Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 18, 2003 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 2 of 119 Borup: Yes. The technical part of the project is not -- Zaremba: Is accurate anyhow, so -- Borup: So, when it gets to City Council it should be correct, hopefully. Zaremba: Okay. I will say, then, that I have no changes to make. Borup: Okay. I think it was Cedar Crest. Zaremba: Cedar is what I thought I heard, but I don't think it -- Green: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe the applicant did say Cedar Crest, but is supposed to be Sage Crest. Borup: Oh. Okay. Green: But I believe the applicant did say that, though. Zaremba: Okay. In that case, we will leave it Sage Crest. In that case, having noted that we don't have the minutes of October 16th, Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of -- what was it? November 20, 2003. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Thank you. The two of you are going to be doing a lot both tonight. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from November 6, 2003: CUP 03-050 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new bank facility with drive up tellers in an OT zone for Farmers and Merchants State Bank by CSHOA - 703 North Main Street: Borup: The first item is a Continued Public Hearing from November 6th, CUP 03-050, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new bank facility with drive-up tellers in Old Town zone for Farmers and Merchants Bank. I would like to -- this was a continued hearing again from that day. We'd like to open the hearing at this point and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the Farmers and Merchants Bank project. Since the continued date, you will remember that they requested a continuance at that time, so that they could work on a revised plan for the bank building. That has been submitted and I will show it to you here in just a second. The location of the property that they own is, actually, just behind City Hall. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 3 of 119 City Hall where we are right now sits on this property on Idaho right behind us. Facing Broadway Avenue is the property owned by Farmers and Merchants Bank. Their existing facility on Main Street is on this portion of the property right here. This is an existing zoning map. You can see the existing zoning of Old Town throughout this area and, then, other residential and industrial zones across Meridian Road. Here is an aerial photo from a couple of years ago. You can see City Hall right here. The existing bank building here. This is the old fire station that has since been demolished and is the site of the new bank structure. This is the proposed revised site plan. To get into that a little bit, I will start referencing the staff report. It is a -- the revised plan is for a 16,000 square foot full service bank building. The original application was for a --just a building just over 7,000 square feet, roughly the same area in plan view, but the original one was more of an office park style building with a hip roof, single story, and they have since changed the building to be more in character with the historic buildings of downtown. They are doing a second story. They have taken design elements from other older buildings in downtown with parapets and they are incorporating those into the revised plan. Staff is quite pleased with the revision of the building. It's, actually, more historically accurate with the other buildings that we have and, like I say, we are pleased with those changes. The applicant is proposing to have the options of -- you can see a silhouette on this corner of where the existing big building sits, overlaid with their proposed plan to provide a plaza and parking in this location. The request is to have the option of removing the existing bank structure and replacing it with the facilities that are s hown. They'd I ike t hat t o b e a n approval t hat's n of r equired a nd t hat they would have the option -- staff, actually, prefers that the bank building stay, which I will get into in just a minute in the additional considerations. In fact, let's just go there now. If you turn to Page 5 of the staff report, special consideration number one is the existing structure. The quote from the application says that Farmers and Merchants request that this portion of the development be approved as submitted, but not required if the bank desires to retain the existing building. The existing building -- let me go to -- here is a site photo of that existing building today. I don't know if I have -- okay. Staff's preference is to have that existing building remain, since it's on Main Street, helps to provide some of that continuous facade along Main Street, and could be used by another tenant when they move out. O ur s uggestion would b e to h ave t his b uilding remain. That said I do want to point out some positive elements of the proposal, if the Commission and Council do find that it should be allowed to be demolished. They are -- what they are proposing is a plaza -- a small plaza in the front here along Main Street with pavers and trees in grates. If I switch to the landscape plan here, the circles are a bit difficult to pick out at this scale, but there are trees in grates. They have a landscaped area between the plaza and the parking area and along the back. They are also proposing three benches and a flagpole within this plaza. Another plus is the existing drive-thru that is between the Farmers and Merchants building and the bank to the north is completely abandoned in this option. That is special consideration number one. The second consideration has to do with parking on the site. The amount of parking that they are proposing did meet the required number of the original smaller building, but now that they are proposing a larger two-story building, the amount of parking is less than the ordinance would require and will require a Variance. Staff is in support of that Variance. We are not trying to encourage lots of surface parking Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 4 of 119 downtown and we would support a variance to that ordinance, because we are -- the reason for it is the change in the building and we are very much in support of the changes they have made to the building. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Steve? Siddoway: Yes Zaremba: May I interrupt for a second? Is your parking count including the optional change or not the optional change? Siddoway: The parking count that I have in here -- Zaremba: Are you counting the parking where the old building is or not counting that? Siddoway: In the numbers that I have in here it includes everything on there. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: I think I gave both numbers, actually, if it went away, because I think there are 11 spaces it is there. Zaremba: I did not see that. Siddoway: Let's see. I know it's in here. I will find it, but -- Zaremba: But the 59 includes -- Siddoway: Well, the 59 are what are there today. That's -- Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Siddoway: That is not what they are proposing. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: Page 2, the first finding is that the site is large enough to accommodate all yards, open spaces, parking, and landscaping. The finding that we -- that staff finds that it's large enough to require the open spaces and landscaping, but not parking. The site accommodated the required number of parking stalls for the original submittal, but the revised plan does not meet parking requirements based on the larger structure. As I said, we support that. The calculations are in the second paragraph. It's 16,000 square feet, which the bank would require one space per 200, for a total of 80 spaces. The proposed site plan has 46 spaces on it, eleven of which are on the existing site. In addition to that, there are 13 new diagonal parking spaces out along Broadway, for a Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 5 of 119 total of 59 stalls far the project. If the existing structure were to remain, the total for the site would be 48. Zaremba: Thank you. Siddoway: The existing site today -- sorry to flip through these so fast. Let me go to the aerial photo. This is City Hall and this is the parking lot where probably most of us are parked tonight. Nine of those spaces that exist today are, actually, reserved for Farmers and Merchants tenants. The other 50 are pretty much used by the general public, many of whom deal with City Hall. These spaces will likely no longer be available upon development of this project. The city does own on a parking lot on the south side of Broadway just adjacent to the creamery and the proposed site plan does accommodate pedestrian access through the project with crosswalks through here and, then, also across the alley here to get to the back door of City Hall. They have thought about how to get people from the city owned parking lot to the existing City Hall. Any questions about that? The third item --the third paragraph under parking has to do with the striping out in front and this is kind of a minor tweak, but a fairly important one. The striping that -- the diagonal striping here begins at this location and cars coming and making a left turn will have to swing out and around. If you look here, striping ends quite a bit from the edge of this curb and so this recommendation is just to take this whole bay of parking and shift it west about nine feet and it will work better for both drive -- driveway entrances. Item Number 3 has to do with signage for the project. The applicant's proposal is that they be allowed to keep the existing Farmers and Merchants pylon sign on Main Street. They also show a second new pylon sign out along Meridian Road and the current sign ordinance is actually silent on sign issues related to Old Town. The signage needs to be approved with the application tonight, it's up to the Commission, and Council to determine what is appropriate signage for this site. Staff's suggestion is that only one freestanding sign should be approved for the project. I can go back to the photo of the existing sign on Main Street. In talking with the applicant right b efore t he meeting, they -- t he a pplicatiori d oes s ay t hat t hey would p ropose a second pylon sign similar to this on Meridian Road. They have given me an option that has a monument sign on Meridian Road, which I will let the applicant address with you. We can put that up for everyone to see. We did suggest that if the Meridian Road sign were the one freestanding sign, that it would be a monument as well. That's in there, too. For wall signs, if we go to the elevations, they are really difficult to see at this scale, but they have some on building signage on the south and on the west sides of their building. The second paragraph in there says that the applicant should verify the location a nd maximum s ize for all s igns a t t he h Baring a nd that i f t he b uilding --the multi-tenant structure, any future signs for future tenants would require Conditional Use approval, unless they are approved tonight, basically, and they are prepared to address that issue tonight. Item Number 4 deals with the drive-thru. The drive-thru is located on the west side of the project. When you look at the elevation, you can see that it is a covered drive-thru and has a second story over the top of it. Since the initial pre- application meetings on this project, staff has always encouraged them to look at a site layout that would allow them to access the drive-thru off the alley, instead of having it face Meridian Road. Staff just raises that for discussion tonight and would ask the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 6 of 119 applicant to address that and why it may not be feasible to do that, for frontage along Meridian R oad, o ur hope h ad been to g et the building up to M eridian R oad w ith t he access of the drive-thru off the alley. Item Number 5 deals with the streetscape and I will just -- staff is very pleased with what they are proposing with the streetscape. They worked with us very closely to get details of the existing construction of streetscape along Main Street and they are matching those details along both Broadway and Main Street. City Hall has a couple of street trees on Meridian Road. I guess I said Main Street. Sorry. On Meridian Road right over here. This would be continuing that. There are already existing trees on Main Street that come and turn this corner and, then, they would be continuing them down and making a continuous street scrape. They are also proposing the wider sidewalks, consistent with the other areas of downtown, and the parks department has submitted revised comments that deal with the design of those tree wells that should be incorporated into any conditions of approval. The last item and an item that's maybe not directly related to the applicant, but certainly for the project. The ACHD report for this project says that they will not allow any pavers to be placed in the right of way and, really, all of the pavers are in the right of way. Along the sidewalks, surrounding each of the tree wells, along the back of curb. There are pavers shown. The Parks Department prefers the pavers around the tree wells, because it allows for air and water infiltration to the root zone of the trees. It's something that we are going to have to workout with ACHD. I just put in here that I would report on the status of it. I have had conversations with ACHD staff. They said that to -- that their report stands per their policy and that any change to that will have to be worked out between the City Council and the ACHD commission. I will try and get that on their agenda as soon as possible, because we would sure like to have those pavers that are designed to patch the rest of downtown. I do have some photos of that as well. I would point out that this is the old style tree grate downtown. It's a very small tree well and it's surrounded, as you can see, by the pavers. The new standard, as you see here, these were kind of close to one another. The new standards for asix-foot tree gate and the parks department is slowly going through and retrofitting all existing downtown trees to be t his d esign. T his i s t he n ew s tandard for a II d owntown t rees and t hat's w hat w e would hope to get at this project. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Steve, while you're on the subject and have the picture there. I would guess that ACHD's objection to the pavers is what we see in that picture, that over time they become uneven and possible tripping -- inviting somebody to trip on them. I like the new well design for trees with a grate. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: My suggestion would be to explore with ACHD for the decorative treatment where pavers are proposed along the curb line -- Siddoway: Yes which is like this. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meefing December 18, 2003 Page 7 of 119 Zaremba: -- that perhaps it be changed to stamped concrete, which could look like pavers, but not really be pavers and it may actually be cheaper than installing the pavers, but certainly a less maintenance problem over the time. Siddoway: Yes so, we will work that out with ACHD. One of the reasons why these do buckle is because the tree well is so small, it's just become a real problem, and these will resolve that issue. Well noted. Thank you. I guess that's all I have and I'll stand for any other questions. Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Slocum: Good evening. Craig Slocum with CSHOA Architects representing Farmers and Merchants Bank this evening. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think I'll just follow t he s ame s equence t hat Steve did a nd j ust w alk t hrough s tarting w ith t he special conditions and maybe give you just a little more insight on a few of those items. The first item is regarding the existing structure and throughout the process, which has been about 11 months since we started working with Farmers and the city to look at what we were going to do on this site, the time frame and scheduling is part of the issue here. When they start construction of the new facility, the old facility is going to stay and operate, so it will be there at least through the point that the new facility is up and running. The bank is in the process of evaluating the possibility of using it for another tenant or selling it. It is a building that part of the reason they are going to build the new building is that it is not in the best of condition. It may appear so on the exterior, but it is -- uses a lot of energy. It has some poor mechanical and HVAC -- and just has some issues. That's the reason why, as we talked to staff, we have submitted plans, both site plan and landscape plan, for the option that it stays and for the option that it's gone. The owner simply is trying to not have to -- if a decision is made at a future date, once the new building is up, doesn't want to have to go through a long drawn-out process in order to get rid of that structure, if they determine that it financially doesn't make sense to keep it. That's what led us to the request to have approval of either option. The parking issue, which is item number two, we, actually, are in the process of and will probably have the variance package submitted next week. We don't think we have a problem w ith t hat. We r ecognize t hat P tanning a nd Z oning i s w orking a n d owntown design standards and part of those design standards are that there not be a lot of parking and that it's dwelt with in city-owned lots and parking garages in the future. So, I think that our proposal is in keeping with where we are going to be going in the future in Meridian. The sign -- the signage is -- the one issue that Steve brought up that we did have some conversation on today and I don't know if you want me to hand these out to you. Steve is going to put it up. Our original proposal was, as Steve mentioned, to keep the existing pylon sign that is on Main Street and provide a new pylon sign on Meridian. Not at the corner of Meridian and Broadway, but, basically, at the intersection of the alley and Meridian. As we received the staff report and had some further discussion, what we are proposing this evening is a compromise between where staff was, which was one or the other, we'd like to propose that we are able to keep that existing pylon sign that is out there today, as we may keep the building. On Meridian Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 1B, 2003 Page 8 of 119 Road, provide the monument sign that is on the screen and that we have presented to you this evening. It would allow for the possibility of same other tenants. As we went from the single story branch bank of 6,300 square feet to the 16,000 now, obviously, it's more square footage than the bank is going to take and there will be the possibility to lease some of that square footage on the second floor. That's -- the other plan that -- the elevation, originally, just had a Farmers and Merchants sign on the south and east elevations and in those same locations we would propose that, again, we have the ability, if we do get tenants, to have the tenant have a sign on that same facade as well. The fourth item, which is on -- discusses the staff desire to have the drive-thru on the alley side of the building, is really a function of the depth of the site and trying to get the diagonal on-street parking, a nice size sidewalk with street scape, the functional space we needed for the bank. What you're left with is not enough depth to get the kind of drive-thru that the bank needs to function adequately and, thus, we are left with the site plan we have today. Its presence, as you look at the elevations, I think is still esthetically pleasing for Meridian Road. It doesn't have the same up-against-the-street urban feel as Broadway will or what we would envision on Main Street in the future, but we have been through many reiterations on the site plan and we are happy with this and it functions well for the bank and I think it's still a good site plan for the city. I'm not going to address the streetscape. We have worked many hours with staff to make sure we are in keeping with where they are headed with the rest of the city. The pavers -- we would -- the client, actually, Tuesday, expressed that they prefer pavers, but we were kind of bow to whatever staff can work out with ACHD. ACHD did indicate we could do stamped concrete, which is cheaper, but it has a different look. We will go with whichever staff can work out with ACHD. The only other item that I wanted to just bring up this evening is the ACHD report that is included with your staff report has one standard condition in it that we are currently addressing with them. There is an aboveground irrigation box on the south side of the existing bank and right where Steve has the arrow. It currently exists in the ACHD right of way. Their standard condition is that any irrigation facilities be relocated outside of their right of way. Our civil engineers have discussed that with the irrigation agency that has jurisdiction over that box and it's an extremely expensive process to relocate that facility and they, in fact, have written a letter to ACHD indicating they don't want to have any part about moving it. It needs to stay where it is today. What we have proposed to ACHD is to face it with the same brick that we are using on the building and we have modified our site plan to provide concrete around it, so that it's not sticking out in between parking where we had originally had it when they did their staff report. I guess as we look for a motion as we end the evening, we would, I guess, just make sure that's in there, that we are currently working through that requirement that ACRD has and hope to, by City Council, have it worked out. I think that's all I wanted to cover this evening and would stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commission? Zaremba: Yes. Let me start with the existing structure, if I may. Slocum: You bet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 9 of 119 Zaremba: I'm with staff. I guess I could go either way. This is an attractive building from the outside, as you say, and it would be nice to have it remain and possibly could be used for another tenant. I'm also attracted to your proposal for the little plaza that would be on the front of it, kind of a park area. I understand your need to continue the use of it while the new building is being built. Would you be comfortable with having the option to keep it or remove it, but having the option to have a sunset, like one year after the n ew building is occupied, where you either have to f ish o r cut bait at that p oint, rather than just leaving it an open option forever. Slocum: Forever. I can't speak, specifically, for my client and -- although I'm not sure Terry, y ou w ant t o either. Terry i s t he b ranch manager. I t hink t hat d ecision w ould probably be made within -- and maybe if there were maybe 18 months. I'm thinking a year it probably would be made, but I guess if that's the way the' Commission wanted to make t heir m otion, u nderstanding w e c ould h ave s ome t ime t b d iscuss t hat w ith o ur client before we had final ruling for Council, but I believe the client would be open to something along those lines, yes. Borup: Commissioner -- I guess I'm wondering does it really make any difference if it happens, you know, one year or three years or -- Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Borup: I mean -- because both options are acceptable, both option are compatible. Zaremba: Okay. I'm just trying to -- Borup: Yes. I just wondered what -- Zaremba: Staff, in their administration of this, there has to be a closing point at some time, I think. Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, I'm not sure we can limit him. Part of the reason that we have suggested that he leave it is because, technically, it's on -- well, i is o n t he h alf o ftwo I egal I ots f rom t he o riginal town s ite. This project s ite i s comprised of 11 or 12 original town site lots, so I'm not sure we can take away his lot lines from him. I mean I think, technically, he could decide at a later date to take it down and we have been encouraging him to keep it, just because of that reason. He doesn't have to do a subdivision they could sell it right now if they wanted to. I'm not sure we could tell him, no, he can't take it down. We might be able to restrict putting accessory parking on it, but I don't think we could restrict him from tearing it down in the future and asking for accessory parking on it, but -- Borup: But if it is torn down in the future, the present design is what would be obligated to put in; is that correct or something very similar. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 10 of 119 Zaremba: Yes. My assumption is that these are the two choices and there is not an alternate. Borup: Okay. Does that kind of answer that? You were going to say something, commissioner Rohm? Rohm: Well, yes. That's what I was to going to speak to, is if, in fact, the building is to be removed at a later date the second option for the plaza would be a requirement to fill that space. Can -- is that in keeping with the zoning department? Powell: Well, q uite h onestly, i f they w anted t o -- i f they s old t hat I of a nd s omebody wanted to tear it down, I think we would allow them to build another building in its place, if that's what they wanted to do. I mean the idea behind staff requesting that the building remain is to keep that urban fabric up on Main Street, to have those continuous store frontages, rather than having the open plaza. If they decided to put the plaza in, I guess it would be okay. We don't see much need for it right there at this time, but there could be need in the future. Borup: Okay. Rohm: So, what would be wrong with just excluding that existing structure from this application period and just say we are going to address the new building and parking spaces and all of the associated changes to the new structure and leave that out of this proposal altogether? Powell: We have asked them to do that, but they didn't want to, they wanted to come to you with these options, because their intent is to tear it down and put the parking in. It is on a separate lot or could be, you know, combined in a separate lot. You could consider that as an option. Borup: So, it sounds like, really, the applicant has some -- a lot of flexibility here and can kind of do whatever they want, but they would have to work real close with staff. Powell: Yes and you have some flexibility, too. I mean you could exclude it from their project if you wanted to, but I'm sure that that would prevent them from tearing it down and building a plaza if they wanted to, because -- Rohm: Well, I think when we get to the signage, it will raise its head again, I guess, and maybe we should just move to that, talk about the signage for a moment, and see what your thoughts are on that. Zaremba: I would go there and I guess my question is if it's a separate legal lot, they, actually, could have 11 signs, can't they? How can we prevent that? Borup: Well, because there are some conditions in the sign ordinance but the thought I had -- I mean this is a parcel that's on -- but it's on two -- actually, it's on -- this site is on Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18. 2003 Page 11 0( 119 three separate streets. I mean you have got -- you got frontage on Meridian and on Main Street. It seems logical to have a major sign on both streets. Zaremba: Well, particularly, if you have got another tenant in there, they would want signage of some sort for their business. Let me ask staff. Are you thinking that if this building remains and there were some other tenant in there, what would their signage be? Borup: That's incorporated on the same -- Siddoway: I would say that they could keep the existing sign if there is change out who the tenant is, but the existing sign would be grandfathered in with the existing structure. Zaremba: Okay and if they take the structure down, they are clearly going to take the sign down. Slocum: No. That's not our proposal. No. Zaremba: Oh. I'm sorry. I was thinking if you put the plaza there, this sign would go as part of that. Slocum: No. The plaza design has the sign remaining, as well a flag pole and the plaza with benches and trees and -- Zaremba: I missed that detail. Slocum: The signage request didn't change with the two alternative site plans. Borup: While we are on the signage, you have given us a design for a monument sign on Meridian. Is that -- is that your preference or is that something that's -- that's a big concern either way? Slocum: Our -- this evening what we are saying in lieu of the two pylon signs existing, plus the new the one on Meridian, would be to do a monument on -- Borup: Right. I understand. Is your preference still to have a pylon sign on Meridian? Slocum: Yes. Rohm: I guess my question, fundamentally, is why does the applicant want to keep this all as one application, the Meridian Road new development, along with that along Main Street? Is there -- what's the value to keeping it as one? Slocum: I would say that it stemmed from probably the 10-month process and many discussions with staff and with Farmers. Our original layout when we went into Planning a nd Zoning had the b wilding b eing d emolished. We h ad many d iscussions Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 20D3 Page 12 of 119 about some desire to possibly keep that structure, which -- and staff is still indicating such. Farmers recognizes that desire and says maybe it's something we can do. We will look into it financially, if it makes sense to us, and, thus, we did a separate site plan that said here is how it would be if the building stayed. If we can find a way, that it makes sense to Farmers and Merchants to keep that building up in lieu of demolishing it, that's the alternative site plan. From day one Farmers, initial proposal was to take it down and that's why we continue to have that as a site plan that we request your approval on. Rohm: Well, I guess what my question is is we don't have to approve you tearing down that structure and so if that's the case, then, the development of the new property isn't contingent upon any changes to the existing period, in my mind. Borup: Other than they want to have a cohesive design and have it altogether. Rohm: Well -- and, yes, I guess you will tie together if, in fact, they choose to down the road, but the -- from -- from here -- Slocum: We can stop it right there. Rohm: -- everything is going to remain the same regardless of what you do with the existing -- with the existing bank; is that correct? If you don't change this at all, everything from here west will be just the same in any option. Slocum: Other than -- and I don't know if Steve has the alternative site, but you get a few more parking stalls abutting what is the existing bank, but very minor. Rohm: That's if you -- Slocum: If you kept the building there. Rohm: Oh, if you kept it and took the drive-thru out or something? Slocum: No. The existing bank structure would -- he's saying that -- well, you're talking about removing the drive-thru in that design, aren't you, there? Slocum: Steve, do you have the site plan that has -- Borup: That one has the existing building. Slocum: You would get some additional 90 degree parking right here, if this stays with the bank building in its place. That's very minor, but, yes, irregardless of what's west of that property line would stay the same. I guess from that standpoint, Commissioner Rohm, what we -- what we feel we have done is to provide the opportunity to be a more cohesive project. I think you're right Farmers could tear down if they so desired. What we are doing in front of you this evening is saying we have planned out the whole thing, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 13 of 119 approved that, and if we can't -- or if we can meet staffs desire to try to keep that building, we will do it. Rohm: So, you're agreeable to an either/or, you either leave the building as it currently is or the plaza as the -- as is the -- Slocum: That's what we have presented and it's probably truly better for the city to do that, than, to not even address the existing bank, I would think. Rohm: And that seems in keeping, because that's -- the staff would like to see something there, other than just open space. Slocum: They'd like a structure. Yes. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Let me ask a question to staff on that pylon sign. Are we -- what was the main concern there? I'm looking at -- you know, it's a two story structure where the sign is going to be muted by the building itself. Are you trying to establish a precedence for future development along Main Street -- on Meridian Road or -- Siddoway: Yes, sir. It's about -- whether we want to be encouraging pylon signs for each new building that comes in downtown or whether we are trying to do something different than that, when you go to most downtowns, pylon signs aren't part of them. Meridian Road may be more of through way and maybe mdre able to handle a free- standing sign, than, the future of Main Street as I see it, but the monument sign certainly is a less intrusive option than a really tall pylon sign that you would expect to see along Fairview or somewhere else. That was our thought. Borup: Are there any restrictions on the size of this signage on the building? Siddoway: We would just approve it as proposed tonight. I don't know if you know the dimensions those, do you? Borup: Well, they are not real large. That's why I -- Siddoway: No. Borup: Was that intentional to have it rather subdued and -- I mean I think you'd get more attention from a good signage on the building, rather than a pylon sign even. Slocum: I don't think the bank is not a retail or a big box retailer that, you know, wants the biggest sign they can get, so I think it's -- I think it's just well sized and we are not looking for -- Meridian Planning antl Zoning Commission Meetlng December 18, 2003 Page 14 of 119 Borup: Well, maybe -- maybe rather than you addressing that, staff may go ahead on the next item, I think, which is the drive-thru. The only comment I have there is I understand what staff is trying to say on the proximity of Meridian Road, but in this situation, again, I think a two story really mutes the effect of that drive-thru. Looking at those elevations, it doesn't look like a standard drive-thru. It really does minimize that. I think it gives the effect of having the building out there, even though there is a drive-thru on there. Any comments from other Commissioners? Zaremba: I think in support of that, I had the same kind of feeling. If it had been -- Borup: Single story? Zaremba: -- what apparently was the original proposal where it was a single story building and this would have been totally out in the open, I would been very strongly in favor of staff's comment to use the drive-in -- drive-thru a little bit. The appearance of the new elevations where there is a second story which does come out pretty much to the end of the property or the available building area, I think changes the appearance of the drive-thru. It looks more like a building than adrive-thru. At least by the elevations that I 'm I ooking a t a nd I w ould b e c omfortable w ith a n ew d esign. l u nderstand t he constriction of, you know, what all would have to be reconfigured to move that drive-thru internally and externally would be extreme. I think adding the second story and bringing that out to cover the drive-thru satisfies me. Borup: Okay. A ny o f t he C ommissioners f eel t here i s a nything e Ise t hat s hould b e addressed? Zaremba: Yes. I want to go back to the signs. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I wouldn't have any problems with the sign in front of the old building staying if the old building stays. I wouldn't have any problem with that sign going away if the building goes away. I'm a little uncomfortable with leaving that sign if there is no building next to it. However, I understand if that current building is gone, the need to identify the business to the traffic that's on Main Street. Would you be willing to put a second monument sign there instead? It means removing the current sign and paying for a sign that doesn't exist, but to make two matching monument signs, one on Meridian where you propose it, and one where the current sign is? Part of the plaza. Slocum: I know that that is certainly not their preference and -- Zaremba: It's cheaper to leave the current sign. I know. Slocum: Well -- and I think Chairman Borup asked earlier and maybe I didn't answer. I think he asked of the monument on Meridian was preference and if he was asking if -- their preference would be to have a pylon sign on both streets. I think as I sat down Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 15 of 119 with the client on Tuesday and reviewed staffs report, we felt that we could try to come to some middle ground and do the monument sign on Meridian, because it's a new sign anyway, and if we can just keep the one that's on Main Street, that would certainly be the desire. Zaremba: Anybody else have an opinion about that? Rohm: Well, as long as that existing structure is there, I think it's a mute point. I think the existing signage with the existing building, is so unrelated to the new development that I don't even think we need to go there. That's -- Zaremba: I agree with you. If the existing building remains, I would make no change to the existing sign. My concern is that you have this big -- the building goes away, they are planning on leaving that exact sign there. Slocum: Right. Zaremba: And that would I don't think be attractive. Borup: Probably give them more reason to leave the building. Zaremba: They need to identify the business that's on the property. Borup: Maybe give them more reason to leave the building, if they'd lose their sign, but Zaremba: Does staff have an opinion? Siddoway: On the issue of whether to just ignore this site completely or include it, I would be in favor of including it. I do favor the option. I do like the idea of saying if the building stays the sign stays, if the building goes, then, the sign should go, I think, and the plaza and the other improvements should be put in as shown. Whether or not you want to allow it to be replaced with a monument sign doesn't conflict with the ordinance and would be up to -- up to the Commission. I think one of the best parts about including the entire property as part of the application, rather than considering chopping it off and not talking about it, is the fact that considering altogether you get the related street improvements as part of the -- part and parcel with this project along Broadway. It gives a finished edge to the entire Broadway Avenue, which I'm sure the applicant would want. I think the city would want as well. If we ended it -- ended the discussion here, you know, get improvements, but this would remain kind of unconnected and this way we get a continuous street scope from Main to Meridian. Zaremba: On that subject, have you read the parks department's new memo? Slocum: We have and, actually, have had two or three discussions between myself, our landscape architect, and understand where they are going and our fine with -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 16 of 119 Zaremba: Comfortable with it. Slocum: -- comfortable with that. I guess maybe addressing a little bit, as I maybe sense an end to our discussion coming, I guess I would ask the Commission to recognize the -- the type of financial effort being put into this by Farmers and Merchants to really be a catalyst to the development of downtown Meridian. We went through and did complete construction documents on a single story branch building and as an architect, maybe it wasn't my favorite design to have in downtown Meridian, but that's what our client felt they could financially put down here. I think in the staff report Steve mentions that about a month ago Tom Hudson, Hudson and Company, who has been hired to do a market study for the Urban Renewal Agency here, got wind of the Farmers and Merchant's submittal that was in, saw it, and had a meeting with Farmers and Merchants. Really, I guess called upon their sense of commitment to the City of Meridian and that's what led us to this drastic change and an additional 10,000 square feet that is going to cost a lot of money. I think they are .committed to being in downtown Meridian, but I don't think as it regards signage and some of the things that -- while they aren't a big box retailer, if they are going to stay in downtown and be successful in downtown, the public needs to know where they are and signage is a big part of that. I guess I just ask that we maybe keep same of what's being proposed here in mind. I have no doubt that the single story suburban-looking bank property would have ultimately got approved. I don't think it would have been the right thing for Meridian. I'm happy to be in front of you tonight with what we have got and hope that -- that's why I say, I don't think Farmers and Merchants at all needed to do this as an overall project, but they want the overall project to be good. I think it's to the city's benefit that we are doing that. I don't think it's to Farmers and Merchants' benefit. I think that their effort to work with Steve and Anna and staff and -- I mean they are in downtown, they are in chamber, they are with all of you. They don't want to make a project here that isn't a high quality successful project and they are just looking for some balance to make sure that it can be that. I guess that's my plea. Borup: Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: Thank you. I think you have done an excellent ,job putting this proposal together. I'd like you to stay, but I have a question of staff. Have you reviewed the optional plaza with the inclusion of the existing signage as their option if the building were to go away? Have you taken a close look at that and -- to see if there is anyway that would work as far as your staff's opinion? Borup: Maybe just one comment I might have on that. The sign is at the intersection, it's at the corner of the two sidewalks, so it's not out in the middle of where the plaza would be, so it's nearer the sidewalk on the corner. Go ahead, Steve. Siddoway: I would say, yes, we definitely reviewed it and it would -- their site plan shows this sign remaining, so if you -- it's hard to see at the scale that we have this at, but if you want to point to it, Craig. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee[ing December 18, 2003 Page 17 of 119 Hood: Right there, Steve? Borup: Yes. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. I'd like to just try to summarize what we have discussed here, just so that -- before we move to the public testimony we have some continuity. It seems like this is the option that everyone would prefer is to include all the property, have an option on the building, and, then, the signage to remain as is from the existing structure, with a monument sign for the newly developed property and that would in keeping with the applicant's best wishes. That seems to encapsulate what we would like to move forward with at this point in time and -- Borup: So, it sounds like the staff conditions -- the only addition to the conditions that you're proposing to make is probably that on the signage, changing the pylon sign to a monument sign. Rohm: And I'm not sure that I'm even in support of changing it. I kind of concur with the applicant that the existing signage -- Borup: No. I'm talking about the new one. Rohm: Oh, yes. The monument sign. Borup: Is that what you meant? Rohm: Yes. Absolutely. Zaremba: So, we are talking about the new sign on Meridian Road. Rohm: The monument. Zaremba: The monument sign. Rohm: Right. Zaremba: And I think the presentation of it. Borup: And other than that would be -- Zaremba: But allowing the current sign to remain, even if the building goes away. Rohm: Exactly. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 18 of 119 Borup: But isn't that what we would be doing if we accept the staff conditions because all that other is already submitted on the plans? We are not making any modification to the plans, so -- Zaremba: Yes. Under conditions of approval, I don't see it to state to remove that sign. Slocum: Yes. Number 4 does. It recommends one freestanding sign, either the Pylon sign that's existing or a monument on the Meridian, and that is the one that the applicant would request it be both. Zaremba: I didn't read the -- Borup: Right. Slocum: And I would point out in regards to that item, as Steve and I talked, his recommended condition of approval indicates compliance .with the L-O standards. Since there aren't any standards in Old Town, that's what staff has indicated to use as a guideline and the monument sign that we presented this evening falls within the guidelines. Borup: So, you would propose to change that sentence to two freestanding signs? Slocum: Correct. Borup: And say one pylon -- Slocum: One pylon -- Borup: -- and one monument on Meridian Road. Zaremba: Take out the word either. Borup: And change or to and. Zaremba: Change or to and is all we need to do. The wall signs are as shown on the new -- I'm comfortable with that. Okay and then, any additional signs. Sure. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Good job. Thank you. Slocum: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 1 S, 2003 Page 19 of 119 Zaremba: Okay. I would only comment that I'm aware that Farmers and Merchants has been a strong supporter, advocate, and presence in our Old Town downtown area for a long time. They for many years have offered and permitted City Hall to use their property far parking and they have been cooperative in many ways. This is a group of people that have Meridian's interest in mind and I appreciate that. Borup: Okay. Are we ready to close the hearing? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we dlose the Public Hearing on Item 4. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE ABSENT Zaremba: M r.Chairman, I move thatwe forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our agenda, CUP 03-050, request for a Conditional Use Permit for new bank facility with drive-up tellers in an OT zone for Farmers and Merchants State Bank by CSHOA, 703 North Main Street. To include all staff comments of their memo of -- for the hearing date of December 18`h, received by the Clerk December 12, 2003, with the following changes. On Page 7, conditions of approval, Paragraph 4, change the second sentence to read two freestanding signs will be allowed for the project. The existing Farmers and Merchant pylon sign and a monument sign on the Meridian Road located at least two feet behind the sidewalk and continuing on with the rest of the paragraph as previously stated. Ten, adding on Page 8 Condition 14, the planting of trees near streets shall comply with the parks department memo from Elroy Huff dated December 9, 2003. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Now, we didn't mention the pavers, but I think the discussion is clear enough and they will work it out with ACHD. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: And the motion is done anyhow.