Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Meridian City Council June 2, 1998 Page ~s Anderson: Second. Crookston: I think you need a date. Rountree: July 7m Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Anderson to table this ordinance July the 7cn meeting. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 8: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.8 ACRES TO C-G BY TOM BEVAN - 3020 W. FAIRVIEW AVENUE: Corrie: I'll open the public hearing at this time on the annexation and zoning request. TOM BEVAN WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Bevan: My name is Tom Bevan. My address is 4202 N. Marcliffe in Boise, and we're developing a piece, trying to develop a piece of property across the street from Chevron down on Fairview. It's just south of Fairview across from Chevron. Now there's a two story home there on the site. Next door to us is Econo Lube and Schuck's Auto, but they putting in a (inaudible) right next door to us, and we're working with them on a cross development agreement, a cross easement agreement for a share of the parking lot there. Planning and Zoning has approved the -not approve, but they've recommended the approval I think for the zone change, annexation and the conditional use permit. Any questions? Corrie: Yes, sir, Mr. Rountree. (End of Tape) Rountree: ... opportunity to fully review and appreciate the comments and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions and are you in general agreement with those? Bevan: Actually, I haven't looked at all of them yet. I didn't get a copy of them: You haven't received a copy of them? Corrie: Did you request a copy of it? Meridian City Council June 2, 1998 Page 17 Bevan: I think my architect did. He did pick them up? Oh, I'm sorry, then it's my error. No, I haven't seen them. I thought he would have got in touch with me. So I guess this is our error that I didn't get it. Corrie: Any other questions? Rountree: None. Bird: I have none. Bevan: Thank you. I guess I should have time to look it before. Rountree: You might want to. Bevan: Yes. So I would like to table it for one more month or one more meeting. Corrie: We can continue the public hearing. Bevan: Very good, thank you. Corrie: Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony at this time with the understanding that we will probably continue the public hearing on June 16th? Okay, hearing none, I'll keep the public hearing open and the Council can make a decision. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue the hearing on this application until June 16th at such time as the applicant has an opportunity to review the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Anderson to continue the public hearing until June the 16th in order to the applicant to read the annexation and zoning Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER (CHELSEA SQUARE) BY TOM BEVAN - 3020 W. FAIRVIEW: Meridian Planning an~ning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 68 Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES • c~e~`~ ~-<8-0~ ~~~ Borup: Are we in agreement that square footage of the sign is acceptable. Barbeiro: Steve, you did the original recommendation. Was this the size of the original recommendation. Siddoway: Yes it is. 25 feet. I originally drafted staff comments recommended approval based on this size and it was then modified by Shari to require it to be dropped to 72 square feet. Borup: Are we in agreement that the size of the sign is okay. The only question may be the height. I am a little torn. Nary: I understand Miss Stiles recommended the 72 square foot -- The 20 foot comes from the new draft ordinance. At the time when this was approved. by the City Council they didn't deal with 25 or 20 feet. We are dealing with it now and what we are trying to do is be consistent with what we've done with smaller properties or maybe with what we've done with bigger properties. It appears to me that the sign ordinance will probably resolve- Borup: Essentially that street has a real miss mash. Barbeiro: I wish to make a motion that we recommend to City Council approval of the request for an amendment of a conditional use permit for proposed larger sign criteria and additional pylon sign to site zoned C-G by Dan Conlin -Idaho Electric Sign as presented by the applicant for the 25 foot sign with all other staff comments. Nary: Second. Borup: Any discussion. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 5.4 ACRES ZONED I-L FOR CAFARELLI INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION BY THOMAS M. BEVAN, JR.-NORTH SIDE OF FRANKLIN, WEST OF CINDER: Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's. Here is the proposed plat, 3 lots. I would point out in the ACHD staff report that they make mention of a potential connection for this land lock parcel to come out along Linder road but I would make it clear that access does not exist at this time. Staff comments submitted by Bruce and Shari dated June 9, 2000 stand. I will let the applicant address any concerns. Meridian Planning and~ing Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 69 Bevin: After talking to my engineer I realized I only have 3 items. The first item they talk about the sewer. We agree to that. Item 2, 3,4 we agree to that. Item 5 they are saying they designate Franklin Road as a entry way corridor. As such staff recommends that Franklin landscape buffer be a minimum of 35 feet in width (inaudible) right of way constructed by the developer as a condition of this plat. On parcel 3 we have a building. permit that we are currently building the Interstate Battery building on and the city and ACRD approved a 20 foot landscape easement here. What they are saying on the rest of it they want to go to a 35 foot so coming in on Franklin it would go from 35 foot down to 20 foot. What we're requesting to do is to keep it all the same. We are asking for that exception from what staff recommended. Item 6 we agree with that although my engineer said what that has to do with the landscape buffer having the storm water retention in it. Your staff is asking not to put it in the landscape but underneath the surface of the parking lot. We would be glad to do that but DEQ and City of Boise is trying to get away from that for some reason. Siddoway: I can respond to that now. What it says it should not be allowed in the landscape setback unless design details are submitted that clearly show that it would comply with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan-basically means that we want that just as was presented earlier tonight in the landscape ordinance-it is a required landscape buffer. We want it to look like landscaping. If you want to incorporate the drainage in it, we are all for it as long as you provide design details that show its going to be still a landscape buffer and not just a gravel drainage area. Bevin: That is fine then. We are having grass. No problem. We agree to that and submit that in. Number 7 okay. Now number 8 and 9 we lumped together here. The original approval they allowed a driveway right here. We designed the building around this driveway. It is a drive through building where the semi comes in through here, goes through the building and unloads and comes back out. What the staff is asking us to do is do away with this driveway-we've all ready built the building (inaudible-Bevin off microphone through out testimony) plan that approved by ACHD and City of Meridian. We built the building with driveway here. Now they are saying they want to get rid of this and put it over here on easement (inaudible) ACHD was saying that if the easement intersection -they are saying that if this becomes a road and that becomes a intersection, then our driveway here would be too close to that intersection. This easement showed on the original plat so somebody either missed it or what happened. We found out that ACHD we went to them and asked them about it and what they said is if you look at exhibit C on the back page no actually exhibit B of what I handed you tonight, their site specific requirement on page 2 article 3 is they rather instead of getting rid of that driveway, they rather locate a temporary driveway as proposed approximately 140 feet west of the property line as temporary driveway and that is the one we showed you there and will be eliminated when a shared driveway or public street is constructed within the 60 foot easement. What they are saying is they will allow us this driveway here until this roast is built. Once the road is built then we'd have access through here. Meridian Planning ans~ning Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 70 Borup: Steve, was the staff comments made before ACHD made theirs. Siddoway: No, we do have their comments. In fact we are in line with it. We are saying that the driver locations do not meet ACHD requirements, just as he is talking about the shared driveway. Borup: Your saying ACHD says leave the driveway to interstate battery now. Siddoway: As I understand it, they are saying that this driveway can stay until this road is approved------ Borup: Staff comments says to eliminate that one right now. Siddoway: It says that the driveway on lot 3 is to be removed with access to be taken from the 60 foot access easement public road on the eastern property boundary. We are saying that should go in and should take access off of it and then close off the - Borup: Your both saying the same thing just wording different. Bevin: It is not the same thing, no. Edward: I am Earl Edward of B&A Engineers. What happened was, we had a meeting with ACHD several weeks ago. Brad Watson was there. We hammered out these details that this could be a temporary access and if and when the road was built then that access would be closed off. Some how that did not get in to ACHD's staff report and so when this came to my attention yesterday I brought it to ACHD's attention. They re-did the staff report. I faxed it over today. I don't know if you got it or not. Siddoway: I have a ACHD report dated today or June 13~h. In that staff report ACHD is giving them the option of either a shared private drive or a public road within that 60 foot easement. We are recommending this is a large undeveloped all ready zoned IL property to just have privatae road access to. We'd like to see it have public road access. Our recommendation is 60 foot wide access shown as a public road but also she says unless approved as a private road by City Council. Really there is no difference. Our preference is for the public road. Edwards: Currently, ACHD does not want a public road there. They don't see any reason to have a road that runs back to a dead end and dean ends at a canal. What we are doing is betting the other road is going to come in and saying that we will approve it in the future. Borup: So your saying that ACHD says the driveway on lot 3 will be removed when you can take access from the 60 foot new public road. Edwards: If and when that becomes a public road. Meridian Planning an~ing Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 71 Borup: Steve does staff want it removed immediately? Siddoway: Our intention is to get that access road in immediately and then close it off after they have access. Edwards: The difference shows on the schedule C or exhibit C. This is ACRD map they gave us. Why they want to grant us the temporary and wait and keep their options open because on exhibit C the road that is marked in blue is the road they think is going to happen up here. They think that road is very close to becoming dedicated. Also they told me they have another road that has been applied for but they have not done the process yet. ACRD told us they much rather have access to that northern parcel then they would on our easement. One reason is they don't want to put a bridge in there if they don't have to. Plus they thought the city might be more or better for the city to bring the sewer and water over the land like that then it would be over a canal. Also they said they estimate the trips generated by the industrial area north of the Subdivision generate about 60 trips per acre per day. While this is comparatively light, they'd still prefer this traffic to ingress egress up here onto Linder which is a collector street then they would onto Franklin which is a arterial. They don't want this road. Borup: Steve are you saying then that P&Z staff differs with ACHD's recommendation. Siddoway: I am not understand how we differ. Borup: Aren't you saying that P&Z wants the driveway eliminated now and that there be access from that 60 easement. Siddoway: As opposed to what? Borup: As opposed to leaving the driveway in place and have it accessed on that 60 foot easement if it ever becomes a public street. Siddoway: Yes, we do differ in that we are saying it should be dedicated as a public street as part of this plat. Staff does have a problem with that. Number 9 under Shari's conditions has although the highway district (inaudible) references a future public road to the land lock parcel from Linder road no plans have been submitted for approval by the City of Meridian and the 60 foot wide access easement shall be shown as a public road unless approved as a private road by the City Council. Borup: Who owns that land lock parcel. Edwards: Miss Martin. They don't access it now it is bear ground. There is nothing there. Just one lot. What I think ACRD is getting at is they are trying to hold this off until they can get the determination on that parcel here. They don't have it yet but he told me this morning that they have all the terms and conditions agreed between the applicant and ACRD. Now just the formality of the dedication so everyone has agreed to put the road in here and they have not got to that stage yet. ACRD is asking us to Meridian Planning and~ing Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 72 hold off and wait to see if that can be done and finished giving them access in the back in a position that is more favorable to the city and to the ACRD. Nary: I want to be clear from Steve and I know this is not your report, but is the concern trying to match up with ACHD's recommendations or trying to do something a little different. Siddoway: I think there are more issues with that potential access out to Linder that may make it not as feasible as -the way it is being presented is that it is all most a sure thing and I don't think it should be characterized that way. We feel that this access should be provided. Martin: Justin Martin. I live at 2332 E. Apricot Drive. I would be the representative for the parcel that is going to be landlocked. My only comments would be- Borup: Is it going to be or presently is? Martin: Landlocked? It is -there is no bridge over the canal. We do have a bridge designed that would meet Ada County's (inaudible). We have not spoken with Ada County about it. We have no plans for development. We know nothing of the new accesses from Linder except what Mr. Bevin showed me tonight and obviously I will be looking into that. Borup: What would be your preference. Martin: I think it would be better if we had one on each. Borup: You willing to pay for them? Martin: We weren't willing to buy the access to Linder Road based on the price the guy who owns the land was giving us. We would have rather built the bridge we designed. My concern would be that if it is not dedicated a public street, and easements don't come across from Linder Road at that point that road we'd be accessing our property from Franklin on would be too close to the other driveway. So I guess on the other hand is that it is looking like ACHD is giving them a open ended contract. We have no problem paying for a bridge. Norton: Lot one does not have any sanitation. Are you planning on developing lot 1. Martin: Yes eventually. Nary: I move we close the public hearing. Norton: I second that. Borup: All in favor? Meridian Planning and~ing Commission Meeting June 13, 2000 Page 73 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Steve do you have any idea why the other one was approved at 20 feet. Siddoway: How long ago was that put in. I don't know. END OF SIDE NINE Nary: Is the 35 foot buffer basically going down Franklin west of this property so just this one portion is what the applicant is asking he wants it to be 20 because the one piece of property to the east of him is 20 feet. All the property going west of this property is 35 feet. Siddoway: Our standard should be 35 feet along all interior corridors. That has been the standard for years. I don't know where the 20 feet came from. Nary: One glitch in the program should not change the standard we have. Borup: What are we approving on lot 3. Siddoway: Interstate Battery sits on lot 3. It is a 3 lot Subdivision. Apparently the 20 feet that has been discussed was approved on lot 3. Borup: That was part of a building permit not part of a plat. Siddoway: Correct. Borup: Is there a difference. Barbeiro: How can a building permit change a ordinance. The building permit allowed only a 20 foot setback. That doesn't make sense. Borup: The building is how far back from the road? Siddoway: Based on the site plan that was approved for lot 3 with Interstate it looks like they have a 20 foot landscape buffer and then the two bays of parking with drive isle in between with the minimum standards and then the building abutting against the parking. I think we are stuck with 20 landscape buffer on lot 3 and then this line here would show what the 30 foot buffer would then line up with it. The building is constructed. I think we have to live with that on lot 3. Nothing else to do. Nary: I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for the 5.4 acres zoned IL for Cafarelli Industrial Subdivision by Thomas M. Bevan, Jr. north side of Franklin west of Linder with the staff comments as attached specifically addressing the condition 5 which has a 35 foot landscape buffer that we specifically want that to be included but would Meridian Planning and~ng Commission Meeting June 13, 2~ Page 74 recommend to the City Council that condition 8 and 9 be amended to reflect that they be in compliance with the ACHD requirement that the shared driveway on lot 3 only needs to be removed when the access on the easement public road that is adjacent the 60 foot access easement is becomes a public roadway or public or private road when it is developed. Until that time the driveway on lot 3 can remain where it is at. Basically performing 8 and 9 to be consistent with the ACHD's requirement as presented by Mr. Beven and his comments on time B which is ACHD's site specific number 3. Norton: Would you amend your number five for the thirty five foot setback for lot 1 and lot 2 since lot 3 is all ready been built on at 20 feet. Nary: Yes, absolutely. Norton: t would second that motion. Borup: Discussion? Barbeiro: One of Mr. Bevin's concerns was that should there be access off of Linder and 10-20-30 years later they decide they want that easement frankly they can come back and do that. Do you want to make any sort of amendment that if access is on Linder that we will no longer accept the option of easement off Franklin. Borup: The motion was to accept the ACHD recommendation and I don't know that ACRD addressed it to that extent. Nary: I am not sure what the concern is that some time in the future that is going to impact (inaudible) remove that driveway in ten years. I think that is the way ACHD- they left that open. Borup: Either that or apply for a vacation. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning and ~ing Commission Meeting J uae 13, 2D00 Page 75 Nary: I move to adjourn. Norton: I second. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:44 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: tj KEIT BORUP, HA MAN 4 ~~d~Shc ~ ~~ ,~ r ATTEST: ~ 3. LIAM G. BERG JR., IT CLERK