Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 7, 2009 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 18 of 23 and we can get that information to continue. I have no problem with that whatsoever, if that's what you would like to do. Nary: Mr. Chairman? And, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay and other Commissioners, I did look up here while I was sitting here. They do have that staff -- or that state statute that was signed by the governor, was approved by both the house and the senator and it does require that facilities over seven that are not related to the provider, require a state license. So, if that helps you. But it was approved by both houses and signed by the governor. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Chairman Moe, it appears to me that the question of number of children is not necessarily going to impact Commissioner Marshall's or Commissioner Rohm's decision on this and it would only be feasible to reopen the public hearing if it would. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: So, I would say someone can make a motion and we will vote our conscience. Moe: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay has made her comments, so can I hear from any other? Marshall: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 09-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 7th, 2009, with no modifications. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 09-004 for Pitter Patter Club. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. Moe: That is one opposed. That motion has been approved. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Public Hearing: ZOA 09-001 Request for Zoning Ordinance /Unified Development Code (UDC) Text Amendment to modify and clean up specific sections of the UDC for Outdoor Storage and Parking Unified Development Code Text Amendment by City of Meridian Planning Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 19 of 23 Department -See application for details of all sections proposed for amendments: Moe: Thank you. The next public hearing I'd like to open is ZOA 09-001 for a request for zoning ordinance for an outdoor storage and parking, Unified Development Code text amendment by the Planning Department. Friedman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. The proposed UDC amendments are primarily clarifications to the standards for off-street parking, storage, and landscaping in the UDC. They are to clean up some areas that we have found to be problematic or areas where we have been making interpretations and so we are memorializing those and formalizing those. Essentially, what we are addressing are some of the screening requirements in the industrial districts where it just doesn't make sense to require screening where you might have abutting industrial uses that are not viewed from a public right of way or viewed from a residential property or, in fact, impacted any residential properties. We also have situations where we require five foot property -- buffers or perimeter buffers in parking lots, but we also try to encourage shared parking and so what happens when you have two users sharing a parking lot on two separate lots, but, then, we are requiring a five foot perimeter buffer in between those lots. So, we are trying to clarify that. Another area that we are looking at is it's come to our attention that we have had some issues with the long-term parking of large recreational vehicles, boats, trailers, and those sorts of things in driveways and so what the code amendment we are proposing is that essentially we limit the parking of -- in the street setback to registered automotive vehicles and motorcycles and that sort of thing and that the recreational vehicles, the boats, the trailers, any other things you can think of, be parked and screened either in the rear yards or in the side yards. We don't put a limit on the number that can be parked back there, but we are requiring -- I don't believe we are limiting the number of vehicles that can be parked in the rear yard or the side yard. I could be wrong. Rohm: Sounds reasonable to me. Moe: I guess what I would be curious about is how are you going to enforce that? Friedman: Well, this came to us through code enforcement and this is exactly -- that exactly, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, was the genesis of this amendment where we had asituation -- I don't know all the specifics, but it had to do with a couple of large vessels that were parked in driveways for quite a period of time and I guess they were rather imposing and people living on either side were getting tired of kind of looking at these large vessels sitting out there in the street, so we do recognize, however, that even if they are moved into a rear yard or into a side yard, that the maximum height of the fencing -- they have to be screened to a height of six feet. So, yeah, there will be probably some intrusion -- visual intrusion of larger boats or trailers in those areas, but it will be like many of our issues, it will be response driven. So, without going through these line by line, that in a nutshell is what we are trying to get to. We have had some industrial users come to us and said, you know, there is some areas where you require Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 20 of 23 this perimeter landscaping, but we abut another industrial use and we have trucks that need to maneuver in there and it kind of interferes with the maneuvering of the trucks and this and so -- so, the real key is where we are really not having a view issue from the public right of way or from -- again, from residential properties, that we are looking to at least give the director some room to waive some of the stricter application of screening requirements onto those industrial properties. Marshall: I had a couple questions. Moe: Sure. Marshall: And I'm not sure how this has worked in the past. How does this affect car lots and, you know, unregistered vehicles? You got lots of them. How about mechanic shops where a vehicle has been towed to and is sitting there waiting to be worked on, waiting to be repaired, but is not functioning, possibly unregistered at the time -- Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is -- what we have done is we have broken up the parking requirements and so what we have done is we have put these parking standards -- you will see under 11-3 -- 11-3C-4, parking, it's parking and use standards. We used to lump all our parking use standards together, so the underlying area for single family detached townhouses secondary, single family and attached dwellings, so now what we are doing is we are starting to segregate the parking standards for residential areas, as opposed to the commercial areas, which -- which Commissioner Marshall just mentioned. We are taking that into account, Commissioner. We are really addressing -- trying to get out the parking of recreational vehicles in residential neighborhoods. Marshall: So, this doesn't address -- Moe: This doesn't address the car lot -- Marshall: Got you. Okay. And, then, talking about the areas -- the industrial areas backing up to the railroad right of way. Friedman: Yes. That's correct. Marshall: Are we not requiring screening up against the railroad right of way or we are? Friedman: We are for -- we are for all -- for the commercial districts, the traditional districts, essentially Old Town. But not the industrial districts. And we have proposed for the industrial districts, the way this is written is that we are requiring -- we are proposing at least to require screening 100 feet back from the road -- from the fronting road, so perpendicular to the road 100 feet back in the industrial district. So, really, what you would be seeing as you're driving -- say you're driving -- I'll use Franklin as an example in an industrial area. If you're driving down Franklin under these requirements you would have a solid screen required 100 feet back, so at least kind of the view that Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 21 of 23 the driver gets from the public street is -- I mean undoubtedly you might see 100 feet past that, but, generally, we thought 100 feet would be an appropriate distance to require that screening back there and not all the way around, because, again, you're going to have industrial users on either side and the railroad behind there. But still in the Old Town and the commercial districts and so forth where the storage areas butt up against the railroad or potentially the residential on the other side of the tracks we wouldn't maintain the requirement for screening. Marshall: My concern there being that what happens, hopefully, in ten to twenty years that that railroad becomes -- railway becomes a light rail, how does it -- how do those yards look, then, to the multitudes traveling that? Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, hopefully in ten to twenty years if that becomes a reality, if we follow the example that other communities are following and you're starting to get more rail transit, then, you're going to start getting a whole different change in the complex uses adjacent to those rail lines. You will start seeing more mixed use or something like that. It may be that's -- those industrial areas start transitioning out or being purchased and -- I mean Portland is a good example and some other communities are an example where you start seeing more mixed use developments along those rail corridors. There is also examples where, you know, the rail does -- you know, again, I think of Seattle -- as you come into Seattle on the train you still go through an industrial area and you still see all kinds of things, plants -- airplane plants, things like that. Marshall: Well, I can foresee easily a lot of mixed use at the stops along that rail -- Friedman: Right. Yeah. Marshall: But in between those stops industrial still tends to thrive in a lot of areas. Friedman: Again, we -- we kind of thought at least in our -- at least our logic was that the view from the majority of the general public that are traveling along -- along the roadway and, you know, if you're on the Amtrak and you're coming into Meridian you might see the back, you know, storage of some piles of lumber or something, but that's a good -- good question and a good concern. We are just trying to respond to some of our current industrial users and are saying, hey, why are you making us spend the money to fence these storage yards when my neighbor's the only one that really looks at it or the industrial guy behind me or the train that goes through a couple times a day. So, trying to balance the visual integrity and the interest of our present industrial owners and users. Marshall: I just -- I have been on a few of those trains and been through some of those yards and you kind of go, oh, glad I don't live here and -- Friedman: Yeah. Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 22 of 23 Marshall: -- I'd hate somebody to do that with Meridian eventually, if that becomes a mass transit corridor, which I do believe is hoped and planned for. Friedman: Yeah. Yeah. Marshall: And currently we still require fencing off from that area; right? Friedman: Yeah. Currently we are proposing -- we are proposing now that at least just in the industrial areas that be relaxed somewhat. Marshall: I understand. I like most everything else. There is that one I've got a little bit of a -- I mean planning issue with, because it's very difficult to go back in in the future and if that becomes a light rail or even as I have heard mention even today just to take buses and put the rails like you do with pickups and run buses up and down the rail and start a transit rail that way, you're going to have a lot of people looking at Meridian and that's their view of Meridian right there and that concerns me. Other than that I like everything else. Moe: Any other comments, Commissioners? Rohm: No, I have none. Marshall: In the same breath, though, I also like the idea of encouraging industrial growth and doing what we can to, you know, relax the rules when we can, too. So, I'm a little torn there. Moe: Uh-huh. Newton-Huckabay: I guess I -- Mr. Chair, I don't really have any concerns with that. don't think that -- they could be overthinking it for me. So, I would -- I'm comfortable with the text as written. Moe: Okay. Well, having said that, then -- Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on -- got to put my glasses back on. ZOA 09-001. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on ZOA 09-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. Meridian Planning and Zoning May 7, 2009 Page 23 of 23 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of the text change for ZOA 09-001 with no changes. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to approve ZOA 09-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Marshall: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:04 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED DAVID MOE -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK