: You had mentioned there was a written agreement and what was that agreement? Ewing: I believe that it was a verbal agreement. Borup: Oh, you -- previously you said there was a written agreement. Ewing: No. I said that there -- I say at this time there is no agreement either verbal or written. Borup: I understand that, but you said previously there was a written agreement. Ewing: There was an agreement. I didn't say written. And I think that that agreement was a verbal agreement and -- Borup: The one that changed because of ACHD? Ewing: Yes. Borup: And what was that agreement, then? Ewing: Well, at that time -- can I just walk -- well -- Borup: You have got a pointer right there, I believe. Ewing: At that time -- Borup: Could we go to the site plan; would that help? Ewing: Yeah. No. That's good. At that time it was just taking out the tiny little corner on -- well, on the Tico One property it would be the south -- well, right there. That little tiny corner. And so you would drive in and turn. Borup: Okay. Ewing: Okay. And, then, with the ACHD requirement, they required that the access actually be down where it lined up with the other road, so that would be -- right. Exactly Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 10 of 49 there. And so when that happened, Tuck tried to get with the owners and they have not returned the calls at this point is my understanding and so Tuck has not -- Borup: The owners of this property? Ewing: Pardon me? Borup: Who has not returned the call? Ewing: The Jamaca Me Tan people. Borup: Okay. Ewing: Or whoever. The developer has not been in touch with Tuck again. Borup: I guess I -- clarification on where that easement was expected to be. Right here? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- yes. As you can see, north is actually this way. So, here is the west property and you can see how they propose to build half -- a little piece of it on their own tapering out, but -- Borup: So, this is the property line right here? Hess: Correct. Ewing: Does this project need access to Fairview to be approved? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it does not. It's not a land-locked piece. This isn't its only option for access. It will have access, as I stated, to the east up to Hickory in a couple of places and, then, out to Fairview here as well. Borup: So, what you expected this applicant to do was just to grant Ewings access to their property, not the other way around? Hess: I guess -- I'm sorry, I didn't under the question. Borup: This applicant would need to grant the Ewing property access, Ewings don't need to grant them access. Well, I mean a cross-access would do both. Hess: Correct. Borup: But this project doesn't need it for its application. Hess: No. Mr. Chairman, no -- Members of the Commission, no. This application can survive without this direct access to Fairview. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 11 of 49 Borup: Okay. And Mrs. Ewing, you had mentioned you would be willing to negotiate and I'm not -- I'm curious what was it you felt needed negotiation? Ewing: Well, they -- the developer wanted to go across Tico One land to get out, so they had direct access to the front of their building to get out onto Fairview and Tico One doesn't want -- doesn't care if there is access or not. It's not a big deal. But they had come to -- Borup: Well, you might if you ever wanted to develop the property. Ewing: Well, they aren't planning on doing that at this time. Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you. I understand. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. There is -- there isn't anybody else that has signed up to testify to this application, but if anyone else has input, this is the time. Seeing none -- before we ask the applicant to come back up here, on this -- to staff, the cross-access agreement that -- that we are talking about is to the property to the west; is that correct? Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yes, this agreement refers to the off-site property owner granting permission to have this property owner and all of the customers access onto an off-site property, essentially. We would still require future cross-access with the property to the west -- we would require this applicant to grant cross-access to this property to the west, because that's typical with developments, but if we can't get confirmation that they can get off-site access, then, they will be limited to within Mallane at this time and we would probably like to see this landscape buffer extended to fill in that driveway that will not happen at this time. Borup: And my feeling would also be when that property to the west developed, would require a cross-access agreement or it wouldn't be approved. Rohm: Well, just -- Borup: So, it's to their best -- Rohm: We are kind of in a spot here that seems -- if the applicant's willing to grant cross-access to the property to the west, then, for this application they have fulfilled their responsibility to the adjacent property and when the adjacent property develops, then, they will need to work the cross-access the other direction. Hess: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Okay. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? I'm not sure that you understood exactly what it -- are you with me on this? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 12 of 49 Moffatt: Yeah. Rohm: And do you think that -- I don't know how we can act on it without having the cross-access at this point. Maybe-- Moffatt: And we are willing to develop that, right? That's the agreement -- Rohm: Right. And I think that we were in hopes that you would have that for us here tonight, so that we would include that as part of our conclusion. Borup: Wasn't that the previous staff request to have that? Moffatt: Yes. See, now, this is what I'm getting secondhand from Bill Cafarelli and so that was the understanding that he had talked to the Ewings in an verbal agreement to -- Borup: But that wasn't what staff requested. Borup: Yeah. And so I -- you know, that's why-- Borup: And that was part of what they did, but they wanted a written agreement. Moffatt: The written agreement. And he said he was still working on it with the Ewings. Rohm: Yeah. You know, I think because -- just from my perspective, the best way to make sure that everything -- all the I's and T's are dotted and crossed is I think the best thing is to continue this yet one more meeting and you come back with a cross-access agreement and, then, we can approve it or at least act on it with all the parts being present in the application. Keith, how do you feel about that? Borup: Well, I think something needs to be -- yeah, needs to be settled. An option may be a written statement saying they are willing -- that they will grant the access, but I'd rather see it already done. The question arises what if the other party does not wish to enter into an agreement? Rohm: Well, I think that you can grant one without having a joint agreement. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Can you not? Borup: Can that be one sided? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah, it can be. It's not ideal, but if it's the requirement that it just be one way, it's really an access agreement and not a cross- access agreement. How many times has this thing been continued? We have got -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 13 of49 each time somebody is showing up who doesn't have the information that you need. If you're going to continue this one more time, I think you should suggest that the owner be here to answer your questions. It's a little frustrating to take everybody's time on this. It's clear you don't have all the information in front of you to make your decision. Rohm: I think that's enough said about that. Moffatt: Okay. Yeah. Now, this all came about from the ACHD, though; right? Changing their -- Rohm: Well, but that -- that happened quite some time ago. That didn't -- I mean all of this what we are talking about right now has been germane since this application was submitted to our planning staff and I think that that's probably the right answer and we are going to continue it one more time -- Moffatt: And have the owner -- Rohm: -- and we need the -- technically, you don't need cross-access, you need an access agreement, but we would prefer that you have a cross-access agreement when you come back to this body and also have the principals of this Jamaca Me Tan application be present at this hearing. Moffatt: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Cafarelli is the owner of the whole subdivision, isn't he? Not this one building. Moffatt: Blaser. Darren Blaser. Borup: Right. But you kept talking about Bill. Moffatt: Yeah. Bill Cafarelli is the developer. Borup: The whole development is his. Moffatt: Yeah. Borup: That's what I thought. Not just this one building. Moe: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, a couple things I do want to make sure that -- whether or not you guys are able to get your cross-access agreement or an access agreement, one way or another, if it's going to end up being an access agreement, then, you also are going to need to bring a new plan showing what you're doing and taking care of your landscaping and whatnot all the way out, number one. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 14 of 49 Moffatt: Okay. Moe: We have also spoke tonight in regards to the east elevation about putting some glazing in on that -- those elevations out there as something that this Commission would like to see, so you guys may want to discuss that. Rohm: And when you provide that elevation to staff, it needs to be in a pdf format, so that they can put it up on the screen and not have to make something from a blueprint to put up on the screen. So, they need either a jpeg or a pdf file that they can import directly into their computer. Moffatt: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Moe: And, Mr. Chairman, the other thing I just kind of want to make sure as I -- I'm a little bit concerned about just extending them to the next meeting to get this all worked out. They still got to set up a meeting with the Ewings to go over those issues, as well as review the plan and make some changes to that east elevation. So, I think two weeks from today would be -- our next meeting is a little too early in order for them to get everything done. Rohm: Okay. I couldn't agree more. So, at this time could I get a motion to continue to Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, the next meeting would be April 19th and, then, the meeting after that would be May 3rd. Those are the next -- next two after the 5th, which is your very next one. Rohm: So, does the April 19th agenda still have some room? Hood: As long as they can provide everything that the Commission has required, it should be a five minute deal. So, I would say that the 19th should work. Rohm: Okay. Moe: So long as that's done; right? Rohm: Got you. Moe: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to continue the Public Hearing on CUP 07-001 to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of April the 19th, 2007. Borup: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 15 of 49 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue item CUP 07-001 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? And thank you for coming in. Sorry to have to put you on the spot, but the bottom line is we are not going to move forward without these things being cleared up. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 07..003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.0 acres from RI (Ada County) to L-O (Limited Office) and R-8 zones (Medium Density Residential), for Grau Subdivision by Stanley Consultants - 4135 West Cherry Lane: Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 07-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 1 office lot in the proposed L-O zone, and 3 single family residential lots in the proposed R-8 zone on 1.0 acres, for Grau Subdivision by Stanley Consultants - 4135 West Cherry Lane: Rohm: Okay. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 07-003 and PP 07-005, both related to the Grau Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Grau Subdivision. The applicant has requested annexation and zoning of one acre from R-1 to L-O, limited office, and R-8, medium density residential and preliminary plat approval for one office lot and one common lot in a proposed L-O zone and three single family lots in the proposed R-8 zone. The property is designated medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. However, in 2004 the city approved a resolution which allows Council to consider office uses on a property with a residential Comprehensive Plan designation if that property has frontage on an arterial street and is three acres in size or less. The subject site does, in fact, have frontage on Cherry Lane, an arterial road, and totals one acre. Let's see. Sorry, Commission Members, we are having difficulties here. The property is located on the south side of Cherry Lane, approximately at the half mile mark between Black Cat and Ten Mile Road. The sole access to the development, as you can see, will be from a private street, which intersects Cherry Lane. This is the proposed private street here. A shared driveway will serve the proposed single family residential lots at the rear here, as you can see, to the terminus of the proposed private street. The applicant has applied 25 percent of the site in the form of landscaping, although not required. There are a couple of issues to mention here. Staff is generally supportive of the landscape plan. The UDC requires 20 foot landscape buffers between office uses and residential uses. The Commission should note that here to the east -- to the west and these proposed residential units will all -- should all have been buffered by a 20 foot -- feet of landscaping. Let's see. However, the footprint of the existing home, as you can see right here, which to be converted to the office building on the office lot, encroaches ten feet into the required 20 foot landscaping buffer at this west property line and in order to accommodate the private street, which staff required, the 20 landscaping buffer at the east property line is only proposed at five feet. Therefore, the applicant has submitted