Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 1, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page 12 of 51 Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2008: RZ 07-021 Request for a Rezone of 27.89 acres from R-4 to C-N (2.75 acres) and L-O (25.14 acres) for the property located on the southeast corner of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive for Education Campus Commercial by Joint School District No. 2 -Southeast Corner of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2008: PP 07-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 commercial building lots on 25.87 acres in .proposed L-O and C-N zones for Education Campus Commercial by Joint School District No. 2 -Southeast Corner of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive: Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2008: MI 08-002 Request for a Miscellaneous application to modify the existing Development Agreement for Education Campus Commercial by Joint School District No. 2 -Southeast Corner of North Locust Grove Road and East Leigh Field Drive: Zaremba: Okay. Items 11, 12 and 13 are RZ 07-021, PP 07-025, and MI 08-002, all relating to Education Campus Commercial. I will re-open the continued public hearings from March 4th and begin with the staff report. Canning: Vice-president Zaremba, Members of the Council, this is the -- as you mentioned, the continued hearing for the Education Campus Commercial. At your last hearing you asked the applicant to return to address a few issues. One was appropriate design standards, another safe walkways and crossings for students -- if you remember that discussion. Third was the location of a private road. And, fourth, I believe there was a request and it was very minor, but I believe there was some request to go through and look at L-O and C-N uses and decide if some of them were more appropriate than others or if any were inappropriate for that area, given it's proximity to all the schools. So, since the hearing you do have written testimony from Becky McKay and it answers the first three questions, but, again, there was a little bit of disagreement on the question about the uses. Not disagreement, but they may have additional testimony with regard to appropriate uses or may not. With that they have recommended a change to condition 4.1.10 and I believe that's spelled out specifically in the letter and it is consistent with what they are proposing. They did meet with staff. We feel they have addressed your concerns with regard to the safe pathway, the design standards, and the crossing for students and the location of the private road. Those are all addressed in the letter. And with that I will answer any questions. The motion should include those changes to -- if Council is so inclined to 4.1.10. Zaremba: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page 13 of 51 Zaremba: All right. In that case, we will hear from the applicant if we may. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Council. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. As Anna indicated., we -- we did send a letter. ~ We met with the staff as instructed by the Council here a few weeks ago. The school district was present, myself, Anna, and some of her staff to, obviously, discuss the concerns that the Council brought up and to make sure that we could come to some agreement on how we were going to handle some of these issues. One of the things that in reading through the minutes of the last hearing, there was some confusion concerning the pedestrian -- existing pedestrian facilities and we created -- I don't know -- Anna., do you have it? Oh, there it is. We created the map, which delineates what is existing and, then, what would be future. As you can see in the red there is a very extensive pathway network that already exists out at that facility. We have existing sidewalk all along Locust Grove. It's detached from the roadway. We have a paved asphalt path that links to it and., then, there is a little short stretch here, so that the Summerfield kids can come here and come down this path. It goes to this charter schoo here, comes around. There is a crossing guard that is stationed at this location. There is also a pedestrian friendly signage and a crossing and we did go out and take photographs and we did a-mail that to your staff. There is another pedestrian friendly crossing here and., then, there is detached sidewalk all along Leighfield on the south side and, then, there is an attached walk along the north side of Leighfield. Currently there is this L-shape here and one of the questions was -- as far as treating that as a private road., I believe Councilman Rountree -- his primary concern about the private road was -- the issue is could it go on through and in my discussions with the school district and staff, the private road would just consist of this L-shaped here and it's more like a private drive than it is a roadway. The district has no intentions of extending it ~) through. Right now there is just kind of like -- I believe this little gravel emergency access here and they indicated if -- if there were some interconnectivity from this portion of Leighfield to the private road., that they would put up some type of bollards or gates or something., so that this did not become a thoroughfare, because their intent is, obviously, that, you know, this traffic continue to use Leighfield as a collector as it was designed. We show in blue -- one of the things that staff brought to our attention was the fact that in order to meet the standards for a private road we would have to install sidewalk on one -- at least one side of this stretch. There is already existing sidewalk along this stretch here with pedestrian friendly crossings, so we would have to -- where you see the blue and the blue pedestrian friendly crossing., that would be the improvements that we would need to make. Now, in evaluating the site there are existing streetlights along here, existing trees, so we would like the option of installing sidewalk either on the west or east portion of that roadway, because it may conflict with some of the existing improvements they have in there. There may not be enough room. It also appeared they had some storm drainage facilities. So, we do need that flexibility. We talked about -- I know there was a discussion concerning pedestrian friendly pavers and so forth. The school district has signage up at all of the existing crossings. They are clearly striped and the district felt that the children are accustomed to the striping for ~ these pedestrian crosswalks and to go in and put pavers or colored concrete stamped pavers, they are going to end up just striping over the top of them. So, any esthetics Meridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page 14 of 51 beauty would be diminished as they paint over the top of it and they do cost about 10,000 dollars each to go in and retro fit. They are a spendy item, because we have had some projects where we did that. So, the district feels that they have a good pedestrian circulation out there and that they will go in and fill in the gap that -- that we have right through this area and complete that. One of the other things that was brought up concerning the pedestrian traffic is their intersection with vehicular traffic. The schools here are on a different schedule than the elementary. Their day begins before the elementary, so those cars are already there parked, the kids are in their classrooms when the elementary kids head to -- to school and these facilities also get out earlier than the elementary. So, they feel that., you know, they don't have that vehicular pedestrian overlap that was of concern. As far as the design standards, we did talk with Anna. We are in agreement to meet all design standards of the current UDC and we didn't feel that that was an issue. We did ask for one modification on our condition 4.1.10 and staff was in agreement with that. Now, Anna did bring up the issue of the uses. We didn't discuss that when we met with her, but it kind of cropped up here. I read through the minutes and there was, as Anna indicated, just kind of a brief reference to compatibility of the uses. Well, obviously, with the L-O designation and C-N, that C-N, you know, is neighborhood commercial. The uses are geared to coexist with residential uses, office uses.. We are not asking for, you know, an intensive commercial use. This is just a neighborhood commercial zone. The L-O is also a zoning that's compatible with schools, residences. We have C-N directly across the street at Quenzer Commons or Heritage Commons I think as they market it. They have a C-N zoning designation. We have Brockton Office complex that's located across the street. They have an L-O designation. So, I guess the district is not asking for anything greater than what is across the street and they feel that -- that this is an appropriate zone and the uses as outlined in the UDC would be able to be compatible and coexist with the existing uses: And Eric Exline is here from the district. Wendell's out of town. And he can answer any further questions that you may have. Thank you.. Zaremba: Thank you. Council, any questions of Mrs. McKay? Bird: I have none. Gorton: No. Zaremba: Thank you. Eric, do you have anythin gentlemen, this is a Public Hearing. We didn't have but this is your opportunity if you have an opinion Seeing none, Council, what's your pleasure? Canning: Vice-president Zaremba? Zaremba: I'm sorry. Director Canning. g to add or -- okay. Ladies and anybody else signed up to speak, to give us one way or the other. Bird.: I think Anna's got something. Meridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page t5 of 51 Canning: I wanted to show you the allowed uses for the C-N zone. You know, Idon't -- I think there is just a couple uses that may not be appropriate. One would be a drive-thru, given that there is a lot of kids in the area, even if they are not driving -- walking by the C-N area, adding more traffic to that may not be appropriate. And the only other one would be the drinking establishment. It's conditionally allowed, but through the development agreement it would be pretty easy to -- I think it would be just outside the -- or may just be outside the limited where they could have one based on the thousand foot, but I'm not sure. That might be a nice one to remove, but in general, you know, the C-N uses are very neighborhood compatible, but just given its proximity I think maybe thinking about those two uses may be appropriate. Zaremba: Both of those that you mentioned would require a CUP anyhow, wouldn't they? We'd have the opportunity to -- Canning: No. The drive-thru, depending on its proximity to the residential, may not. Zaremba: Okay. I agree with your instinct that it probably ought to not be allowed. Does the applicant have any comment on that? On the microphone if you would, please, sir. State your name for the record., please. Exline: Eric Exline, public information, Meridian School District. If you were able to preclude those, we wouldn't have objection. Zaremba.: Okay. Borton: Mr. Vice-president? Zaremba: Yes. Borton: And maybe with that comment it's not necessary, but could you have the requirement for a CUP for any drive-thru, regardless of its proximity. It allows us to look at it. It doesn't necessarily preclude its use on this property, just requires them to come back no matter what. Canning: We could do that. Exline: So, that, then, the school district would have the opportunity to comment on whatever the use would be. That would be terrific. Borton: Okay. Zaremba: Thank you. Bird: I would prefer that myself. Zaremba: That sounds good it me. Any further comments from anybody? Meridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page t6 of 51 Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Okay. Council? Borton: Mr. Vice-president? Zaremba: Councilman Borton. Borton: If there is no other comment, I'd move that we close the Public Hearing on items 11, 12 and 13. Bird: Second... Zaremba.: Okay. We have a motion and a second close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Mr. Vice-president? Zaremba: Councilman Borton. Borton: I would move -- a question for legal. Do these -- can these be addressed in a single motion? Nary: Yes. Borton: Okay. I would move that we approve Item 11, RZ 07-021, Item 12, PP 07-025, and Item 13, M1 08-002, to include staff and applicant's comments and with regards to the drive-thru in the C-N zone, that a CUP be required for any drive-thru use upon the property. Zaremba: Regardless of its distance. Borton: Regardless of it's proximity to the school. Zaremba: Since that seems to be the modifying factor. Gorton: And that condition 4.1.10 be modified as requested by the applicant concerning design standards. Zaremba: We have a motion. Is there a second? Bird: I second it. I was just waiting to see if he was done. Meridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page 17 of 51 Borton: I'm done. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. We do have a motion and a second and we will ask for a roll call vote, please. Bird: Anna's got something. Canning: Just to clarify, Council. Zaremba; Some discussion? Canning: I'm sorry. Did you want -- you didn't want to address drinking establishments? just want to clarify. Bird: That's -- Borton: It's my take is it's a conditional use -- or a CUP required., we'd see it again., state statute regulates the proximity to schools. I don't think there is a place on this property where you could put one anyway. Nonetheless, it would come back. Bird: I don't think there is a place. Canning: Okay. Borton: Unless Council wants to modify it just to preclude drinking establishments -- Bird: It's a CUP and I don't think -- with the schools there I don't think there is any piece of that property that's far enough away that you could have drinking. And it has to come back for a CUP anyway. Borton: Unless the district would like to request that it be removed. Zaremba: We did close the Public Hearing. If you would pass that information to Director Canning, she can discuss it with us. Borton: This would be with regards just to the drinking establishment. Canning: I think the applicant is in favor of having it precluded. He said that would be fine. Borton: Okay. I would modify the motion to include removing the drinking establishment from an available use in this C-N zone. Bird: Second agrees. Meridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page 18 of 51 Zaremba: Okay. Now, we have a complete motion and.., again, we will ask for a roll call vote, please. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Gorton, yea. Zaremba: Those three items pass. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from March 25, 2008: CUP 07-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a medical office in the O-T zoning district that does not meet the criteria of the Downtown Meridian Design Guidelines for Meridian Eve Care by Dr. Dan Thieme - 125 West Cherry Lane: Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from March 25, 2008: MI 08-001 Request for a Miscellaneous application to modify the Development Agreement to remove the requirement for cross-access between the properties located at 125 W. Cherry Lane and 1645 W. 1St Street for Mittleider by Dr. Dan Thieme - 125 West Cherry Lane: Zaremba: All right. We move on. Thank you all. We will move on to Item 14, which is a Public Hearing, CUP 07-022, for Meridian Eye Care Center. And this is a continued Public Hearing from March 25th, 2008. Bird: Mr. Vice-president, I believe 15 is also the same thing, isn't it? Canning: Yes, sir, it is. Bird; Can we open both of them, Anna? Canning: Thank you for catching that. Zaremba: Yes. Fifteen does seem to be related, so we will also open the continued Public Hearing for MI 08-001, also continued from March 28 -- both those hearings, 14 and 15, are open. Canning: Thank you., Vice-president Zaremba. This is the Meridian Eye Care, which also has the associated modification to the Mittleider Development Agreement. It's located at 125 West Cherry Lane on the southeast corner of Cherry and West 2nd and the application before you tonight is conditional use approval and a modification to the development agreement. The subject property is about point three-fourths of an acre and it is currently zoned Old Town. Conditional use approval is for the construction of a new medical office in the OT zoning district, but does not meet all the design criteria of the downtown .Meridian design guidelines. The DA modification is concurrently requested to remove the requirement for cross-access between the subject property