Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 20, 2003 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 10 of 32 office uses along Overland Road and Millennium W ay in an L-O zone for proposed Maverick Subdivision by Dirk Marcum and Michael Riggs -south of East Overland Road on the west side of Millennium Way: Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our Agenda, CUP 03-045, request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify existing planned unit development to allow for office uses along Overland Road and Millennium Way in an L-O zone for proposed Maverick Subdivision, with a note that that name will be changed to Sage Crest, by Dirk Marcum and Michael Riggs. South of East Overland Road on the west side of Millennium Way, to include all staff comments of their memo for November 20, 2003, received by the clerk, November 14, 2003. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 03-054 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify commercial to include four out pads, 25,000 square foot retail and include Phase II of office complex in C-N and R-40 zones for Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 & 2 by Hopkins Financial Services, Inc. - 824 East Fairview Avenue: Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 03-055 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 25,000 square foot retail building with a drive up window in a C-N zone for Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 8. 2 by Hopkins Financial Services, Inc. - 824 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Okay. Thank you. The next items, Items No. 9 and 10, is Public Hearing CUP 03-054, request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify commercial to include four out paths, 2,500 square feet of retail, include phase three of office complex in the C-N and R-40 zones for Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 and 2 by Hopkins Financial and accompanying that is CUP 03-055, request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 2,500 square foot retail building, drive-up window, C-N zone, the same Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 and 2. I'd like to open both Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, before I give the staff report, I guess a point of clarification. I guess the applicant -- the exact applicant isn't -- Mr. Tamura is not here yet, but I think we will proceed. I think there is someone else to represent the project, but that's -- Borup: Do we have someone here? Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 11 of 32 Hawkins-Clark: On this first item, CUP 03-054, this is the application, the two that proposes to modify the conceptual plan and I don't think this Commission is any strangers to this piece of ground, something like the 12th application that we have had on it, but this particular change is related to really two main items and, again, we are talking about this 23 plus acres that is shown here on the north side of Fairview, quite a bit on the site. Some of the infrastructure work is under construction today, as you probably well know, if you travel Fairview. This aerial photo shows I think pretty well the area -- the Jackson Drain that's here at the northern end where the 96-unit apartment complex has been approved and, then, we have The Willows Subdivision to the north and Settler's Village and a carwash here to the east and, then, a mobile home park to the west. This frontage piece down here, I think it's something like 200 feet that is commercial adjacent to the Devon Park project and then, the balance of this entire west boundary is the mobile home residential use. The site plan -- the main difference -- let me go to the previously approved -- this kind of gives you the general overall area breakdown. This -- Area A, of course, is the apartment use, Area B is the office use, which now is proposed to expand down to the south and, then, Area C is the C-N zoning, which also has proposed office uses and, then, Area D is their kind of commercial retail area and then, what I have here on the screen is their -- their existing concept, which, as you can see, there is three pad sites on Fairview. The new one has shifted this pad site over on the west side of Lakes Avenue a nd then they have added a nother o ne here next to Dirty Harry's car wash. Then, the other major difference that this concept has is shifting this retail 25,000 square foot pad to the south and expanding their office use here, so that the office use actually comes down another couple hundred feet, so, as you can see, It's got a real similar layout. There are just those two main changes that they are proposing at this time. I think there are just two items to point out in the staff report. The first one is on page three, the finding B, and I outlined two areas there that I thought warranted the Commission's discussion. The first one deals with the Comprehensive Plan policy that sets a maximum square footage of 200,000 square feet in these mixed use areas. They are exceeding that by 20,000. However, we have another Comp Plan policy that says the acreage shall not be exceeded they can have no more than 25 acres of nonresidential. They are doing about 18, so I guess it's kind of a weighing difference between those two. Our opinion was that the 20,000 extra square feet really was -- since the Comp Plan is just a guide and that that met the target range and that it's well under the acreage amount, so -- Borup: And, also, by going from the C-G to L-O, they are doing kind of a less intensive also, isn't it? Hawkins-Clark: Right. That is -- yes. Yes. Expanding the amount of office and then, the second comp plan policy Iguess Iread -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Novemoer 20, 2003 Page 12 of 32 Zaremba: Brad, we aren't changing the zoning though, on it. Is that -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. Borup: They are taking some of their commercial zoning and -- or use and going into office use, which is generally a less intensive use. Zaremba: Similar to L-O, but they are not calling it that. Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Yes, and that particular Camp Plan policy doesn't distinguish between whether it's office or commercial, it's just something that's non- residential, but -- and we have had, I guess, not too many applications come in, in this mixed use community area of the Comp Plan. That was another reason to kind of just draw the Commission's attention to these policies that are really trying to encourage a different kind of commercial development pattern in the city. You know, in some ways I think that bringing up their -- you know, their buildings -- and they really have created a true mix of uses. I mean they have the retail, the office, and the residential all on the 23 acres, so it certainly meets the goal of getting mixed use in this area. The one design guideline that's in the Comp Plan deals with trying to create more of a sense of place with these mixed-use areas. It talks about if you have multiple freestanding buildings that are on one parcel and they are under one development, to try to design them in a way that creates more of a space for the employees to meet at lunch, for people to gather, rather than just the parking. They have provided an amenity as far as the public pathway that comes off of Fairview and heads up on the east side of Lakes Avenue and then, it will cross, come in front of the office complex. Then, come up to catch the Jackson Drain and that is going to be an open -- it will remain an open drain and then, there will be the pathway across there. That -- we certainly considered that one of their amenities and, then, the second amenity really has not been fully addressed. That's what we are asking for that to be clarified tonight. I understand that they are looking at when this eastern half of the project comes in with detailed conditional use, that they would provide an amenity at that time separate from the ten percent open space. I was told that by Mr. Tamura tonight, but we will ask for that clarification still. I think those are the two Comp Plan policies I wanted to point out and then, on page five we have our proposed conditions of approval and I don't think there are any changes there. Item Number 3 is that the buffers between land uses must be provided and I think the applicant's going to address that on this west boundary next to the mobile home park they are proposing a 20, instead of a 25. We wduld need that to be changed -- if the Commission agrees with that, we would need that to be changed in order to approve it at the time of the Building Permit and because of the way that I have it worded, they must provide it per the code, which is 25 feet. Then, Item Number 4 on Page 5 is talking about that aspect of getting another amenity and meeting the Comp Plan policy of either orienting some of these buildings to each other or creating a small open plaza, et cetera. Just propose that nomore than 50 percent of buildings in this area, which would be about 36,000 square feet, no more than that be approved until we have a commitment from t he d eveloper a bout w hat t heir a menity is g oing t o b e a nd how t hey a re Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 13 of 32 going to comply with that Comp Plan policy. Let's see, and then, Chairman, did you open both hearings? Borup: I did. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. I'm sorry. Then, on the next item we are talking about just this retail building itself, the 25,000 square feet of, yes, retail. They do have a proposed drive-thru on the eastern elevation. They are proposing to -- the elevation that they have here is a -- appears to be amulti-tenant design. We have not been given, either through the application or verbally, who the tenant is at this time, it's strictly showing a building shell with no commitment as to the actual user. The middle elevation that's shown here is the eastern that would face to the inside of the project and you can see their drive-thru window is probably a third of the way north oh the face and one of our conditions was we had a c oncern a bout traffic b acking u p i nto t his d rive a isle, which i s t he m ain drive aisle in front of the store for, you know, when people drop off family members or picking up loads of produce, et cetera, or product, whatever they are doing, to keep that free and clear, and they have submitted just tonight a revision that I think provides better stacking and would help to keep this free from any encroachments. I think the other change that we talked about was the Sanitary Service Company did ask about the trash enclosure, needing to relocate those so that they can pull straight in with their -- with their front loader trucks and their -- that modification has also been shown on the revision that they brought in tonight, and then, finally, we had a couple of comments a bout the -- haw the phasing of this is going to be done. We'd like some clarification if all of the unshaded area is going to be constructed at this time, in order to meet the city's parking requirement, they really only need to have the parking that's north of this aisle here about in the middle of the project. I guess we just wanted some more clarification on the timing and the phasing of this particular Conditional Use, if they are intending to do the entire thing. We were proposing a condition that said they need to improve the full Fairview frontage as part of this Conditional Use. They have applied for a planned sign program with our department already, that deals with Item Number 12, so that is -- that is underway. Then, Item Number 8, which dealt with the 23 foot wide drive aisles that were all of these here in the middle of the -- if I can -- that run north and south, these were shown at 23, the ordinance requires 25, and that change has also been made on -- with the revised plan tonight, to meet the 25 minimum. Staff is supportive of the application with these proposed changes. Borup: Thank you. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Does the applicant have -- Mr. Tamura did make it. Were you here for -- did you get filled in on some of the questions staff -- we just asked for clarification on? Tamura: Yes. I think I can address those. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 74 of 32 Tamura: Good evening, Commissioners -- Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Tamura, I'm the developer and applicant on this project. Should we start with the setback first or do you want to talk about the overall project? Borup: I think we are fairly familiar with the overall project. Like has been stated, this has been several times and, you know -- I don't know if there is a lot of questions on the project, so that might be good to talk about the -- on west side. Tamura: What I put in front of you is when we had an earlier CU, it showed the setback requirement t hat w e h ad a pproved with t hat C U, b ecause t he 2 5 foot landscape on the east side and a 20 foot landscape on the west side. When I spoke with Planning and Zoning and if you look at that matrix on the second page of that handout that gave you, I had handwritten in mobile home park. It seemed like when I working with Dave on that, he had said that he considered it a class two and, then, what I did was I highlighted zones, the R-8, R-15, and R- 40. Under your ordinance to have an approved mobile home park you got to be in one of those three zones, so two out of the three zones falls under a class two. If you look at the third page and it shows the -- you know, intensity class of proposed use, you know, and, then, how they relate to each other, so if you have a retail space, which is class four next to a class two mobile home park, it requires a 20 foot setback. The reason that we'd like to keep the 20-foot setback for us to meet the city ordinances and stuff, you can see that our parking lot lays out real well if we can maintain that 20-foot setback. The other thing that I had mentioned to Brad is that we have been working with Dirty Harry's on the east side. One of the things he'd like to do is eliminate his old wooden fence and, then, I think that when we come in for the detailed CU, that we will combine and put circulation through there and, then, do a shared landscaping along that space. You know, what we'd like to do is keep the 20 foot down to where we get to the commercial line and, then, potentially, we will work with the neighbors to the west of us t here o n doing some kind of combined landscaping there a nd, again, on the east side we are going to do the same thing. As far as the amenity packages that I talked to Brad, you know, one is we are proposing this ten foot pedestrian pathway to go along with the City of Meridian's pathway program and, then, the other thing is I think that when we come in for the detailed conditional use on our east phase of our project, we will go ahead and corporate some kind of common area open space in there. What we are hoping is that, you know, one, is we want kind of a neighborhood family shopping center and our major anchor that we have right now going to be a good one to attract, you know, that type of use and so what we are hoping is that we can attract at least one or two or three family restaurant type of situations, you know, where it's pizza or, you know, a family restaurant and so along with that I think we can create some open space that we can, you know, fit in with Meridian's PUD mixed use concept. The other thing that we did on this is you can see those changes that we have made are, one, we revised the parking to meet the 25 foot setback. The other thing we did is we turned the driving aisles on the drive-up window, so we are not conflicting with the main drive, so I think that's about it. The main thing is we'd like to request the 20 foot setback, if we could, be maintained on that west property line. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 15 of 32 Borup: Then, from what the staff report says, it looks like all the other comments that you already had revised a plan to -- to address those questions from any of the Commissioners? I don't know if there is a question on anything else. The buffer on the west may be one thing we may want some discussion on. Tamura: You know, I guess one other thing is the phasing issue. Borup: Okay. Tamura: I don't know if everyone's seen the site, but we have got all the curb, gutter, and sidewalks in back to this point here. You know, as long as weather holds out, we are supposed to have paved today, but, hopefully, we will get that road paved back to the cul-de-sac. Our plan is going through the winter that we are going to put in -- the next thing that we will do is we will put in all our sidewalks a long F airview. A long t hose s treets b ack t o the c ul-de-sac, w e a re planning on trying to get our -- all our trees planted this fall and, then, start working on putting in our ponds and our signs again this fall. By next spring we will have all the Fairview frontage will be completed, all this quarter back to the cul-de-sac, we will have all our street lights and trees installed. This winter we are planning on pressing ahead, putting in all the utilities for the parking lot for our office. We have got -- we are in for permits on these three buildings right now and I think the permits for these three buildings will be completed by next week and so we are planning on starting construction on that probably within the next two weeks. The tenant that we have right here, we have got a commitment that they need to be open by August of this next summer, so what we are hoping is to submit plans on that in January or February and be under construction this spring. On this issue right here, I think the only thing that we may not do, is like Brad had mentioned, right now our commitment parking lot wise, is from this access point back to the exhibit that we have to provide for him and since we don't have this tenant right now, we may hold off on just doing this one portion. But all the infrastructure and perimeter buffering and sidewalks will be in and so the only thing that we will have is we will keep this cleaned off as far as an open pad site. We are talking to a lender right now that potentially may be interested in doing that site, so we are hoping that within the next 30 to 60 days we will have a commitment, as soon as we announce who our main anchor tenant is. Right now, we'd like to leave that kind of open. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: A m l i nterpreting c orrectly t hat t his i s a ccess t o t he n ext p roperty? Should it be -- Tamura: Yeah. We can get that worked out. Zaremba: I would just make a comment on the 20 or 25-foot landscape buffer. If I were one of the neighbors to the west, I don't think the 20 feet in this portion of it would bather me at all, those are going to be smaller buildings with gaps in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 16 of 32 between them and there is -- you know, even if you're a neighbor, there is still an open feeling in places you could see through. The only place I really would want to consider whether or not it would be more possible would be along what's probably going to be a fairly large building with not very many breaks in it. Would you be able to do 25 feet just for that part of it? Tamura: You know, in lieu of that, what we had offered to do would be to space our trees tighter to provide more landscaping as a buffer, would work better for us. I guess on the building, if we had to -- well, even that is difficult with that drive-up window in there -- for us to provide all the -- the thing that kind of drove everything is that -- what we did was on that main boulevard between the main sidewalk. What we did was a license agreement with the highway district and we provided a 15-foot landscape buffer from the curb to the back of the sidewalks on each side of that boulevard, so that kind of created this real nice landscape boulevard. At that same time it pushed everything to the west and so it kind of scrunched us up over there, but what we'd like to do is, you know, if you see fit, would be to provide more landscaping versus moving that over five feet. Zaremba: Taller, larger trees to begin with? Tamura: Or, you know, just spacing on the trees. We'd just put them in there tighter. That's what we -- that's what we proposed on the -- on the east side against that residential neighborhood, we went ahead and proposed tighter spacing on all those trees, just to make sure that we had plenty of buffer. We haven't had any neighborhood opposition from the mobile home park, though. Zaremba: Okay. Brad, would staff be comfortable with that as a solution, more landscaping along that section as an alternative compliance, I guess, you call it. Borup: Also any comments on the -- if you had any comments on the classification. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I guess taking your latter point there first, I, to be honest, hadn't seen this Page 9 of 22 that Mr. Tamura just put in front of you tonight that talks about the 25 feet on the east and 20 feet on the west. I mean, certainly, this is a new application, so in some ways it's up for discussion again. Borup: But you're saying that was what was approved on -- Hawkins-Clark: I'm saying it was -- yeah, I did not realize it did actually have -- it was approved by City Council May 27, 2003 so, that's pretty recent. I don't know what the density is of the mobile home park. I'm guessing: that it's -- you know, it's probably around five or six, something like that. If you're looking at the classification chart from the code, you know, it has up to an R-8 that is a class one, but could a mobile home park be considered class two, along with multi- family dwellings, you know, I don't know, Ijust -- just received it, so really need probably more time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 17 of 32 _ Borup: Well, I think he stated those are the three zones that a mobile home park are approved in, eight, fifteen, and forty, but you need to -- wasn't that -- is that the case? Tamura: Conditional Use in those zones. Borup: It's a Conditional Use in each of those three zones? Tamura: Yes. Borup: So, those are the only three that -- Hawkins-Clark: It's a valid point and I do think that it bears some weight that we have had numerous hearings on this and we have not had any opposition from the mobile home park. I think that's part of the public hearing process is to help to determine these kinds of issues about separations. Borup: The other thing that I was thinking was a factor is if that property is ever redeveloped, it's probably not going to be residential next time, just given the location. Zaremba: Or even if it is, it's more likely to be larger apartment buildings or -- Borup: Right. Some -- yes. Zaremba: Taller buildings. Borup: Not a single family R-4 type of subdivision. Hawkins-Clark: I think on the first question about the landscaping be more intense, is that what -- Zaremba: Along the side of the big building I think is my concern. Hawkins-Clark: What I have shown here on the screen, they, actually, did not provide with their application a west elevation. The middle one here is the east elevation, which I was told verbally by Mr. Tamura that if you eliminate these service doors, delivery doors and, of course, the drive-thru window, you have, generally, what they are proposing and maybe -- is that correct? Tamura: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: So, you know, certainly it does provide some variation in building setback, you know, some materials that, you know, give a little bit more interest to the elevation than just a bare CMU block wall. I guess the question is if -- what would you be buffering without any service doors and without any drive-thru window and the purpose of the land use -- of the buffer between land uses is to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 18 of 32 help, you know, mitigate sound; mitigate light, mitigate any dust that's created by the more intense use. Borup: So, you're saying if that's the purpose of it, it's a mute point here, because there is no noise, lights, dust, that should be coming? Is that your point? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Yes. That was my point. I think to get to Commissioner Zaremba's point about the mass and it's a good point, too, I guess the question is -- for the Commission is do you think that the elevation that's shown here helps to breakup the mass or would additional landscaping that would be sort of penetrating vertically, you know, in here on this side, which is what you would see from the mobile home park, is that an advantage or a disadvantage or a moot point or -- so I think that's -- Zaremba: I w ould s ay if t he a pplicant h as offered t o p ut i n a c ouple o f e xtra trees, I would ask for that. Just my -- I'm just saying it breaks up the -- I realize there is some breakup to the appearance already, but -- Borup: And that -- I mean I think that's a good point. You know, the noise and lights and that aspect of a buffer is not necessary here, but we are talking about the esthetics of it and something a little more pleasant to -- Zaremba: As opposed to giving up another five feet of -- essentially, he would have to take it out of the building. There is no place else to get it. A couple of trees would be cheap and I think I'd ask for them. Borup: Okay. You're fine with that? Zaremba: And the rest of the project looks pretty good to me. I mean, as you say, we have talked through this concept in this area several times already. Borup: And we are finally getting up to where you got some tenants and that's what this has all been leading towards, so -- Tamura: Oh, yes. Zaremba: And I do agree with the staff, before further development on the east end, I think we would want to see the second amenity and kind of a courtyard kind of a thing, but I'm not sure it needs to be decided right this minute. Tamura: Okay. Zaremba: That's my personal opinion. Borup: Anything else? Tamura: Thank you for your time. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 19 of 32 Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Okay. No one at all this time. Zaremba: Well, that being the case, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on Items 9 and 10 on our agenda be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close Items 9 and 10. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 9 o n o ur a genda. CUP 03-054, request f or a Conditional Use Permit to modify commercial to include four out pads, 25,000 square foot retail, and include phase two of office complex in a C-N and R-40 zones for Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 and 2 by Hopkins Financial Services, 824 East Fairview Avenue. I would say that this refers to the plat submitted to us tonight, November 20`h. Is this a plat or just a drawing? Borup: That's just a drawing. I don't think the plat has changed any. Zaremba: Okay. Then, that doesn't' apply to that one. We will just say recommend approval with all staff comments of their memo of -- for the hearing date of the 20th, received by the Clerk November 14, 2003, with one change. On Page 5, condition of approval Number 3, we will accept the previous approved landscape buffer on the west side of 20 feet, with the addition of a couple of extra trees along the side of the retail building number one, which is the topic of current discussion. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, CUP 03-055, request fora Conditional Use Permit to construct a 25,000 square foot retail buildingwith a drive-up window in a C-N zone for Devon Park Subdivision No. 1 and 2 by Hopkins Financial Services, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 20, 2003 Page 20 of 32 Inc., 824 East Fairview Avenue. This time I do refer to the drawing that we received on November 20, 2003, and to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 201h, received by the Clerk November 14, 2003. Do we need to mention the trees again -okay, and next to the 25,000 square foot building in the 20-foot landscape setback there will be a couple extra trees beyond those required. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?,Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 11. Public Hearing: RZ 03-011 Request for a rezone of 9.34 acres from I-L to R-15 zones for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC - 1125 East Pine Street: Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 03-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 38 building lots and 17 other lots on 12.74 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC - 1125 East Pine Street: Item 13. Public Hearing: CUP 03-057 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family residential subdivision requesting reduced setbacks, parking standards, and dimensional requirements in a proposed R-15 zone for proposed Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC - 1125 East Pine Street: Borup: We are moving tonight. As mentioned earlier, I don't know if any of those that came in late -- Item 11, 12 and 13 have been continued to our December 18`n meeting, so, our next item will be Item Number 14. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, do we need a motion to actually do that? Borup: Oh. Green: No. It's just renoticed. Borup: Oh, that's right. This one was renoticed. Okay. I guess it's not even continued specifically. Item 14. Public Hearing: CUP 03-056 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor soccer center in an existing business park in an I-L zone for Meridian Soccer Center by Meridian Soccer Property -south of East Franklin Road, west of South Locust Grove Road on East Piper Court: