HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter from Gary GoffMarch 23, 2009
The Honorable Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
Councilman Charlie Rountree, President
Councilman David Zaremba, Vice President
Councilman Keith Bird
Councilman Brad Hoaglun
Members of the Meridian City Council:
j~ECEIVE~
MAR 2 32009
CITY®FC:~C IDrn,
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
This correspondence is concerned with the upcoming March 24, 2009 City Council
Meeting, Agenda Item: AZ 09-001; Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.76 of an
acre of land with a C-N zoning district for Goff by Garland Goff and Shannon Hamrick -
1725 W. Pine Avenue.
The applicant would like to express thoughts and concerns with respects to 3 issues: one
made by the Planning and Zoning Commission dealing with future uses of the parcel
approved for annexation and rezoning; and two (2) issues coming from the Planning
Department staff report: cross-access; and downed tree caliper inch mitigation.
FUTURE USE OF PARCEL
At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of February 19, 2009, the above
referenced Annexation and Zoning request (AZ 09-001) was recommended for approval
by unanimous voice vote of the Commission members present. However, the
Commission added a provision, beyond the Planning Staff s proposed Development
Agreement (DA), restricting all future uses on the parcel to swim facility-type use.
The applicant has spent 10 months in activities related to annexation and zoning of a 0.76
parcel of land located on Pine Avenue, and over the course of this effort has expended
$12,000 on surveys, site and landscape plans, perspective drawings, project budget
estimations and city fees. The applicant is committed to this development, which will
allow a much needed expansion of a 5-year old, Meridian-based business, FLOW
Aquatics, LLC.
As can be seen through a perusal of the documentation from the Commission's February
19 meeting, the applicant generated a tremendous amount of support for the above
referenced AZ request (approximately 601etters). Additionally, the applicant fully
supports the Staff s proposal for a DA that will restrict the proposed development to
building a swim school facility on the property. However, the Commission's provision
placing additional restrictions for all future uses of the property is, in the applicant's
opinion, inequitable.
Page 1 of 5
As this provision was explained to the applicant by the Planning Staff, following the
February 19 Commission meeting, if the applicant was faced with a situation requiring
the abandonment of the planned development and sale of the property, the subsequent
owner could not use the property for other development activities allowable under the
Zoning District of C-N. The new owners would also be restricted to building a swim
school facility.
It is clear from the Planning Staff report (pages 3, 4, 5 and 6) and the Planning and
Zoning Commission's vote of approval that the applicant's parcel fits within and deserves
to be given both the Land Use designation of Commercial, and the Zoning District
designation of Commercial-Neighborhood (C-N). The Planning staff concluded that Pine
Avenue is a minor arterial roadway in Meridian, and commercial rather than residential
use is more appropriate for all three (3) of the parcels designated within the CPA.
Additionally, the Planning Staff report determined that a land use designation of C-N is
consistent with both the City's existing and planned uses within this area.
The parcel's C-N zoning, both acknowledged and approved by the P & Z Commission as
appropriate for the parcel, permits 39 types of business uses, 15 of which have a use
designation of "P" or Permitted. Among the permitted uses are: Animal care facility;
Artist studio; Arts, entertainment or recreational facility; Church of place of worship;
Daycare, group; Education institution, private; Education institution, public; Financial
institution; Healthcare or social services; Industry, information; Laundromat; Parks,
public or private; Personal service; Public or quasi-public use; Public utility, minor;
Retail store. If the perusal of this list identifies a business that is unacceptable to the
City, would not it be equitable to "restrict" development activities of any future
owner of the property to everything allowed within the Zoning District but the
"offensive" business?
The applicant acknowledges that the City of Meridian is very supportive of this proposed
parcel development activity which seeks to expand a small, women-owned, Meridian-
based business. If, however, the property were not developed as proposed, what harm
would be realized by the City should the property remain C-N without any future
use provision?
While the applicant has every intention of completing the development, inclusive of
completing a DA, we ask that the Council remove this restriction of future use provision
from the Commission's approval recommendation. This provision, in essence, strips
away all uses of the property that the applicant has labored so diligently to obtain in a C-
NZoning District designation.
The economic "climate" that exists today can create circumstances requiring flexibility in
one's use of assets. This provision, if not removed, severely limits the applicant's
rightful and legitimate options in liquidating owned property assets and places an
inequitable hardship on the applicant by severely restricting the marketability of the
parcel should a sales activity become necessary.
Page2of5
CROSS-ACCESS
Since the February 19, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, the applicant has
spent more time reading and fully comprehending the ACRD and Planning Department's
staff studies. Consequently, the applicant would like the Council to consider removing
the cross-access requirement (both EAST and WEST neighboring properties) requested
by the Planning Staff, and initially, agreed to by the applicant.
First, with respects to the Planning Staff's cross-access requirement to the WEST
neighboring property, the ACRD staff study relates that District Policy 72-F4(1) requires
driveways located on arterial roadways near a signalized intersection to be located a
minimum of 440-feet from that signalized intersection for afull-access driveway. The
applicant's proposed driveway entrance meets those requirements as stated by the ACHD
staff study (page 4). Consequently, then, since the neighboring property's existing
driveway is further to the WEST of the Linder signalized intersection than the
applicant's, this parcel is also, and logically, compliant with ACHD's district policy and
is entitled to its own full-access driveway off of the Pine Avenue arterial.
Additionally, the WEST neighboring property remains in the County and is County-
zoned as R-1. It is difficult to understand why the applicant should provide cross-access
to this property since the neighbor's parcel is entitled to its own full access driveway by
ACHD policy, and since the parcel resides within the County's jurisdiction and zoning,
with little probability of City annexation and land use change.
As to the Planning Staff s requirement for cross-access to the EAST neighboring
property, there are several issues that were discerned after further study of the ACHD
staff report. Paramount of these concerns is the SAFETY of those patrons using the
applicant's proposed swim facility parking lot.
The ACRD study (page 2) finds that approximately 792 vehicle trips per day can be
assumed to take place with a commercial retail facility containing a 20 percent floor-area-
ratio. This approximation is based on the Transportation Engineers Trip Generation
Manual when measured against a 5670 sf facility in a COMMERCIAL zoning district.
While our proposed facility is a commercial building, it is not a retail business. Rather, it
is an educational facility offering private swim lessons to the community's and valley's
children, adults and tri-athletes. Nevertheless, the applicant accepts this estimate, since it
has no study of its own to counter.
The ACRD study, Page 4, the paragraph entitled Staff Comment/Recommendation
(1665 and 1705 W. Pine Avenue) states in part: "...These driveways do not meet
District policy for offsets from a signalized intersection, and may be restricted or closed
with subsequent developynent or a change in use." The ACHD relates on Page 4,
Paragraph 6, Note to Meridian City: "ACHD staff recommends that Meridian City
require cross-assess agreements between these lots in order to facilitate access control
and driveway consolidation in the future."
Page 3 of 5
While driveway consolidation is the objective, utilization of the applicant's proposed
driveway for cross-access to both a future and yet unplanned development which maybe
inclusive of commercial building or buildings with 20 percent or greater floor-area-ratio
will approximate another 792 vehicle trips, or greater (on top of the ACHD's
approximated 792 vehicle trips for the applicant's facility). This potential doubling of
vehicle entrances and exits from the applicant's parking lot, and the "thru street"
environment the cross-access will engender, places our patrons at both a heightened and
unacceptable risk for apedestrian/vehicle accident. Consolidating adjoining property
driveways to meet a highway department policy can harbor real world personal safety
consequences, particularly since none of the properties on Pine Avenue (1665, 1705 and
1725) are "land-locked."
Further, cross-access to the EAST and the likelihood of a doubling of future vehicular
traffic places the applicant in an unwarranted position of negotiating with some future
property developer for maintenance expenses required for the increased wear and tear on
the applicant's driveway pavement. This proposed cross-access requirement has two
troubling elements: One, requiring the applicant to provide for the grading, paving and
maintenance of access to another adjoining piece of private property; and two, the
appearance of some sort of "eminent domain" invocation without any compensation for
providing this "public" access thru the applicant's private property. If the applicant
cannot negotiate the sharing of maintenance expenses, does the applicant have the right to
exclude the public from using the applicant's private property to access another's private
property? If the applicant no longer has the right to determine when and on what
conditions members of the public can enter the applicant's parking lot, is not the
applicant being denied a fundamental right of property ownership?
Additionally, the creation of the cross-access "stub" to the neighboring EAST property
line results in the loss of at least three (3) parking spaces. (The applicant has already lost
five [5] parking spaces to accommodate the Fire Department's requirement for a
hammerhead turnaround.) Finally, the stubbed pavement within the cross-access
proximity results in the loss of landscaping buffer area necessary for mitigating downed
trees from site development activities.
TREE MITIGATION
The application seeks relief from the Council regarding the requirement of the Planning
Department to mitigate the anticipated downing of two 45' tall spruce trees. These trees
will have to be removed to accommodate the Fire Department's determination requiring
the construction of a fire truck turnaround on the applicant's swim facility site. The crux
of the issue appears to hinge on the "definition" of what constitutes governmental
agency jurisdiction.
Meridian City Code, 5-1-2B relates the functions, powers and duties of the Fire Chief. 5-
1-2B1 states in part "...administration of life safety codes related thereto by inspecting,
or causing to be inspected by his designee, buildings, premises and public thoroughfares,
Page4of5
within the corporate City limits for the purpose of enforcing the Uniform Fire Code and
the appropriate sections of this Code,..."
Meridian City Code, 10-4-2 adopts amendments to the International Fire Code. 10-4-2F
states: Anew section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section
105.1.1.1 Fire Department Plan Review. All building plans for commercial buildings,
residential buildings, tenant improvements and changes of occupancy classification of a
building shall be submitted to the fire chief or designee for review for compliance with
the IFC as herein adopted and amended.
Meridian City Code, 11-3B-lOCSb states: No mitigation is required in the following: 1)
existing prohibited trees within the street buffer or parking lot; 2) existing dead, dying, or
hazardous trees certified prior to removal by the City of Meridian parks department
arborist; 3) trees that are required to be removed by another governmental a~ency
having jurisdiction over the project.
The Planning staff report relates that it sought and received Agency and Department
Comments on January 29, 2009. The Planning Department, Fire Department, Public
Works Department, Parks Department, the Ada County Highway District all placed
"requirements" on the development of the parcel (as published in Exhibit B). We, the
applicant, cannot ignore any of these requirements. To do so will result in the applicant
failing to obtain a Building Permit, Certificate of Zoning Compliance, etc. Further, the
Planning Department cannot "override" the requirements placed on this project by any of
these other governmental entities. Consequently, the Planning Department has both
recognized and deferred to the jurisdictional boundaries being exercised by these
other city and county governmental entities with respects to this development effort.
It appears from a review of the above code references, the Fire Department does, in fact,
have "jurisdiction" over the these project activities, and it is, in fact, exercising its "life
safety" jurisdiction on this development effort. Consequently, the applicant fails to
understand why there is a continued requirement to impose the mitigation for the
anticipated downing of 2 trees necessitated by a governmental agency's determination.
Garland R. (Gary) Goff
Shannon L. Hamrick
Page 5 of 5