Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 6, 2007 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 35 of 46 reflect the approvals for the subdivision on a project. Again, that's just the cleanest way to go. If it doesn't happen you have got a preliminary plat that would -- Newton-Huckabay: Let's go with condition 1.1.1 will be modified as stated in staffs response to the letter from Oaas Laney dated September 6th that starts with staff agrees that the current DA -- DA for the site will need to be amended to reflect the current project, et cetera, and so fourth. Does that cover it? Hood: Yes. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: That was a good job. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 07-014, to include the staff report and the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Proposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you folks for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm; And we are going to take a short break here, about ten minutes, and we will be right back. (Recess.) Item 7: Public Hearing.: PFP 07-003 Request for a Combined Preliminary /Final Plat approval of 4 commercial lots on 6 acres located in the C-G zoning district for Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision by Carmen, LLC - 1351 & 1375 E. Fairview Avenue: Rohm: At this time we'd like to reopen the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and begin by opening the Public Hearing on PFP 07- 003 and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a combined preliminary/final plat request for proposed Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision. The property is six acres in size and is zoned C-G and complies with the Comprehensive Plan. In 2002 approval of a preliminary/final plat for the subject site was approved by City Council. However, the final plat was never recorded. The applicant is requesting approval of the same plat Council approved in 2002. If you look on the map here, the subject site is located at 1351 and 1375 East Fairview Avenue. It's located on the southeast corner of North Stonehenge Way and East Fairview Avenue and west of North Locust Grove Road. The property is bordered by county Meridian Planning 8 zoning September 6, 2007 Page 36 of 46 property zoned C-2 and that's Idaho Salvage Yard. There is multi-family residential to the south, zoned R-15 and R-40. And., then, Canterbury residential subdivision to the west, zoned R-8. And, then, more commercial to the north. The applicant is requesting combined preliminary/final plat approval for four commercial building lots -- get to the site here. Ranging in size from .69 of an acre to 3.65 acres. A portion of the subject site includes the Stonehenge Plaza shopping center, which is located on Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision. You can see that here. And a CZC has been issued and construction is underway for an 8,450 square foot multi-tenant retail shell located on Lot 3. And that is approximately that lot there. Access to the site is from two existing driveways to East Fairview Avenue and one existing driveway to North Stonehenge Way previously approved by ACHD. So, you have a driveway entrance there, here, and, then, right here along Stonehenge Way. The applicant is proposing across- access easement be recorded for all lots in the subdivision and staff has conditioned that an access easement and driveway stub be provided to the property owner to the east of Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision. So, staff is recommending connectivity right here. The submitted landscaping plan is proposing a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along East Fairview Avenue and a ten foot landscape buffer along North Stonehenge Way. An additional 25 foot landscape buffer is required along the southern property boundary adjacent to residential uses in zones. It is important to note that the Jackson drain and Settler's canal easements run along the southern portion of the property, making it difficult to meet that 25 foot landscape buffer requirement. Code does allow a five foot buffer width where the buffer is encumbered by easements or other restrictions. This also poses a challenge to the applicant due to the location of the existing building and service on Lot 1. Staff is supportive of waiving the land use buffer requirement adjacent to Lot 1 due to the concerns from the Meridian fire department. However, a full 25 foot landscape buffer should be required along the southern property line of the proposed lot. Fire was concerned when we met with them at our comments -- agency comments meeting that right now you have the Goodwill that's located right here at this end -- the east side of the building and they have quite a bit of storage here along the east side and south property boundary here. And sometimes they get quite a bit of congestion in there and fire had a concern that if staff was to add additional -- have that requirement of additional landscape, then, that could deter fire from getting behind the building and access it for fire and possibly servicing the rear of the building. The applicant submitted conceptual building elevations and a master site plan. Lot 1 is an existing commercial development and Lot 3 is under construction for amulti-tenant shell.. Lot 2 will probably develop in a similar fashion. This is what they submitted for their commercial portion. So, this is typically what we might see -- staff might see on Lot 2. And, then, on Lot 4 they are proposing possibly amulti-family use. And I just want to let the applicant know that in the future we can condition it in the staff report that any future multi-residential in the commercial zoning district requires Conditional Use Permit. Also, staff did receive comments from the applicant regarding several conditions of approval with the staff report. Did include those in your packet tonight. First condition was 1.2.2 regarding that -- go back to the landscape plan here. Regarding that 25 foot landscape buffer. They were asking that that portion of it be -- Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 37 of 46 the portion on Lot 4 be installed when this -- when they come in with this lot to be developed and staff is -- agrees with that or is complacent with that. We don't have any issues with that I should say. The other condition was 1.24. We had a condition in the staff report that the irrigation district would maintain all the pressurized irrigation systems and as I reviewed the final plat here and talked with the applicant, it's actual going to be part of the business owners association to maintain that pressurized irrigation system. So, that will change as part of that condition as well. Instead of it stating Settler's Irrigation Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, it's going to be the business owners association to maintain that. The final condition was 1.2.13 and that primarily dealt with the access agreement. The applicant was requesting that they construct that once this property came in for redevelopment, was annexed into the city, because right now it's currently in the county. And staff is recommending that Planning Commission uphold our condition that we have in there stating that they have to construct it with the final plat approval of this application -- or final plat, I assume. So, staff is recommending approval of the requested preliminary/final plat as stated in the staff report, subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit B. This concludes my presentation and I'd stand for any questions Commission may have. Rohm: Thank you very much, Any questions of staff? O'Brien: I have one, Mr. Chairman.. On the bottom of your report it says staff recommends condition of approval 1.2.13 requiring construction of the driveway stub to the property and have cross-access to the property. Is that to the west of that property line or -- because on the east side is the wrecking yard, I guess, or -- so what are you proposing to have cross-access to? Rohm: The wrecking yard property. O`Brien: Just to that property or -- Parsons: Mr. Chairman -- Newton-Huckabay: When they redevelop in the future they will likely lose their access on Fairview. O'Brien: Oh. And the other thing is if -- if I understand you correctly, that you're requesting that the buffer behind the property for access for fire be -- I guess waive the requirement fora 25 foot buffer down to five or ten foot you said? Parsons: Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, basically, what we have done is rather than conditioning this 25 foot buffer to the rear for Lot 1, we have done it for Lot 4. O'Brien.: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 38 of 46 Parsons: And let me go to another slide here. The preliminary plat here -- this shows how much of this Lot 4 is actually encumbered by that easement. So, the way interpret it is say if she only had -- if this lot -- the applicant came in, this lot only had 20 foot in the easement, then, they could do a five foot landscape buffer there, that's a minimum. If it was 15 foot of that easement was into that lot, then, they would have to do a ten foot wide landscape. But they have to have a total of 25. Is that correct? That's the way I -- that's the way it's set up. But the minimum is five feet according to code. O'Brien: Thank you. Parsons: Yeah. O'Brien: I have nothing further. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Suggs: Good evening. My name is Jane Suggs and I live at 200 Louisa Street in Boise. And I'm here representing Carmen, LLC, and Intermountain Outdoor Subdivision.. And we are going to try to set a land speed record, so -- but I will try and make it really clear, because I think the staffs done a great job. We are not asking for a change of zoning and this did go through in 2002 and that's a way to make extra money when you`re a consultant is just do the same project over again, so -- not that we meant to. There were some conditions of approval from the old there that still exist about doing some additional landscaping, even in front of Intermountain -- well, what was the Intermountain Outdoor Sports, now the Stonehenge Shopping Center. The last applicant didn't want to do those things and they just let the final plat lapse. They didn't record it in time. So, there is a certain amount of time we have and they didn't, they sold the property, but the new owners want to do a subdivision, so we want to do that, too. I think Bill did a good job. Let's just go ahead and get the clarification on 1.2.4, so if your recommendation of approval might include a clarification that the property owners association will maintain the irrigation system. That actually comes from a well on site. Let's see if I can add anything else to what the staff talks about about the 25 foot landscape buffer that's along Lot 4. We appreciate the staff understanding that the existing building and the location of the drain makes any kind of landscaping very difficult behind the existing building and we appreciate keeping that open for not only fire protection, but safety also, and deliveries. I have made a copy of just that section of the preliminary plat that kind of shows that part of Lot 4. So, I'm going to give this to you. There is six of those. And I did that just so you don't have to pull out that big set of plans, but you're welcome to do that if you'd like to. And so this is a one inch equals 40 scale, which is just the same as the plan. And what you will see is that the property boundary along the south of Lot 4, that darker line there that is kind of dashed, that's in the bottom of that drain and so by the time you get to the top of the bank that's about 20 to 25 feet. So, what we are asking for is that one condition, 1.2.2, would be revised Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 39 of 46 also. So, we could show that as a landscape buffer, but we can't practically landscape within the canal, because the canal company won't let us put plantings in there, because it's a water conveyance. What we do agree is that we think that a five foot of landscape minimally along the top of the bank is the appropriate way to go and your code allows for that. And that's what Bill was talking about is allowing five feet minimally along there. If for some reason we find out that the canal bank is only 15 feet from the edge, we will put in ten feet, but at least there will be five feet of landscaping on the top of the bank. Now, we haven't worked that out with the irrigation district and we haven't put that -- worked that out completely with the staff. The staff is asking for us to resubmit a landscape plan, so we will show in on that. The other thing we are asking for is that to be actually installed when Lot 4 is developed. We don't have a plan right now. We did show amulti-family building. We are not sure what we are going to put there. It's kind of a tight site. You can look at the plat and see that's kind of small with all the easements on it and we would like to be able to put that in at the time that lot is developed, not now, because it will just get destroyed whenever somebody comes and builds a building there. And I think the staff concurs with that. So, there would be a little bit of a conditional change to condition 1.2.2 to make sure there is at least five feet of landscaping along the top of the bank and that we would put that in at the time Lot 4 was developed. I do want to talk to you about the idea of putting in the cross-access to the lot to the east. We don't disagree, we think that's a good idea when that lot develops. We want to put a note on the plat or record some sort of instrument that says that we agree to that, but I think a note on the plat would suffice saying there would be a cross-access actually built, but where do we build it? Do we tear out landscaping that exists now? Now, I didn't make a lot of copies of this, but this is an aerial photograph. I'll let you all pass that around and, then, I will make sure this -- and this might not be the most recent aerial, but there is a planting area, there is some curb -- I would say there is a 90 percent chance if you put a driveway stub to the fence, because it's not going to go into the lot fence. There is a fence there. So, it's a stub to nowhere -- that when they redevelop that we are going to be stubbed into the wrong place. It could be even stubbed into the side of their building., because, likely, if that's developed on that corner, they are going to use the new urbanism techniques to put the building up closer to the streets, just like we are going to do on lot number two, if that develops. It's not going to have parking up in the front like these old buildings do, like the existing building. So, what we are really asking is for us to agree that that needs to happen, but not build it right now, because it's just going to be building it and having to tear it out and put it in again someplace it later and we need to cooperate on where that goes. It doesn't make sense to remove landscaping, put in pavement to nowhere, and have to tear it out. I think the staff is concerned about catching it. Certainly when that lot to the east does develop, it will be required to do cross-access to us and what you really need to know is there is a provision on this property, whoever owns it -- and that's on the plat -- that that would be required of them. And so that would be something that could be worked out. I don't think it will get lost in the process at all and it seems crazy to have to go out there and build a driveway to nowhere just to make sure it doesn't get lost. think -- I think that, you know, probably will lose access to Fairview and so it will be Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 40 of 46 important to have some good access, appropriately sized. So, we are asking for that condition to actually be changed, so that we do record on the plat as requested, but we actually build that when the lot to the east redevelops. So, do you want me to point at something? Rohm: Well, from my perspective it seems appropriate that it would just be right here. This is an existing parking lot, is it not? Suggs: It is. Rohm: And -- Suggs: It seems appropriate for you, but if that goes into a parking area of theirs or into the back of a building, it doesn't seem appropriate. Again, their -- Rohm: Well, then, at such time that they redevelop, they can make application to make adjustments at that time. You think that would work? Suggs: I think it would be real hard for you to tell somebody on the east to change this guy's property, like go in and do curb and gutter and those types of things, because think what we'd have to do is we are having to remove existing curb and gutter and landscaping to put in, again, this driveway to nowhere, which, you know, we could choose a place, but it just doesn't seem right to, then, tell somebody else they have to build according to a driveway stub -- it would be different if it was a street stub, but not a driveway stub. And, then, if they wanted to do something different and you approved and you liked their design, to go and tell them, oh, and by the way, you have got to go work on somebody else's property. I don't think you can do that, actually. So, it makes sense for us to do it as a note on the plat. That's just my hope is that you would reconsider that condition, so we wouldn't end up taking out landscaping again, putting in pavement, knowing that likely it would be moved. Rohm: Thank you for your comments. Suggs: And so there would be -- and we agree with all the other conditions. We just have those three -- well, one's just a clarification. One that the staff agrees to about landscaping on Lot 4. And, then, this other one. So, if you could make those changes to the conditions, we would appreciate your approval. Thank you. Rohm: I'm sure you understand that the reason that they wanted the cross-access installed at this time is because that lot is ostensibly already developed. There is -- there is no redevelopment planned for Lot 1 and if -- if we just make a note on there that, yeah, well, we will be in compliance, that I don't know what the driving force to -- to keep you in compliance after the fact, because that lot's fully developed. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 41 of 46 Suggs: A note on the plat that would say that cross-access must be provided when the lot to the east redevelops or some other document that allows that to occur. I mean if someone comes in to -- okay. If we -- I'm just kind of thinking through this, because I'm -- if we put the driveway in and the lot to the east develops, what makes it -- what gives you the power if Lot 1 is already developed., to make that -- move that. Rohm: I don't disagree with your logic, but just from our -- from our perspective that lot is -- your Lot 1 is already fully developed and if, in fact, we don't at this juncture tonight create a vehicle to make that a requirement that across-access be installed, then, I'm not sure how we are going to get it down the road., other than your suggestion that we just make a note on the plat. Let me ask .staff if there is a way that that can be incorporated into the final plat. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the problem I see with that is it costs -- and it's not a huge amount of money, but there is going to be some cost associated with constructing that driveway stub on the subject property. So, where is that money coming from, then, and how do we -- it's almost similar to the last one, we don't want to track this thing and be holding a thousand dollars or whatever it takes to build a 20 foot wide by ten or 15 foot long driveway. But as the chair mentioned, there is no way to -- to come back Lot 1 and say, hey, now it's time, pave the driveway now. That's the main concern that we have with putting this off is there is no provision for that or trust or surety or whatever for the cost of actually putting it on the ground. Suggs: And I would say that if we do that, just to follow that logic, we put a driveway here and we stub it through and the development plan comes in and they put theirs here and theirs goes into -- or they put it here, they put it someplace that doesn't make sense and ours goes into the back of their building -- I mean there is not -- if that's the case, I guess I'm concerned about trying to create a useless driveway, when, in fact, we could create it in the future easily with a condition of approval. I mean that's what you're wanting is something that encumbers the site in the future; right? So, I think we can record a document or something on the plat that allows that to happen. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, if I may, since I helped kind of Bill craft this condition somewhat. And the idea -- and what would be ideal for us is to know what's ideal for you to put a driveway and just best guess, assuming -- I mean you're right, we don't know where the building is going to lay on that lot. Ideal situation is there is a separate document that's recorded under an instrument number that's cross-referenced on your plat. Don't create it with the plat, but cross-reference this instrument number and say cross-access has been provided.. Now, you can detail that and say it's 20 foot wide and it's located in this spot. If, in fact, that's not ideal for that property owner, they can come here and say, hey, you know what, appreciate you giving me a driveway, but that's not where I want it, can we modify that instrument number and it's that simple and you re-record a new document. He pays to reconstruct that driveway where ever it's ideal if you concur. If not, we require them to extend it where it's ideal for you. And that's why I don't see that Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 42 of 46 it's putting you out any. You could put what works for you in line with your second drive aisle here if that's the case and just -- just stub it over. And, you're right, it's a driveway to nowhere now, but we want potential property owners to see that, hey, the city requires this guy to stub over, I'm going to be required to tie in with their driveway and use the driveway out to Fairview Avenue. Suggs: And I don't disagree with anything the staff is saying, other than if you're going to go to the trouble of having an instrument number and make it so that the guy can build it where ever it makes sense for him, why do it now and have to do it later. Just have the instrument number on the plat now recorded that allows that to be something that happens whenever the property is redeveloped. I mean there is no reason to build it now and, then, have the instrument number that allows you to build it later. So, I'm -- but, you know, I'm -- Hood: So, again, and I'm -- Mr. Chair, if I may. The only problem with that, Jean, that see is how does it get constructed? We can't put it on this other guy to come on your property and construct that. We need it to be constructed and if we -- you can figure -- if you can propose some way that there is some money set aside somehow that gives the city assurance that can be constructed, yeah, let's do it only once. That's ideal for me, too. I don't want to see it ripped out. But I don't know of any way where it's not just a tracking nightmare to figure out -- maybe it's ten years for now and there is -- you know, back in 2007 they bid this job at a thousand bucks and construction costs in 2017 are five times that, that's the problem that I see. I agree with you in theory, it's just that's where it doesn't work for us. Suggs: I guess I was just following up with your logic that says if you can create an instrument number that, then, allows the other developer of the east lot to come onto your property rebuild it at a location that's best for him, if we can do that through instrument number for something that happens later, we can certainly do it now. But, you know, Idon't -- we don't want to argue about it all night, so if it's -- Rohm: We certainly don't. Suggs: No. I just feel like that it's just an unnecessary encumbrance and cost to the property that certainly can be handled a better way and I'm sure we can figure out a way to do it without having to build something there that's going to have to be moved and you just lose that opportunity to have that connection that makes sense, so -- Rohm: And I'm not sure that it's -- it's assurance that it would have to be moved. If you build it, then, it's possible that the adjacent property would have their parking right along with yours. It just appears as if that's the way it would look as a redeveloped parcel as well, but I don't know that. Meridian Planning ~ Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 43 of 46 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, we don't have a long history of people moving cross- accesses that exist now. Rohm: We don't. Right. Exactly. Newton-Huckabay: You take it as a bonus, I have got across-access to the property I just bought and that saves me however much I would have had to spend before and -- Rohm: To acquire it. Newton-Huckabay: -- skip on down the road and build their -- their building, so -- Suggs: I would never deny them the opportunity to build their -- to build it where they want it and we would build it where it -- to tie in, because it would be beneficial to this property, too. I mean probably beneficial -- we would be able to get over to the Locust Grove Road without going out on Fairview. So, that's what seems to be so powerful for us is that it's in our best interest, too, just not to do it now, so -- Rohm: Yeah. Thank you. Suggs: Thanks. Rohm: There is nobody else in the audience to speak to this application, so I don't believe there would be any additional public testimony. So, at this time -- O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I move to close Public Hearing number -- can't find that number. PFP 07-003. Is that the one? Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PFP 07-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Discussion? Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: Well, carrying on a little bit about the cross-access, we are going to be the ones that are going to be approving the cross-access to any development next door anyway. I think it's -- the burden is going to be on the developer of that property to be in line. I don't think we are going to allow them to build a cross in line with the existing parking structure there, I think we are going to follow an access road and I don't think we are going to have any problem making sure that that happens. So, I don't think Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 44 of 46 there is an issue. Everything else I think pretty much agrees with the staff on their recommendations. End of statement. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I'm going to leave the parking access alone for a minute for cross- access. The -- we were all in agreement that the Lot 4 could develop the landscaping when that lot developed and so I have no problem with that. And I had no problem with the minimum five foot there along the canal for that. When I look at this piece of property -- and I have always thought this -- if I could have it my way, so to speak, would start here and end there with cross-access. I'd just knock the whole thing out and -- so you could develop continuity along that very large corner. So, I'm not really sure what -- what the right answer is. I don't want to put a burden on the city staff to track that and do feel confident that any cross-access stub that would be created would be likely utilized by -- as it is with most other developments. So, I'm going to have to defer to the other Commissioners at this point on how strongly they feel on that cross-access issue. End of statement. End my comments. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I'm up, uh? I actually have no qualms on any of the other two issues either. As far as cross-access I, myself -- I don't know, because of the existing building on Lot 1 there., to me, basically, the drive aisle there, you know, the east-west right there, I would anticipate would be the perfect spot for across-access and call it good and, then, when the developer does something next door, then, they have to somewhat design around it to make that work for them and at that point, you know, I don't see any way of bringing cross-access any nearer to the existing building simply just -- well, we talked about earlier -- talked earlier is the fire department and access for them and everything else, we need to keep the area around that open for them. I don't know what the developer per would do, you know, on his property, but the long and short of it -- I guess I'm getting long winded about this issue -- is I would like to see the cross-access agreement be required now. Rohm: As do I. End of my comments. Could I get a motion to move this forward, please? Newton-Huckabay: Be my guest. Moe: I don't really under -- you know, how to state those others, so you go right ahead. Rohm: Well, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is on a roll tonight. Newton-Huckabay: So, condition 1.2.4, we are just clarifying that the property owners will maintain the irrigation on the pressurized irrigation system. Condition 1.2.2, staff is Meridian Planning & Zoning September 6, 2007 Page 45 of 46 supportive of that request and they will just reference the applicant's comments back in your comment, Bill, and that should cover that. 1.2.13, we will stand as stated in the staff report. Moe: If that's how you make your motion. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of the file number PFP 07-003, as presented during the hearing on September 6 with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: Condition 1.2.4 will be clarified to read that the property owners will own and maintain the on-site pressurized irrigation system, not the irrigation districts. Condition 1.2.2. Staff is supportive of the applicant's response to that condition to allow a minimum of five foot buffer along the -- along the canal easement and that the plantings will be installed at the time Lot 4 is developed. And staffs statement was UDC 11-3B-7- C1 B allows a minimum of a five foot buffer width with the buffer is encumbered by easements or other restrictions. Am I clear enough on that one? End of motion. Moe: Second.. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of PFP 07-003 to include all staff comments, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Rohm: Moved and -- Newton-Huckabay: Second. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: -- seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Motion carried.. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:25 P.M.