Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParamount Sub No 2 MCU 05-001 ( Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis~)Ion October 6,2005 Page 76 of 85 Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I move we recommend approval to the City Council -- Borup: Did we close the hearing? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Of PP 05-044 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 6, 2005, and the preliminary plat dated August 10th, 2005, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: We will incorporate the letter from the applicant, with agreement of all statements, with the exception of the statement referring to Item No. 2.5 from the Public Works and we will change the words from vacate the existing to vacate recorded, Coleman Lateral easement. Oh. And applicant's letter was received on October 6th, 2005. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 19: Public Hearing: MCU 05-002 Request for modification of approved CUP 03-067 to allow for the operation of a 2,200 square foot convenience store and to eliminate the coffee stand for Cedar Springs Professional Center by Robert Montgomery - northeast corner of Venable Lane and Ustick Road: Zaremba: Thank you all. We are now ready to open the Public Hearing for MCU 05- 002, regarding Cedar Springs Professional Center and, once again, we will begin with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, thank you. Members of the Commission. This is, I believe, the first Conditional Use Permit application that this Commission has reviewed under the new UDC and under the new UDC you have final authority on these applications. So, your decision tonight would be final, unless appealed by an affected property owner or someone else. So, in that case, the motion does need to be a little different in that you need to request that the staff prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that reflect your decision tonight and, then, we would bring those Findings back to you for your review and, then, eventual adoption. This application is a modification to an existing Conditional Use Permit. The development agreement that was entered into on this property a couple of years ago was also proposed to be modified a couple of months ago. This body, of course, does not see modifications to development agreements, since those are contracts, they go directly to the City Council. City Council did hear that modification to the development agreement, which has the exact same proposed changes that you're reviewing tonight, the City Council reviewed under the { Meridian Planning & Zoning Comm'is;:"on October 6,2005 Page 77 of 85 development agreement. They got separated and that was, essentially, my fault. During the time that we reviewed this with the applicant I failed to point out that they really needed to amend both the development agreement and the Conditional Use Permit. So, that's the reason they got split. The City Council was not comfortable when they reviewed the development agreement a couple of months ago with that as a final decision. They felt that since the same conditions were in the Conditional Use Permit, that the Conditional Use Permit also needed to be amended and that is consistent with previous actions. So, that's why you're reviewing this and as I stated, the -- excuse me -- the site is one you're probably familiar with, so I won't go too much into that. The neighborhood center is in this location. The site was approved as Cedar Springs Professional Center. It is zoned C-N, Neighborhood Commercial, even though the slide that's on the screen does not show that correctly. It is -- it was rezoned to a C- N zone. This slide shows the plat that was approved, which has the center area where they had a -- originally they had a coffee kiosk in this corner, they had a car wash and some fuel pumps, vacuums, and, then, office lots around the north and the east. This is a private commercial driveway, it functions more like a private road, really, but that is constructed. Much of the infrastructure, I believe, is already done and foundations and building activity are underway on the office lots. This application actually only addresses this lot number one. This is the elevation of the -- of the structure on that lot one. They are really not proposing any change significantly to the style. The main modification is going to be on the south end of the building. And, let's see, I apologize, I guess we don't have -- we can put that on the overhead here, but there is a site plan that you should have in the application which reflects the approved design here. Zaremba: We have got it. Hawkins-Clark: You have it? Okay. So, what they are proposing to do is to convert the -- one of those -- what was a car wash bay on the south end of the project to -- of the building, into a convenience store. So, they are proposing to get a use approval for a convenience store in this location. They are also proposing a change to the hours of operation. Originally, they were asking for 24 hours -- 24 hours, the City Council in their meeting with the development agreement did not approve the 24-hour -- it was 6:00 to 9:00 was it? Borup: Eleven. Hawins-Clark: 6:00 to 11 :00. I'm sorry. 6:00 to 11 :00. So, In terms of consistency, obviously, that would probably make sense to retain that. I think that's really the main comments staff has at this time. I'll go ahead and place the detail site plan on the screen while the applicant is giving their presentation. Zaremba: You mentioned that the convenience store part of it is going to remove one of the drive-thru wash -- car wash or truck washing bays, probably, was going to be big enough to do that, but in the old scenario there would have been no landscaping around that portion of the structure. Is there any need to have landscaping around the new Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis~lon October 6,2005 Page 78 of 85 revised building? It may end up just being pavement up to the edge of the building or do we care? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is not an area of site plans that the ordinance addresses. The ordinance does require, of course, street buffer landscaping, it requires buffers between land uses and it does require planters at the end of parking aisles. But the ordinance does not actually require landscaping around the building. Now, I would agree with you that it would be probably preferable and certainly from a design perspective we'd like to see the facades of buildings improved. And I guess I'll let the applicant address that. I think it would -- it would certainly make -- for the pedestrians approaching the building it would be an improvement. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: I would agree. Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners? Okay. We are ready for the applicant, then. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. My name is Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood, in Boise. I intend to be brief and since I know what brief is to Becky, I think I can do better than that. I want to stress a couple things for you on this and the first and most important is that this is located within a neighborhood commercial center and designated by the Comprehensive Plan. We think this is a real improvement to this site plan from what was originally approved, because it actually provides services to people who live in the neighborhood, honestly, more so than the car wash does. The car wash is a commercial use that can be used by people in the neighborhood and will be used by people in the neighborhood. But this is something that is really lacking in this area. You know, if people want a can of soup or a carton of milk, they have to get in their car to go and get it now. This will allow people to walk to the store and get that. This is a use that will serve the people in the area. It will serve cars that are driving by, but it will not be a trip generator in the classic sense of a retail commercial use. It will capture trips that are already on the roadway and it will serve people in the area. In that sense it's a real improvement. I also want to stress for you what a great design this is. I think the architect has done a fabulous job with this building. I think this is probably the nicest car wash you will ever see that and the convenience store has been incorporated into the building in such a way that it's just a real seamless transition, it works really well, and it is a really nice looking building. With regard to this issue of landscaping on south, the landscaping has all been installed for the site. There is really nowhere else to put it. The building has not gotten any larger and so there is no more need for landscaping on that there now than there was when the project was approved originally. Basically, we substituted one bay of the car wash for the store. I don't -- you know, there is not really a lot more to say about this. The project did change ownership after it was originally approved, which is why we come back -- why we are not coming back. The new owner just desires to have a little bit f Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis~lon October 6, 2005 Page 79 of 85 more diversity of use on the site than the previous owner did and so here we are. We have, you know, through a bit of a procedural snafu we got to the City Council first with the DA modification and now we are here talking to you about the conditional use, so it's a little bit backwards. But, you know, it's a nice looking project and it fits well for the neighborhood. It complies with the Comprehensive Plan and will be a real positive addition to this area. So, if you have any questions, I would be happy to take those. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? I'll have to admit that I remember when this project came through the Planning and Zoning Commission before, and my recollection was that it already included a convenience store, so I'm in favor of it. I thought it was already there. Borup: And that was one of my concerns is it really wasn't having any neighborhood set of services before. A car wash is pretty limited. Zaremba: Maybe I just wanted it to be there -- Borup: Yeah. It was logical. Zaremba: -- is maybe what I'm remembering. But, anyhow, I certainly don't have a problem with it. Great. Thank you. We do have somebody signed up to speak. Joe Simunich. Simunich: Joe Simunich and I reside at 975 West Ustick Road, across the street from where this Maverick is going to be going in. Now, at the meeting when this property was zoned for these L-O-D's and businesses, it was stated how little traffic we would have coming in and out of this business, just a car wash and a self lock gas station and some office buildings. Now, we are going to have a full-fledged convenient store, which you all know they draw quite a bit of traffic, especially with the gas station there. I have got no problems with the convenience store, but I do have a problem with the widening of Ustick Road. Meridian city is widening Ustick Road by the park east of this place. East of his place there is a ten lot subdivision that has widened Ustick Road. This particular area has no widening at all. The curb from Venable Lane comes right out to the existing edge of old oil. Also, on their other approach it's the same thing, they have got a cross drain right at the edge of the oil. Now, they are going to have tank trucks in there, a considerably amount of traffic, I'm just wondering if there is any way we can get some widening effort or acceleration or turn lanes. Zaremba: On Ustick you mean? Simunich: On Ustick, yes. Every subdivision that goes in has some widening, at least for acceleration or turning in and here we have a commercial establishment that draws the public and the road is not widened at all from the hold farm road that was there, that's all there is there now. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6,2005 Page 80 of 85 Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Let's see. Maybe staff knows more than I do. I think there is a plan to widening Ustick. I know at some day it's going to be five lanes. I don't know how soon that's going to be, but -- Borup: Well, I think Mr. Simunich's comment is right now with increased traffic in and out, maybe there needs to be at least a temporary -- Zaremba: When it came before us, the applicant, at that time, showed for us how the longer, double trailer gasoline trucks would work their way through, at least internally, as we talked about where the islands and separators and driveways would be. We didn't talk about Ustick road, I donlt think, but -- Borup: I don't think so either. Zaremba: I don't know how soon -- there is a plan to widening it eventually, but, yeah, the question is how soon. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm just reading through Ada County Highway District report on this site. They do state that Cedar Springs Subdivision was required to construct a left turn lane at the intersection of Ustick and Venable, which I believe Mr. Simunich's concern was more about maybe the deceleration lane westbound -- correct. But the condition states that there needs to be a turn lane at the intersection of Ustick and Venable. Borup: This is the present -- or this is the previous one? The original ACHD report? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. It was reviewed for this meeting, but as they often do, if they have already reviewed this site for the previously application, they just attached the old report and they put a cover page on it that says this is for review. So, maybe the applicant could address how they are addressing ACHD's condition. Zaremba: Before we have the applicant come back, Mr. Simunich was the only one signed up, but if anybody else cares to speak. I see no action. Okay. Mr. Fluke. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Daren Fluke, JUS Engineers. We did dedicate the additional right of way along Ustick Road at the time the subdivision was platted. We did build the sidewalk in it ultimately, do that when the road is widened it will match up. I'm not aware of when Ustick Road is scheduled to be widened. As far as I know, it's not in the five year plan at this time, alii can say to the -- you know, as far as that goes, is that all the impact fees that are generated by this project, including the residential project, all of those funds do go into the kitty for road improvements in the area. So, I can't tell you when, but I can tell you that we have already dedicated the right of way for an ultimate 96 foot right of way there, 48 feet from center line. Zaremba: Thank you. \ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6,2005 Page 81 of 85 Moe: While you're there, one question. As far as the gas station itself, that will still be a card lock type gas system? Fluke: That's correct. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Daren? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: You mentioned you dedicated the right of way and that's what I think we all understood, but I don't think that addresses the problem of the traffic turning into this project. I mean, hopefully, for the owner's sake, there is going to be a lot of cars turning in and that has got to be the worst intersection in Meridian at -- from 5:00 to 6:00 o'clock, I think. Not so bad going west, maybe, but -- Fluke: Venable and Ustick or -- Borup: No. Meridian and Ustick. Fluke: Okay. Borup: Yeah. Not Venable, but down the street. So, I mean with -- with what should be increased traffic there, my concern would be backing up down Ustick when cars are just accelerating out of that intersection and, then, I don't know, maybe it's not going to be that much, but -- so there has not been any consideration about a turn lane at all? Fluke: Well, I can just tell you that the requirements on Ustick were not required of us, being that it's -- well, it's at least a collector, perhaps it's an arterial. I don't know that off the top of my head. But because of the status of the road, is it the responsibility of the highway district to make the improvements. We were not required to add additional pavement to the road, so -- I honestly don't remember -- Borup: Well, I'm not sure if a lot of projects are required, but they do it anyway. I don't know. Is that a concern from any of the other Commissioners? I mean, obviously, ifs going to depend on how much traffic is in there and there may not be a problem. We don't know. Zaremba: It is a concern to me. I believe the answer is in the works. The biggest question is how far away is the answer. It's going to be fixed. I mean it's going to be five lane at some point. Borup: Right. But 11m just thinking -- I mean it's not a commercial project, but down the street at Sundance they did a small turn lane. I mean it was only -- I don't know. It wasn't much more than a hundred feet, I don't think. Maybe it wasn't even that big. ( Meridian Planning & Zoning CommissIon October 6,2005 Page 82 of 85 Zaremba: Well, are you talking about dedicating additional right of way for a separate turn lane or -- Borup: No. No. Just-- Zaremba: -- putting it within the right of way that's already dedicated? Borup: Right. Yeah. Fluke: I was hoping we had an aerial photograph, but don't we. I guess the point lid make is that the real estate is there. I mean it's usable now, it's graveled essentially as a shoulder. The room is there for them to turn, it's just simply not paved and I know that it will be paved at some point, but at this point at least the geometry is there, you know, the space is there for people to utilize that and I assume that they will. Borup: The space is there, but is it prep'd that it can take the traffic? Fluke: Well, it's graveled currently. Borup: New gravel was added or just existing that was there? Fluke: Yeah. We did add gravel to that side from the sidewalk to the edge of the existing pavement. Borup: How far -- how far east of the entrance? Fluke: Well, it would have been along the entire Ustick Road frontage where we dedicated the additional right of way. The sidewalk sits within those skinny lots that you see there through landscaping lots as well. Zaremba: Well, I'm inclined to accept your earlier statement that this was not necessarily going to be a traffic generator. It's not a real destination, but it will be an extra stop for traffic that would already be there. If I understood what you said -- and I think I agree with what I understood -- this isn't really going to add any traffic, it's just going to make one stop for traffic that would come passed there anyhow. Newton-Huckabay: Actually, I disagree with that and this is where I have a fundamental problem with these neighborhood center mid mile concepts, but this will be the only convenience -- in north Meridian right now you either go south to Maverick at Cherry Lane or to Albertson's at Ten Mile. Borup: This is the first thing north of Fairview I think. Zaremba: It is. It's the first thing north of Fairview and I know for me this -- I mean I drive by -- well, when Ustick was open -- this development every day and it will be the i (, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commis~lon October 6,2005 Page 83 of 85 direction I will go, which is about a half a mile from our house, most likely. But I mean I think -- I think just by the sheer fact of -- there is not going to be a lot of competition in that area, that it's going to generate traffic, until you see some more commercial developments on other corners and, you know, north of Fairview. Personally. But do we even have the authority to say pave the side of the roadway? Zaremba: I don't think we do, but -- it's ACHD jurisdiction. Newton-Huckabay: Then I don't think we can have that conversation, then. I mean I think we can encourage it, but we can't -- if we can't say do it, then, I think we should just move on. Zaremba: The only thing we can do is encourage ACHD to move up their timeline, but we are asking for that all over the city. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Well -- and I think that's -- Zaremba: The whole city is a priority. Newton-Huckabay: But I think a convenience store in this area meets definitely a need. But if we can't require it, then, I don't think that we need to -- I don't think we can -- Zaremba: I would say it's not our jurisdiction, even though we can have an opinion about it. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Of course, we can ask. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Zaremba, I would just point out that I will follow up with ACHD. Like I said, reading from their staff report, which states that they require Cedar Springs Subdivision to construct a turn lane at the intersection of Ustick and Venable. What we heard tonight -- Borup: A turn lane running from which -- off of Ustick? Hawkins-Clark: I believe it's on Ustick. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: But as we heard tonight, it's not been done and I don't know if that's an oversight or how the enforcement is happening at ACHD, but at a minimum the City of Meridian staff can call ACHD staff and get a clarification on that and we can follow that up. But I just point that out, that it was anticipated with the original subdivision that that intersection needed some capacity improvements and typically they do a hundred foot stacking turn lane, you know, with the appropriate tapers. ,. { Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6,2005 Page 84 of 85 Rohm: That wouldn't be part of this application, that would just be enforcement of an existing approved; correct? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Rohm: Okay. Borup: That would take care of it, then. Newton-Huckabay: So, Mr. Chair, do we then -- Zaremba: Our motion would be to approve or deny. It's not a recommendation. Newton-Huckabay: Right. But with the -- I mean -- I guess it's irrelevant of that. It's an independent issue. Okay. Yeah. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on MCU 05-002. Mae: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: And you are remembering to add the piece to ask staff to prepare Facts and Findings. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move to approve MCU 05-002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 6, 2005, and the site plan dated August of 2005 and direct staff to produce Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for this application. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 85 of 85 I ( ( MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Thank you all very much. Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: We are adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :45 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED: I I DATE APPROVED DAVID ZAREMBA - CHAIRMAN ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK