Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportCITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: September 9, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner (208) 884-5533 SUBJECT: Instant Equity Auto E IDIAN%=-- 1®AH4 • AP-08-005 City Council Review of the Planning Director's denial of Instant Equity Auto's request for Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval (CZC-08-010) to operate without connection to city services, AND denial of an Alternative Compliance (ALT-08-004) request for reduced landscape buffers adjacent to Fairview Avenue and a residential zoning district. 1. APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND STAFF ANALYSIS The Applicant, The Land Group, is requesting City Council Review of the Planning Director's denial of Instant Equity Auto's Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC-08-010) request to operate without connection to city services and denial of Alternative Compliance (ALT-08-004) request for reduced landscape buffers adjacent to Fairview Avenue and a residential zoning district. Staff evaluated the submitted site and landscape plans and concluded that a reduction in landscape buffers widths were proposed to increase the vehicle display azea and did not provide for a hardship justification nor did it provide a superior design as required by UDC 11-SB-SA. The basis for the denial was subject to the findings in UDC 11-SB-5 for alternative compliance which outlines the criteria that needs to be met in order to grant alternative compliance and UDC 11-3A-21.C which requires that all development within the City provide city services to the site unless otherwise approved by the city engineer. Currently sewer services aze not available to the subject site and an alternative has not been approved by the City Engineer. Staff has attached a copy of the letter detailing the denial of the CZC and ALT request below. The subject site is located on the south side of Fairview Avenue, approximately '/ of a mile west of Locust Grove Road at 1065 E. Fairview Avenue in Section 7, T.3N., R.IE. Currently on the site, there exists a single family home and detached two caz garage that aze proposed for conversion to a sales office and service azea. The applicant submitted a site plan and landscape plan depicting how the site may develop with the existing buildings (attached below). The applicant also owns the adjacent pazcel to the east of this site which is currently not annexed into the City of Meridian. That parcel was slated for expansion of the business however; the applicant has not requested annexation at this time. In 2001, the subject site was annexed and zoned C-G with plans to redevelop the property. With that approval, Findings were approved that required CUP approval prior to development of the property, connection to city services prior to any use on the property, and landscaping was required to conform to the adopted landscape ordinance. Although a development agreement was discussed during the hearings, the applicant never initiated a DA. In 2003, the City Council acted on a miscellaneous application for a development agreement modification of the 2001 approval for the subject site. As part of the approved/modified findings the City Council granted non-conformance (through alternative compliance) with the landscape buffer if the future use of Instant Equity Auto City Council Review - AP-08-005 Page 1 CTfY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2Q08 the property was a permitted use in the C-G zone, and the building footprint was not expanded or modified. New construction and/or CUP request would require conformance with the landscape ordinance. In addition, the existing structures were to be connected to city water and sewer connection would be required once sewer services were provided from the south. Expansion of the existing structure or new construction on the subject property would not be allowed until sewer service was brought to the site by the applicant. Although this was a development agreement modification application, the applicant has not initiated a development agreement with the City. The applicant has requested to operate an auto sales business without 1) connection to city sewer, 2) meeting the provisions of the landscape ordinance, and 3) grant cross access to the adjoining property held in common ownership and to the west. The applicant proposes to use the existing septic system and leach field to provide sewer service on the property. It is the applicant's contention that the annexation findings govern the site however; a development agreement was not signed upon annexation of the property. The applicant was given the option to enter into a development agreement with the City that would allow the previous conditions govern the site; however CUP approval would be required prior to establishing the use on the site. Under the current development code, vehicle sales are a permitted use in a C-G zone and under the old development code it required CUP approval. Furthermore, a CUP would require conformance with the landscape ordinance as stated in the amended annexation fmdings; therefore the applicant has opted not to proceed with entering into a development agreement. The City's Master Plan has sewer service being provided from the south and is currently stubbed approximately 400 feet. Because the parcel to the south has not yet developed, the City Engineer suggested an alternative solution to deviate from the City's Master Plan and extend the sewer from Fairview Avenue (outside of the planned service azea). The applicant also declined this option. Staff has additional concerns because the proposed vehicle display azea includes the existing septic leach field for the property. The other concern expressed by the applicant was the requirement for cross access with the pazcels adjacent to this parcel which aze currently still in the Ada County. The applicant owns the east parcel and staff has required the applicant provide cross access for the property to the west and share access to Fairview Avenue. The applicant feels that cross access would pose a hazazd to the inventory stored on the site and does not want to provide cross access. ACRD has also communicated to staffthey would like to see cross access between the pazcels which would provide connectivity with the future extension of Jericho Road and eliminate access points to Fairview Avenue. The UDC definition of "parcel" states: A tract of unplatted land or contiguous unplatted land held in single ownership considered a unit for purposes of development. Therefore, the UDC considers the property as one unit, and the owner should request annexation of the adjoining property. Furthermore, in July 2008, City Council approved UDC text amendment to Section UDC 11-3A-3 which requires the property owner grant cross access/ingress/egress easements to adjoining properties prior to development of the property. In accordance with UDC 11-SA-3F and UDC 11-SA-6, the applicant has requested the City Council review the decision of the Planning Director's denial of the CZC and Alternative Compliance request for the subject site. The applicant is requesting the City Council allow the operation of vehicle sales in accordance with the modified findings in 2003. Until sewer service is brought to the site or an alternative is approved by the City Engineer, the landscaping is bought into compliance with the UDC and cross access is granted to the adjacent properties the Director will not approve a CZC for the subject site. In matters of City Council Reviews, the City Council shall be the decision malting body for such actions. Instant Equity Auto City Council Review - AP-08-005 Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 2. PROPOSED MOTIONS Denial (upholding the Director's decision) After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to uphold the Director's decision regarding CZC-08-010 and ALT-08-004 as presented during the hearing of September 9, 2008, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reason(s) for the denial of the application.) Approval (overruling the Director's decision) After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to overrule the Director's decision regarding CZC-08-010 and ALT-08-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 9, 2008. I further move that the Director shall issue approvals consistent with the City Council decision. Continuance After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue File Number AP-08- 005 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 3. LOCATION & SURROUNDING USES The subject development is located on the south side of Fairview Avenue, approximately'/o of a mile west of Locust Grove Road; 1065 E. Fairview Avenue; in Section 7, T.3N., R.1 E. The following uses surround the subject property: North -Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 and Settlers Village Subdivision, zoned C-G South -Single Family Residence, zoned R-15 East -Vacant Building, zoned R1M (Ada County) West -Coffee drive through business, zoned C-2 (Ada County) 4. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a City Council Review. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: August 25, 2008 and September 1, 2008 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: August 22, 2008 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: August 27, 2008 5. EX>~ITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. CZC Site Plan 3. CZC Landscape Plan 4. Photos of Existing Buildings 5. Staff's Letter Detailing Denial of the CZC/ALT 6. Applicant's Narrative Instant Equity Auto City Council Review - AP-08-005 Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 5. Exhibits A. Vicinity Map 1944 1975 ---_._.______ 1960 R-15 172 1945 1926 ~ 1950 1875 ~~ .4, C--Z rvARVCY - __ 1769 850 ~ 900 ~j ~~_~.,'_~ 835 ~ a3~ GG ___ --- 1005 _ ~ ~ 851 a j ~ t ~--~ ~ 845 ! a 1902 1935 1880 ~ 1900 ~ 1868 '- 1840 1845 1870 ~ 1826 1812 ~ 1853 I 1830 ~ '785 983 1031 $ c 1792 ~ ! .- 1774 ~ ! 140 ~~ 1758 ,~ 1761 1762 I 1795 ~ 1370 iE CARD ,~ 1745 1746 1721 1722 "~ 950 1685 1686 ~" 1385 ~~r7 1020 1621 1130 :.~_ $ 1330 980 C~ _ 1 ~~' ~_ ~a454 ~i \ ~~ '135'1 .':: CZ 1065 1 ~ r~ t ~ CZ t`O7, a. `1+Ta,Yr' ~~ '~ 375 -.~ 1187 R-15 'i ~~ 5~~ 1544 1522 ~;'.~~",t, 148 1506 -~' Z ;~' Q 1401 ~c r ao .+ 0 3 ,~ ~ F,,, a _ _ ~ E C ~ °' ~ ~ ~ 'S(`~~/ 130o R~15 A~ 1466 °jq^/ 1 M o o ,.\ vFs' ~ 1463 1456 1453 1448 1 ~ ~ Z 1353 ~ 1A5 ` d 1422 ; ' 9A o ~ ~9~j 1428 7q 0 A 3 - ? 3 1404 ~~,~8y0 ~ ~ ~ 1390 ;409 1412 Oh ~ 7yoo ~ 1A11~ j ~Z 1305 ~ 1287 c ~ 753 A~ ~ - 1378 dj9 1372 sa 1390 ~ 1 -~~ i~~ ~,~ O ~, ~., w N ~ as ~ w ~ ~ w 135/A ~~ ~ 1;611 1. 13 j 1272 ~ ~~S '\3j~'L~/~ ll ~~~ `~ Og6~ 1 } ~13 r~. ~9 ~ ado o r ~v ~ o'^o o M J ~''~V,~~ 1234 ~~ 1ti9~ 1 19~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~9j3~ 1210 'o ~ 1ti$A`, ~30~\ ~ 1300 ~ ~ ~ °p r?88 1178 10~~ ,~'r4 ~~~81~. ~1~'1$ b %~+ E~ T -~ '~~'~BZ~ '~' ~3' 46 a a ^p"' ,~~'~~~ , 01265 `- / 12e2 1199 121 1209 1200 1207 F Instant Equity Auto City Council Review - AP-08-0OS CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 2. CZC Site Plan . ~ ~~ Ndld 311S ~ZJ ~~~~R I ~~ (®g~ r O Olf1dALIfiC~31NV1StV1 O1f1VA.L1f1031NV.lSNi f'tj?'; i 7 J r _... ~ d ~ ~ ~i 1 a~ • ~ ~ ~ ® 1 is8~ ~~~~~~~ ~ aD~ ~y~G~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~f~1~ a>o~ca~ I ~ __ -_ -- I I I l I I i _~ I I ~+' I ~_° ~ ~ ~~ I I I i ~ d $ ..s~.'y',p. I .- " I I I `"~"ti '~' 10.1 i ~ ~ ~> =~ I e y, to ~ ~~•~ . ..; ;,.: i I I i,.ia\~in~~., 3a~i~1~~ . ; ~ I I '~,,t::. I I I ~ ,, ~.a~ ..i V I I • .: ~ ~. N .e. .'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~:~ ~ :.i. ~ ~$$ . ooa I ~ 'v r~~~a~ `4, i~i t~j I ~ 1 ~ ~ n i . , ~ --- ~ 9 n ~7 ! f, 0 ~ S ~ e ~~ R ~' ~~~8 i ~ _- ~ ~ ~~ Instant Equity Auto City Council Review - AP-08-005 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 3. CZC Landscape Plan 9f~ :~ If ; ~ ~ ~ ~~ !, !!a ! }D ! ~1 ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ 1 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ sae a eta~. ei ^ ~+~ Instant Equity Auto City Council Review - AP-08-0OS CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 4. Photos of Existing Buildings Ntlld 3tls ~aa e l w ~ ~~ Olfltl 1Wftp31NV1SNl O111tl tilifl©31Ntl1SNl ~ ~ ~IIe ~I ~ , B j ~~t~. lm I l i ~~ %~~ i ~ _ a F"~_ 1 r. i ~ 1 ESL , ~ ~ J ~~ '~t; . :~, ~ ~ I r~ C~ r ~$ ~ c, 4 +{'~ I s _ ~~y. ~ i .Y r ng F ,. 1 1 ~ 1 i,} ' ' 1. . ' ~!mj W $: ~ :. >~ ir~i~ 't IZml _ ,yam -"~ ~ k~ " ,.y. -, a _.; ~ ,~,. i r V~ c,7 0 N~ ,~ *a~~ r °; ~ ~ ~ -~ ul ~ ~ ~ 1 ,~ ~. is ~ ° ~ ~ ~ .~, .. ~..SI , 1~11~ r~ .. °. .1 ~ ~ ~", t ' r Y ~ ry ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ 4, ~ 'y3" ~ ~'~ ~ ~ FFDD " ~ ij'j _ ~ m I~It fi i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~` ~ a + ~~ . 9 R~, {~ ~ ... r i .,.. ., y.. 9 - L~ Instant Equity Auto City Council Review - AP-O8-005 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 5. Staff's Letter Detailing Denial of the CZC/ALT April iQ, 2(108 Dlr. Roger Collins The Land Group 4G2 E. Shore llrive, Suite 100 Eagle, ID 83G16 Dear Dir. Collins: This letter is in response to your request to establish a vehicle sales lot and alternative Intrdscape compliance for Instant Equity Auto Sales, proposed at 1065 E. Fairview Avenue (File #'s CZC-OB-O10 and :1I T OS-004). In your request to establish a vchide sales lot, you have also asked for alternative compliance to reduce the landscape buffer widths along the north (Fairview Avenue) and south (adjacent to R-15 wne) sides of the site. Staff has evaluated your request and finds the follo~~ing: • UDC 11-5B-5 allows the Planning & Zoning Department to allow for a method of alternative means is which to meet the intended purposes of certain development regulations when explicit compliance is not feasible or the alternative means is superior to what is required. • U-DC i 1-2B-3 requites a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along Fairtitiew Avenue (a clagsificd principal arterial roadway) and a 25-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to residential uses (the property to the south is currently vaeaat but is planned for future residemial uses). 7 he bi ffer widths you proposed are 17. S feel wide along F.. F'dirtrcw~=1 r~enrre and 15. feet wide along the soue%ern firoper[y bounclary. • l!DC 11-5B-5B.2 requires that one or more of the following conditions be present when granting alternative compliance: A. Topography, soil, vegetation, or other site conditions are such that full complianee is impossible or imprxicticaL Staff does not fielierm airy of these ~..»nditions exist; and /rrl! ramp/iann• is jxosable. B. The site involves space limitations or an unusually shaped lot. Staff belierx~s tlx .ate does not ineolr~ any e.+~traordirrary ~pae~ lunitations nor is a usual shvped lot. C. Safety considerations make alternative compliance desirable. tVot uppli~uiile. D. C+ther regulatory agencies or departments having jurisdiction aze requiting design standards that cotr#lict with the requirements of this article. Not applicable. Planning Department .860 E. Watertower Street, Suite 202. Meridian, l0 83842 Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org Instant Equity Auto City Council Review - AP-08-005 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR TI-lE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 Page 2 E. The proposed design includes innovative design features based on "New Urbanism", "Neo- Tradidonal Design", or other site designs that promote walkable and mixed-use neighborhoods. Not appG6nb/e. F. Additional environmental quality improvements would result from the alternative compliance. Staff helier=es the enviroturrenta/gna/iAy woudd trot itnproze as a tern/t ojredtu~d bu(~Rr widths Slr~jjfie/ier~s the reGnced brrfJers would in~vrase !/re paring rurface area and may ~:~ the performance of tfm current srptir sy~m on .,ire. G. Because of a change of use on an existing site, the required landscape buffer is larger than can be provided. Staff believes tl:e required 25 foot landscape br~jers tan be provided H. 'llte applicant is proposing a pond with a permanent water level in a required landscape area. (Ord. 895A, 12-5-2000)1~'ot applicable. • UDC 11-3A-21 requires that all development within the City provide services to the site. City sewer is not ~rrrmntly protdded to !be site. The C ity :r 141artrr Plan has sen~er senai:z being provided jmm the south. In your letter dated March 7, 2008, you state the reductions to the landscape buffees are necessan~ to address the auto display area aad the vehicular circulation requiremcttts for the site. Staff has evaluated the submitted site and landscape pLws and has concluded that a reduction in landscape buffers widths are proposed to increase the vehicle display area but does not provide for a hardship justification nor does it provide a supeeior design as required by t'DC ] 1-SB-SA. Until sewer and water services are provided on site and the plane ate revised to reflect the required landscape buffers, Staff cannot appmve yotu tegttesr CZC-08-U10 aad ALT-08-004 are hereby denied. In accordance with UDC: I1-SA-3F' and UDC 11-5A-G, you have the option to appeal this decision to the City Council.:1ll City Council Reti~ews (appeals) shall be filed in writing wick the Planning Department witlvn fifteen (l5) days after the date of this letter. 17te appeal will be fot~varded to the City Council to conduct a public hearing. The appeal should specify the grounds upon which the appeal is filed. I have attached the City Council Review application and checklist to this letter, should you deride to file an appeal of the 1?ireetot's determittation. Please feel free to contact Bill Parsons at 884-5533 if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Anna Borchers Canning, AICP I'lann±ng Director CC: Dan Buaop Instant Equity Auto City Council Review - AP-08-005 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 6. Applicant's Letter ~~ ~~~., YI ~~ ~~ THE LAND GEOUP, INC. July 25, 2008 Mayor and City Councl City of Mercian 33 East Idatro Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Narrative for Appeal on Instant Equity Auto CZC Denial (Flle #'s CZC-08010 and ALT-08-004) Dear Mayor and City Council: On July 15, 2008, the Planning Director issued a denial of our cUent's appNcations for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and for Alternative Landscape Compliance (see Tab 1 for both the denial letter and the original applications). The following is a narrative explaining the owner's appeal of that decision. To begin, we want to provide the Council some background on our diem's property and previous City decisions in connection with the property. li~adkarourtd The property was annexed Into the City January, 2002, and rezoned from R-1 to C-O. The annexation and rezone approval is found in Tab Z. The property contained (and still does) an existing building end parking lot. The property was owned (but not used) by a podiatrist, and the application for annexation was made by a potential purchaser of the property. The future use of the property was unspecified, which the minutes of the July 15. 2001 Council hearing make clear. Borup: Can you clarify that ? Is it your intention to remove the existing building, k sounds like then, or remodel it? Smith: Currently we don't know exactly what we are going to do. Ideally thaYs what we will do, is remove that and put some type of development on that. But, as of now we don't know exactty what -. Just because we are possibly purchasing that we are redoing the rezone to come into cxrrection of the proper use cone. The sale of the property did not dose and the property remained vacant. The same owner of the property approached the City in 2003 asking for a modification of the annexatlon conditions regarding landscape (due to the location of the existing building and parking lot), and sewer (due to the lack of availability). t'ilr P.4ntruttp • I.rnri,~~ar.. ,~d•ca~"eri:u • r ,,~~ l,tnt;er~ nr~ . (.rf/ (.~uerr Irri ~:rnn ;cF ~ n~~n.~drr,~G • e=>•~tsr C ~n~rrunk~areare • lunat:,~.t~ 1G2 L tihnre 1)nv,-, Ste 1~}f~,1.a~iF Id:Jro `t;h7G • Y _ii?s 93">.4t1~ 1 P ~OS 93!tA-NS • ocu~c.theland~roupux.c~mt Instant Equity Auto City Council Review - AP-08-005 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 Meridian Mayor and Gity Council July 25, 2008 Page 2 of 7 As recommended by staff (See Tab 3) the annexation conditions were modified by City Council in April, 2003. The modified annexation condition regarding landscape reads as folows: Existing landscaping may be modified to conform with the intent and purpose of the Landscape Cade Pursuant to MCC 12-13-18 (Attemativve Compliance) if the future use of the property la a permitted use in the C-G zone and the build~g footprint is not expanded or modified. Modifications to the landscaping may include additional tress as required and an irrigation system if there is not one provided on site. New construction or the request for a conditlonal use permit or subdivision of the property wUl require complete Conformance with the adopted landscape Ordinance, in effect at the time of the new appiicatian. The City Council concurred with the recommendation stating: °The revised condition of approval will allow s#aff to approve a new landscaping plan that meets the intent of the ordinance, but does not require complete compliance at this time.°' Staff also re~rommended, and the Counal approved, deleting any requirement for a sidewalk because there are no sidewalks slang East Fairview Avenue in the vicinity of the property. The second modified annexation condition regarding sewer reads as follows: • The applicant shall connect to city water, prior to any use on the property. Sewer is currently not available to this site. Applicant shall be required to conned this existing structure to the sanitary sewer system when it becomes available from the south. Expansion of the existing structure or new construction on the subject property grill net be allowed unless sanitary sewer is brought to the site by the applicant. Again, the Council agreed with the recommendation stating: `The proper sewer connection for the subject property is located in the stub street within Danbury Faire Subdivision, located approximately 450 feat to the south. The original ~ndition of approval would have made connection to city sewer Est prohibitive.°~ Re-Aopllt~on Our client made appU~tion for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and for Akemative Compliance regarding landscape at the advice of staff. (The appli~tion is contained in Tab 1 J Our project originally consisted of two phases. Phase 1 was, and continues to be, located at 1085 East Fairview Avenue. Origlnalty our client was planning a second phase in connection with a separate parcel located east of the subject property. That phase 2 will not be pursued by our client. Because of the length of time it has taken to obtain the Certfficate of Zoning Compliancx~ our client is actively marketing that second parcel. ' 2003 Mnexadan Finding, p. 4. : 2003 Mnexation Findings, p. 4. Ierr (31„r.~rut{~ ~ 1 e.'rd~;a fe ,4rrnefnufi • r ; ai' Rc~±n;~,-ri„i, ~ f. it r ,rr.;e ~e fmG;tiinr ~%° F.rr?ta.,rrn ~ P;rdrhbh' C •,r.TnmHt.~;dtorz ~ Srentydti;; ~G? L Shore L)ovr, Sir 7v~,1_agle, Idaho 43r,1r. ~ ~~ 4U>t.<73'.t.4!kil [^ ~~~R'l3'~.~ 1-lrs ~ ~t~a~v.diel:vid~oulnnc.coiu Instant Equity Auto City Council Review - AP-OS-005 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 Meridian Mayor and City Council July 25, 2008 Page 3 of 7 I~~]'':'11"'TTf'~ The Jury 15, 2008 staff letter states: UDC 11-28-3 requires a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along Fairview Avenue (a Gasaifled principal arterial roadway) and a 25-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to residential uses (the property to the south is currently vacant but is planned for future residential uses). Staff Comment - 77rs buffer widUrs you proposed are 97.5 feet wide along E. Fairv/ew Avenue and 95 feet wide along the southern property boundary. Our client's response: East Fairview Avenue: Our client's request is consistent with the City Council-approved annexation condition regarding landscape. We proposed to reduce the buffer from the 25- foot requirement to 17.5-feet (a 30% reduction). We proposed to add 2 street trees (a 33% increase) and the addition of 23 densely planted deciduous shrubs arranged in a planter to soften the angular shape of arty future building. The 17.5-foot buffer meets the requirement that reduced landscape must not be less than 10°!0 of the lot depth. Southern Baundarv of Procerty: A 15-foot buffer (va. 25 feet) with an 8-foot high solid fence was shown on the original submittal, which submittal was developed after discussion with staff after several pre-application meetings. At those meetings staff said they would support the reduction in landscape width with the addition of the tall fence. In fad, our client was asking for a landscape buffer width that is excessive given the adjacent use of the property south of our client's parcel. Although the property to the south is zoned R-15, the Comprehensive Plan promotes commerdal development (which would allow for a 5-foot buffer); that property is now being contemplates for commercia! development (storage facility). Although not part of our client's original submittal, because. of this commercial use to the south, we ask the Council to consider a 5-foot tandscape buffer as required for the commercal adjacency. The July 15, 2008 staff letter states: UDC 11-5&5B.2: Topography, soil, vegetation, or other site conditions are such that fu8 compliance is impossible or impractical. Staff Comment -Staff does not believe airy of these conditions exist; and full cornplfance is possible. and UDC 11-56-5B.2 (B): Tire site irnoly~ space limitation or an unusually shaped lot. STAFF COMMEWT -Staff believes the site does Trot irrvo/ve any extraordinary specs limitations nods a usual shaped lot. 1 1 r~ Pl,:~ra:rr,-,; • i sr~vr,rrT, -Irrl,rrr4:J:r • ~ ~t~l F?n~;rir'r>Yr:Q • (:~l/ ~.erree IrriRa!mr'r ~' I ~ngvr«rn{~ • (';rrtfrhk P i,neJrrre:,rJCire • S r:ra,;,r;d -}+.3 t: Share Unte, ~~e 1~ftr, Lagle. (dali~ H3~i1d • P ~i>`t.'}39.4+'!4! 1^ ~+1N 9?~1..}~.I5 • u~v.~4.thela~idGrauPux.ram Instant Equity Auto City Council Review - AP-08-005 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 Meridian Mayor and City Council July 25, 2008 Page 4 of 7 Our clients response: The property is constrained by the existing building and exlsUng parking lot which the C11y previously acknowledged was the basis for modifying the landscape condition to allow for Alternative Compliance. Also, we provided the staff with the information requested by staff that our clients properly is further cxnstrained because there is no irrigation water at the property. The landscape that wiU exist will have to be watered with expensive (wasteful) potable water. These °ske condibons° make the 25-foot buffer along ail of the frontage of East Fairview Avenue and the southern boundary of the property impractical. Nonetheless, we are willing to expand the buffer along East Fairview Avenue to 25 feet. The City should recognise the proposed commercial use to the south that allows a 5-foot buffer. The Juty 15, 2Q08 staff letter states: UDC 11-5B-5B.2 (F): Additional environmental quality improvements would result from the alternative compliance, STAFF CQMMENT - Statf believes the environmental qualfty would not improve as a result of reduc~l buffer w/dtha Staff believes the reduced buffers would increase the paving surface area and may affect the performance of the current septic system on site. Our clients response: Staffs speculation doss not comport with the fad that this property will have improved drainage. Per our discussions with Public Works the existing drain field area is net to bs covered by anon-permeable surface. Accordingly, the property will be improved using porous concrete as the paving surface; all rain water will bs recharged into the local aquifer and not consolidated into a conventional storm water system. Further, the landscape buffers, although they may assist with on-site drainage, are not the technique to ensure on- site drainage and performance of the septic system (which Is governed by the rules end regulations of Central District Health). In fad, given the proposed commercial use of the property to the south of our property, our clients buffer of 15 feet provides an improvement over the allowed 5-foot buffer. This fad is underscored by the City- ordinance support for a 5-foot landscape buffer next to commercially-used property. Vlfith further regard to the septic system, staff understands that Central District Health, which has jurisdiction over the septic system and as a matter of course, will be reviewing the existing septic system when our client applies for a building permit. The July 15, 2008 letter from Meridian staff states: UDC 11-3A-21 requires that aU development within the City provide services to the site. STAFF COMMEM-City sewer iS not currently provided to the site. The City's Master Plan has sewer service being prov/ded from the south. ~rz:° FS,~rrr:ar:c ~i.rradiaetJ.r,~rrlaairrf:m •t,ttaiFmu+7r;rsr;~~(rah/..+/zrrti~lrrin:.Yrnt7¢^ f~.u5ere~Gr,~n •a:.rr4Gr. C.:,nynronr.~ati~ry • 1'urut7:ru~ kt,? 1:. Shore lloar, tin 7in1, F:apde. Id:du, uig1G • 1' 20H,93+s.M?41 1 .sill y39.4-H • 1ti^h•~~.~~eland~+r<ruiamc.cocu Instant Equity Auto City Council Review - AP-08-005 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 Meridian Mayor and City Council July 26, 2008 Page 6 of 7 Our client's response: We were surprised that this issue was raised by staff in its letter. The annexation condlton is dear. our client has agrees to connect to City sewer when that sewer is available from the south. As far back as our first meeting with staff (October 200 vere were told by Public Works aloft that, consistent with the annexation condition, our client would need to connect to service when sewer was available from the south or earlier N a new building was constructed. Staff also informed us that the use of the existing septic system was acxeptable so long as the existing drain field was not covered with an impervious surface_ As explained above, it will not be. The City Council should be aware that during a meeting held with staff in the spring, staff members from both Public Works and Planning changed their position and told our client that they preferred that our client jump out of its sewer shed (which is south of Fairview) and cut through Fairview by extending a mein line along Fairview Avenue and then north into a different sewer shed. Such deviation from the City's sewer master plan would be extremely onerous for our client as well as contrary to the annexation condition. We expressed the Mme to the City's attorney, who advised us that we may rely on the modified annexation conditions (as discussed further below). However, because of the sentiments expressed by staff at that spring meeting, and because the July 15, 2008 latter ignores the annexation cronditbn regarding sewer, our client has been left to wonder whether there is a hidden motivation behind ignoring the annexation condition. As mentioned above, our client's attorney received the following email correspondence from the City's attorney. You requested a darifir~tion of the City's position regarding the severer ~nnedlon at 1085 E. Fairview in light of the modified annexation findings. It is the City's position that your client may take advantage of the modified findings, but they cannot pick and choose which ones they want to apply. Your client must apply for a Development Agreement (DA) that was anticipated at the time of the annexation. The DA will need to incorporate all of the conditions listed in the modified annexation findings. After reviewing ali of the documentation (inducting the original annexation findings, attached hereto) it is apparent that the use approved at the time of annexation was for a podiatry office. Any other antdpated use was noted as °future development° for which a Conditional Use Pemttt must be secured. Ac~rdingty, the DA must include a CU application requirement for all future development other than a podiatry office. The DA would, of course, also include the modified sewer requirement that you are seeking. As part of the CU, the City wi0 require sign-off from Central District Health that the use of septic would be approved after the lot is paved and developed. The City will also be seeking the full landscaping provisions and the cross-access connections previously discussed. 1 rfr 1'G:grvduq • 1 ran~rrn-~ . ~rri:err. U:rr • C.rml r:ngsr,~; rr; ~ • C.n/f C.arrrtc frr2a'ir,,rs :~~ f~n{+ure~ring • L=ruf~l~r:~ C.r~r7mru'r,'rrIlesi • l anti lrq~ dli2 L. SUpre Uu~-€, ti+~~ 1+~}, Ea¢le. ldalxu v~tii(• Y 21111.!+~!}Av41 f• ~+1?t.!)3!).~4~li • ~vv.~v.tlul:uul~r~ujsinc~curu Instant Equity Auto City Council Review - AP-OS-0OS CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 Meridian Mayw and City Council July 25, 2008 Page 6 of 7 The alternative to proa~eeding as outlined above would be to appeal the Planning Stafl°s denial of the CZC applic~tian. Staff is willing to re-issue an updated letter of denial to re- startthe appeal timeline. The City's attorney indicated that our client °cannot pick and choose which [conditions] they warn to apply must apply° and must apply for a development agreement and- apply far a conditional use for a planned development. We want to assure the Council that it is our client's intention to comply with the conditions of annexation. We have bean attempting to do this for quite some time. However, we must point out that we cannot comply with the suggestions of the City's attorney that our client eppty for a development agreement and appty far a conditional use permit. We do not believe that these suggestions are appropriate. First, with regard to a development agreement: As the Council knows, a °development agreement° is a technique statutorily allowed to permit a sty to require, as a condition of rezoning, that the owner ar developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of a subject property. Although recommended as a condition to the Counai, the Council did not require a development agreement either in 2001 or 2003 becau~ it could not. The Council could not have adopted a development agreement because, as stated above, neither the owner nor the developer, in either 2001 or 2003, could tell the City how it intended to use w develop the property. The suggestion that a development agreement could list the conditions contained in the annexation approval, while possible, would be redundant. The conditions of annexation approval are aUeady connained in the annexation approval. Next, we believe that the cwuncil might be misled by the statement that future development is required to apply for a conditional use. As mentioned above, the actual condition states: Ail future development of this property shall be allowed only after a Conditional lJse Permit for a Plannmi Development has been secured from the City of Meridian (Meridian City Code 11-7-2Q). (Emphasis added.) When staff was questioned in 2001 about the requirement that any use of the property would require a conditional use permit for a planned development, staff replied: McfCinnon: That would be correct and the reason for that is under the existing coals that we have adopted In Meridian, that anything that is developed in the planned development area of our Comprehensive Plan has to be developed as a Conditional Use Permit far a piann~ development. As the City knows, the City has revised its code and this provision is na longer applicable under the Unlfled Development Code. There is no such animal as a Conditional Use for a Planned Development and the City's staff and Council have minca3d no words in repeating durir~ public hearings in which the concept has come up, that it will not honor the old °Conditional Use for a Planned Development° found in a now non-existent cads. This condition is no longer legally accepted in Meridian. What governs this property is its zoning, C-0, and the remaining conditions of annexation. Even ff this condition was applicable, which it is not, the Council should know that our client was told that a Certificate of Zoning Compliance was ail that was needed for its application. Ssn° Pl rr :tr:,- ~ 1 err. J,~zrn~ .~Irrhrfe;7s:r~ ° t inl Fn{ur.;~nrq ° (.,ifj r.~rerJe Im;~r.HUn e~ 1:~?na~ris~ • ~=rnihr. ~ ~, ~r~.:~.:rria • 4s r.:; ~; ter At;2 L nh~ae Lm=c, Sre 1t~t9, t:~~le. LdaF~o H3ia76 ~ Y 2U~4.93~1.~!41 l~ ?O8 ~39.4~15 ~ uTav;th~tar~d~~oupuic_cni~~ Instant Equity Auto City Council Review - AP-08-005 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2008 Meridian Mayor and City Council July 25, 2008 Page 7 of 7 We look forward to meeting with the Councit in connection with this matter. Sincerely, Roger Collins, Site Planner THE LAND GROUP, INC. CC. Client Meridian Planning Department Meridian Public Works Department JoAnn C. Butler kPr Y,i~rrirure ~ f <rar~:;rrj•~ .-lrtirN.p;~:r< ~ r'.ivil Fu~ur:'r.rrrt? ~ C„}Jff.ouai Jtt'{S~lar+,a `r F;,r,~::,nr.rt! ~ /,nl~slii:' (.:,.r,;;rurr.~:rfrerr ~.Ibfr~_peau ~8~ ~ L ~~ore 11~~e. 5tr 1~i0,Fa~le, ldafto .~4G7u ~ 1 ~~~H'139.dt~41 r 'Un !?y.-d ~1d5 ~ ~«x~t_LheLmrie+'oupinctiom Instant Equity Auto City Council Review - AP-08-005