Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 1, 2008 C/C MinutesMeridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page T8 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; Boston, 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. I.t'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 Meridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page ?9 of 51 and the property directly to the east. They originally came in together and there was a cross-access requirement and that address is 1645 West 1st Street. The DA that was -- the DA also allows a shared access with the property to the east to Cherry Lane, just so you know, the former DA. They are proposing one 3,600 square foot building. This does comply with the Comprehensive Plan, which is for Old Town. This is their site plan. So, you will see the building precludes any cross-access. So, really, the first question before Council is are you in favor of not having. cross-access to the property and, then, the questions with regard to the design review come into play. We do have elevations for you. So, again, these guidelines don't -- the guidelines are primarily addressed for retail establishments, multi-use structures within the downtown core. This is still the Old Town area, but these take on a suburban look to them. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on February 21st and have recommended approval.. James Gibson spoke in favor of the applicant. No one spoke in opposition or commented. We did receive written testimony from the Historic Preservation Commission. They were not in favor of reducing the design standards in the Old Town district for this property. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the no access to Cherry Lane once the property is redeveloped and as you see they only have a sidewalk going out to Cherry Lane. And whether or not the Old Town architectural design guidelines should be applicable to the subject property, because of its location on the periphery of the Old Town district. It is right at the edge.. Excuse me. There is a frog in my throat. It won't go away. There were no changes to staffs -- key changes to staffs initial recommendation. So, the outstanding issues before City Council are really whether or not the cross- access is necessary if the DA is appropriate and, then, if you do approve of the project that's before you tonight we also ask that when you modify the DA that it also include a restriction to access to Cherry Lane and I will show you that. This was the original DA that had the cross-access and they had a shared access to Cherry Lane. So, the new site plan is just on this half. And they are, obviously, not taking access to Cherry Lane. But just to make it clear, that the property on the -- the east shouldn't take access to Cherry Lane, we ask that you modify the development agreement to state that, since there is no longer a shared access. And with that I will answer any questions you may have.. Zaremba: Council, any questions? Boston: Mr. Vice-president? Zaremba: Councilman Borton. Borton: Anna, did you have conversations with the Historic Preservation Commission -- and Isee the letter talking about it not -- they didn't think the -- I don't know what they saw -- the design didn't reflect the historic esthetics the city's seeking in the Old Town district. Was there anything specifically discussed in that regard? Canning: I did not have conversations with them directly. I believe our only testimony has been through that written letter. Meridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page 20 of 51 Borton: Okay. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Next is the applicant. Mr. Gibson. Gibson: Thank you, Council Members. My name is James Gibson. My address is P.O. Box 219 in Eagle. I am the project architect representing this project. We feel that we have worked pretty closely with the -- your staff and they have been very very helpful in giving us guidance and we think that quite a number of potential issues have been settled and we appreciate their help. We also feel that we had a good experience with Planning and Zoning. They seemed to understand the project well and there was a positive discussion there and they did approve this unanimously without undue concern. We have also had good communication with the neighbors and at the required neighborhood meeting and we have had communication with a couple of the neighbors who are very much in support of this application, I believe largely because it greatly improves the appearance of the neighborhood there. The question about the development agreement was well explained by your staff. The site is physically too small to get a building on with the original requirement for the cross-access agreement. That requirement I believe originally came up before it was realized the amount of the additional property that ACHD was going to require along Cherry Lane.. That made the property in a north-south direction physically too small to get a building there and have that same arrangement. It would just be a useless sliver of a building.. That's really what happened there. So, we earnestly request the approval of deleting that cross-access requirement. Also, as staff has mentioned, we don't want any access onto Cherry Lane, for the obvious reasons that it's inconvenient and somewhat dangerous and there is ample appropriate access for this property and for the property to the east to the other streets. So, we think that would be in the public interest and intend to do it that way. The question of design compatibility, certainly the building proposed is not a building that is historically what one would see in the Old Town area of Meridian or any town for that matter. However, this -- although this property is zoned Old Town, it has never been in the Old Town part of Meridian and it would be very difficult to completely comply with the Old Town requirements, simply because of the size of the site, locating the required parking on the site, it simply doesn't work. The appearance of the building, frankly, would be, in my opinion, and I believe in the staffs and the neighbor's opinion, it would be rather strange to construct a building architecturally in strict compliance with the Old Town design guidelines. It would seem rather out of place in this location. Therefore, we agree strongly with the staffs recommendation, the Planning and Zoning, and the neighbors' opinion that it -- the building be approved as it's designed here. I don't think that we have any other issues. All of the proposed conditions are very acceptable. We are not anticipating any difficulty at all. There is one question. One of the neighbors has requested that a large existing tree at the southwest corner of this property, which -- it's at the lower left. There is a large existing tree -- requested that that tree be removed, because he perceives it as troublesome to his property. Our intent, of course, was to preserve as many trees as possible on the site and save this rather large tree, partly because we think that that's the intent of the city ordinance to save the big trees that are there that are in reasonably good condition. We have had a couple of meetings with Mr. Huff regarding this tree and he's indicated that the -- he believes the tree is in Meridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page 21 of 51 salvageable condition and there would be a fairly significant mitigation fee associated with removing tote tree. With respect and consideration to the neighbors' comment on desiring to remove the tree, our position has to be we don't -- we don't care, we are willing to remove the tree, but we sure don't want to remove it if we have to pay a mitigation fee. So, that question is, then, in your hands. This applicant is willing to remove the tree in order to meet the -- to satisfy the neighbor, but not desiring to remove the tree in order to have to pay for removing the tree, if that is understandable. So, those are the only issues that we perceive before you. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. I appreciate that you have spoken to the neighbors about this. My memory of the 2004 discussion of this at the time I was on the Planning and Zoning Commission., the neighbors actually asked that the driveway be along the south property line, so that they were buffered from this and if you have since talked to them and had gotten them to buy into this change design -- and I understand at that time we didn't know that ACRD was going to take more for Cherry Lane., but if you have talked to the neighbors, that's a good thing and I appreciate that. Are you able to speak for the other half of the property that's to the east of this and confirm that the restriction that no access to Cherry Lane is acceptable on this whole set of properties? Gibson: I can only -- shall we say personally and unofficially speak to that, because I am not connected with that property. I'm the architect only for this property, which is before you. Yes, we have had communication there and there has been no indication of a concern and my understanding of intent for the development of that eastern property is that there would be no cross-access agreement required and the access would be to the other street not to Cherry Lane.. So, I see no problem, no indication of a problem there. However, I emphasize that I am not the architect for that project and can't speak officially to that. That's only our observation. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Gibson: Thank you. Zaremba: Either Director Canning or Mr. Nary, the development agreement covers all of the properties; is that right? Canning: Yes, sir. And I know that Mr. Hood has been in touch with the neighbor to the east and they have not submitted any testimony in opposition. Zaremba: Okay. Council, any other questions? Bird: I have none. Is there any other testimony? Canning: Vice-president Zaremba, before you take additional testimony, just so I might comment on the tree issue. If the city arborist determines that the tree is unsalvageable., which I would prefer that the city arborist be able to make that call, then, there is no Meridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page 22 of 51 mitigation required.. If it's not a healthy tree we don't require mitigation. If it is a healthy tree, then, we would require mitigation. Zaremba: I took from the applicant's testimony that Mr. Huff has already looked at it and that it is healthy enough that it should stay. Is that accurate? He's nodding his head yes. Canning: I was thinking Huff was the property owner to the south. Sorry, sir. I completely missed that one. Zaremba: We could give the property owner to the south the opportunity to pay the mitigation fee, I suppose, but -- I'm not sure that if it's healthy we need to put that on this applicant. That's a personal opinion. Canning: The required mitigation is additional trees on the site, is generally what it is. And I suspect they have difficulty getting enough caliper inches on this one site. It's -- it is extensive. We have seen other people donate trees to the parks department as an appropriate mitigation at times, but, generally, we do like to see the big ones saved. Zaremba: One person's opinion, with all due respect to the neighbor, is that I would save this tree. I think that's the intent of the ordinance is to save mature trees where ever we can. All right. If no other comment at this point, this is a Public Hearing. No one else was signed up, but if we could have other testimony now is the time. Thomason: Mr. Vice-chairman, Members of the Council. I'm Frank Thomason for the record. I'm a member of the Historic Preservation Commission. And for the record the commission is also in favor of saving trees as per the ordinance. Mr. Gibson, I believe, remarked that this site has never been in Old Town or a part of OId Town. The voting by the commission to recommend that the design standards for Old Town be adhered to in this application is based upon our belief that relaxation of the design standards would weaken the definition and parameters of the Old Town zoning district. That, in fact, the periphery or the edge actually defines the center. I am not an architect, but the two members of the commission, including the chairman, are and that was our concern and that we are not necessarily looking for strict compliance with Old Town design standards, but perhaps some concession in the design of the building to make it more compatible, at least in appearance, with an entryway site into Old Town, if you will. And would stand for any questions if you have any. Zaremba; Council? Borton: Mr. Vice-president? Zaremba: Councilman Borton. Borton: Frank, has your commission had a chance to sit down with the applicant and have that exact discussion? Meridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page 23 of 51 Thomason: No. And that's probably a very good idea, although it's maybe a little late at this point, but we simply wanted to have some kind of input into the process and have that recognized, but our commission was -- was a unanimous vote and we were interested in having the Council be aware of our position. And, again, we weren't necessarily looking for very strict compliance with Old Town design standards, just something that would indicate more of a conformity or compatibility with Old Town, especially since we feel that the entryways are just as important in defining Old Town as the center itself. Without one you really can't have the other. Zaremba: Off the top of your head are there cosmetic changes that could be made that would be helpful? Thomason: There was some discussion about that at our meeting and our two architects, who are members, including our chairman Walter Lindgren, would certainly be happy to do that, if the applicant were amenable to that. We are not looking for an expensive modification to the application., just something that would preserve the -- the concept of Old Town on the periphery, because that's really where the definition starts. Zaremba: Councilman Bird? Bird: No. I just -- was it in materials, Frank? Do you think material or -- I mean, really, you can't change the design of the building to make it look Old Town and I -- and I agree, I don't care whether -- if it's Old Town, whether it's on the edge or whether it's in the middle, it's still Old Town and should adhere to the standards. Thomason: Right. Bird: Just because it's on the edge don't give it something that we don't allow downtown or in the middle, so -- but what kind of a -- what kind of a change are you guys looking at with this? I mean I think this is a very nice designed building. Is it material or is it the design or what -- Thomason: Councilman Bird, our discussion was very general and as I recall it simply had to do with making some kind of concession or indicating some kind of feature and since Meridian does not have what you call an historic district, it would be more in the nature of a cosmetic appearance of the -- of the building itself where something -- maybe some kind of appurtenance to the roof, something -- and the Commission would be very interested in discussing that with the applicant. It might be something as simply as a -- more of a compatibility in design with the new City Hall -- and we didn't really get into that much detail in our discussion, we just noted that the location of this -- of this site is a part of Old Town in the since that it's the periphery -- we call it an entryway and it's the same concept as you have for the whole city itself. But we didn't get into any specifics. And we did agree it was a very nice design. And I have known Mr. Gibson for many many years and he does very quality work. Bird: And he's been down this road many times over -- Meridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page 24 of 51 Thomason: Many times. Bird: -- and he knows, so -- Thomason.: We just want to get our position on the record and have the Council be aware of that and, arguably, the Commission should have taken a more proactive role in contacting the applicant, but that's a -- doesn't happen very often in these kinds of things. Perhaps not as often as it should. Bird: I appreciate the work you guys do, Frank. Thomason: Thank you. Any other questions? Zaremba: Thank you. Thomason: Thank you. Zaremba: Is there any other public testimony? Okay. We have the opportunity, then, for the applicant to have the final word. And, actually, I would start that off with a question. Would you be willing to have us mandate, I guess, that you get together with the historic commission and perhaps consider some cosmetic changes? Gibson: Well, of course, we would, because we want to do something that is perceived as appropriate and compatible, so, yes, we would welcome that opportunity. Frankly, we are hoping that we don't have to go back and start from square one with the project and it would have been a lot easier if we had done this before getting to the very last square, so to speak. However, yes, we are very willing to do that and see specifically what -- what we might do to make this more compatible. If that be the desire of the Council, if that could be created as a condition, rather than delaying the project several months or whatever it might take, we would greatly appreciate that. Zaremba: That was my thinking. Bird: I agree. Zaremba: I see Councilman Bird shaking his head yes. Gibson: It would see appropriate. Thank you. Zaremba: Any other final concluding remarks that you care to make? Gibson: No. I think the discussion has been compatible with what we have intended to do here. Don't have any other concern. Zaremba; Thank you. Director Canning. Meridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page 25 of 51 Canning: Every once in awhile when you do something you ask me to tell you never to let you do that again, so I just have to say that the only concern with making it a requirement that they work with the Historic Preservation Council is that the staff is never quite sure if they have -- they have satisfied Council's conditions with regard to that. It often puts us in a very unfavorable position between two parties that we can't resolve personally. So, we have to bring it back up to you. A lot of the design standards that this project doesn't meet are related to the site design and entrances, which I think are probably non-negotiable and the other big one that it doesn't meet is the percent of glazing on the facades and this is an ophthalmologist's office, so you can't have that kind of -- that many lights -- that many windows in the office and have it still function. So, there are things like that, although I'm not trying to discourage you from having the two groups work together, I'm just trying to not have me in the middle of them, so -- I'm not sure how you want to -- Zaremba: Would it help solve the problem to say that the three groups, including staff, need to be consulting together? Bird.: No. Zaremba: That doesn't help? Canning: No. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: This is always a difficult question and you can -- really, you can either -- what works best is to either make it a condition and have them bring it back to you or to not make it a condition and let the applicant know that you expect them to do that, but to not make it a condition of approval. Bird,: Mr. Vice-president? Zaremba: Thank you. Councilman Berg. Bird: That's what -- I would agree with what Anna said there, let's not make it a -- make it an absolute condition, but make it a very strong recommendation and I know Mr. G'ibson's work., I will assure you that he will get with them and the occupancy of the building does dictate a lot what they can do and what they can't and they don't have a real large site to play with, so it's got to be -- we have got to be -- and I think the Historic Preservation Council understands that also, but we can make a very strong recommendation that he gets with them and see if there is something they can do, but I'm like Anna, I don't want to see it drug through and have to come back to us or anything else. And I don't want to put the -- put it on the staff to have to referee something. So, I would just say instead of a condition, make it a recommendation. That would be my -- is that -- Meridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page 26 of 51 Canning: Yes. And Vice-president Zaremba, Members of the Council -- and to allow staff some flexibility to approve an alternative design to the structure if they come to an agreement with regard to that. That would be helpful. Zaremba: That sounds like a good way to put it. Thank you for supplying the wording. Bird: Joe's taking this all down for a motion, aren't you? Borton: Right. Zaremba: Gentlemen, first off, the Public Hearing is still open. Is there a motion or any further discussion? Councilman Borton? Borton: No. Zaremba: Okay. Borton: Mr. Vice-president? Zaremba: Councilman Borton. Borton: I would move that we close the public hearings on Items 14, CUP 07-022 and, 15, MI 08-001. Bird: Second.. Canning: We have a motion and a second to close the public hearings. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Mr. Vice-president? Zaremba: Councilman Borton. Borton: I appreciate Mr. Gibson's efforts to try and get everybody involved and I agree with Councilman Bird that the recommendation in this particular case is the way to go to have that dialogue with the Historic Preservation Commission. In future instances I'd love to see that dialogue required. You know, staff giving the applicants real heads up that we are going to be asking about that and I agree with all parties that the Old Town standards on the fringe are important as on the center and I think the applicant's tried to blend -- blend that need and concern. So, I'm supportive of the miscellaneous application and the GUP, inclusive of the staff and the applicant's comments., inclusive of keeping the tree, dealing with it through mitigation at the staff level as they see fit and allowing staff the opportunity to address any of the architectural alterations that they Meridian City Council April 1, 2008 Page 27 of 51 think suffices the meeting that's going to take place with the applicant and the Historic Preservation Commission. Bird:1 second it. Zaremba: And are you -- Borton: That was a motion. Bird: That was amotion. I -- Borton: I was getting there. Zaremba: I know you referenced staff comments, but you're specifically including the eliminating any access to Cherry Lane? Borton: Correct. Zaremba: All right. We have a motion and a second. And we will ask for roll call. Borton: Discussion real quick. Zaremba: I'm sorry. Discussion from Director Canning. Canning: I'm sorry, sirs. Was that a motion on just the Meridian Eye Care? Because the development agreement is the one where you should mention the no access to Cherry Lane. Bird: So, the next one is where we do that. Yeah. Borton: Okay. Thanks, Anna. Zaremba: We are only doing the first one. This is Item 14. And a roll call vote, please. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. Zaremba: Motion carries. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Mr. Vice-president? Zaremba: Go ahead. i~ 1) Meridian City Council ~1 April 1, 2008 I Page 28 of 51 Borton: Item 15, the Public Hearing, is already closed,. I would move that we approve MI 08-001, the DA modification to remove the cross-access requirement between the properties and the access to Cherry Lane. Bird: Second. Zaremba: Okay. For clarification, we intend that the access from both properties, this one and the one to the east, be eliminated to Cherry Lane. Bird: Yes.. Borton: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Bird: No access to Cherry Lane period. Zaremba: Yeah. Thank you. Then we have a motion and a second and roll call vote, please. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. Zaremba: That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 16: Public Hearing: TE 08-002 Request for Approval of an 18-month Time Extension to receive the City Engineer's signature on the Finai Plat for Kingsbrid4e Subdivision No. 2 by Randal Clarnd -Kingsbridge Drive and South Eagle Road: Zaremba: Next we have a new Public Hearing and this is TE 08-002 for Kingsbridge Subdivision No. 2 and we will begin with the staff report. Canning: Vice-president Zaremba, Members of the Council. this is Kingsbridge Subdivision No. 2 final -- or time extension request for the final plat and they are requesting an 18 month time extension to obtain the city engineer's signature on Kingsbridge Subdivision No. 2. That plat consists of 50 single family residences and 13 common lots on 23.97 acres in an R-2 zoning.. The preliminary plat was approved by City Council on May 3rd.. The administrative time extension granted on March 28th, 2007, expired on March 14th, which initiated the request for this time extension. The applicant states fihe primary reason for the time extension is because of the lack of financing and delay in the construction and sale of lots in Kingsbridge Subdivision No. 1. Staff believes there are no additional conditions that should be added to those approved by the City Council with the final plat for the subdivision. Previous plat conditions should be complied with as part of the subject approval. So, staff believes it's -- it's good to go.