Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 18, 2003 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 20 of 119 Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 2003: PP 03-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots on 2.064 acres in a L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers - 2150 West Cherry Lane: Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from November 20, 2003: CUP 03-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for nursing home care for up to 40 patients and office use with reduced setbacks and landscaping requirements in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 2150 West Cherry Lane: Borup: Okay. Item Number 5 is a Continued Public Hearing, PP 03-029, request for preliminary plat approval of six building lots on 2.064 acres in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision and open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Just a quick refresher on the project that's before you now. This was -- at the November 6, 2003, meeting the Commission directed staff to modify the original recommendation to include- revised findings for approval of the proposed development. Staff has revised the original findings and has included conditions for approval on the submitted Preliminary Plat. The applicant has requested Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use approval for a Planned Development on approximately two acres of land located on the north side of Cherry Lane, approximately a third of a mile west of Linder Road. The subject site lies within a public, quasi-public area, of the two -- on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan future land use map. The property is presently zoned L-O and is currently being utilized as a church and parking lot. The development proposal is for six office lots with landscaping, driveways, parking, and common areas to be within easements. The Conditional Use includes a request to allow the operation of a nursing home facility in an L-O zone. Since the original applications were submitted, the applicant has revised the site plan to move one of the office buildings on the north side where there are kind of the dual parking lots there together, kind of in the middle of the site there. In response to the applicant's revised site, plan and letter dated December 11th, staff recommends that the second sentence in Condition 3 on Page 13 of the staff report you have be modified to read. Except for the existing drain rock in the drainage swales, buffer materials, including evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and other ground cover, shall be installed in accordance with Meridian City Code. Then, to further address the applicant's rebuttal letter to the staff report, Condition 4 on Page 13, staff continues to recommend that the applicant retain the nine foot width on the existing parking stalls, rather than reducing the width to seven and a half feet and that parking is. Like I said, on the left-hand side of the site plan, looking at it there, there is existing parking there. There is not a turnaround currently for the remaining or the last stall furthest to the west there and staff recommended that the applicant lose that last stall and use that area as back up. Those stalls -- currently there is 21 feet of back up area from the back of the stalls to the curb or the berm that's out on Cherry Lane, so shorten those stalls and assign them for compact, so you still have a standard drive aisle of 25 feet. Then, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meetlng December 18, 2003 Page 21 of 119 applicant is proposing to even -- to make them standard compact stalls, which are seven and a half feet wide by 17 feet long, so -- or, excuse me, 15 feet long. Our code does allow the seven and a half foot width, but staff is usually not real supportive of that compact stall, just with a lot of the larger vehicles that are on the road these days, they are -- it is truly a compact stall. And, then, condition number five, I believe, is the only other one that the applicant had a response to and I want to acknowledge that the city's parking standards, I believe, may be below what the market demands are, but staff does not believe that compromising safety for a few parking stalls is the best solution. Rather, staff believes that the applicant should lose some more of the floor area to get the parking ratios closer to market standards if they don't believe our minimum requirements are accurate. If approved as submitted, there will be cars backing up into the throat of the main entrance. This can be problematic for cars maneuvering in the area. We are talking about the parking that's in this area here. They have got three parking stalls on this side and three parking stalls on this side of that driveway. They do have two entrances into the site, but this is a -- there is about 35 feet from the first parking stall to the edge of pavement on Cherry Lane and just the design of that I don't believe is very good. You get people that are trying to get into these parking stalls or backing over these when someone is coming in and get stacking into Cherry Lane and potential for accidents there, so staff is continuing to recommend that these parking areas go away. These three, actually, if you just rotate them to up over here and stripe them this way and you can get those three back on this north side. The applicant, I believe, is willing to do that. This side is the contentious side. Still, I believe that they don't want to lose these three parking stalls and, like I said, I just don't think that that's the best design to have parking right there near that entrance. I guess that's the end of my staff report. I will sit, as it is, for any questions you may have. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? It looks like you're thinking. Oh. Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Cross Timber, representing the applicant tonight. As I remember it, the last hearing was, actually, one major reason that we were continued to come back was to provide some additional elevations of some buildings for, so you could see what the south side of these, buildings would look like and we have provided those elevations. I didn't see them -- there we go. There are some different types of elevations that you can see. These are, actually, buildings on Eagle Road that front onto Eagle Road and you have asked for some elevations that showed what they could look like, what doors that were on the south elevations or buildings with some sort of architectural feature, without having a pedestrian door or access off the road. We have provided those for you. If we can just address a couple of the comments that Craig just made, I'll start backwards starting with the parking. If you could go back to the parking, Craig. As Craig mentioned, we'd like to be able to keep some of the parking in this area on the site plan, these three parking stalls right here. These three parking stalls, as Craig said, and as I mentioned in my letter to you, we can shift these around and we can put the parking stalls north and south. We have no problem doing that. That will create some additional landscape area in this location. In addition to that, we can crimp this access Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 22 of 119 down to 25 feet from 41 feet and also increase the amount of landscaping that we can provide. These three spaces over here would be hard to replace if we were to remove those from the parking area. You know, Craig mentioned a little bit about how it's unsafe and he feels that it's unsafe. Just a couple of things I'd like to bring up in response to that. Number 1 is that this, actually, meets with the Meridian parking code. There is a provision in the Meridian parking standards to allow this type of parking. In addition to that, the building that we are all sitting in tonight has parking very similarly to this. Both sides of this building, on the right side and the left side of where I'm standing right now has parking that starts 90 degrees, 18 feet from the back of the curb. This is not a new style of parking or is it a parking style that is dangerous in the intent or the code itself. We are only asking for three parking spaces to be allowed there. Commissioner Rohm, you're shaking your head. Rohm: Well, I was just thinking this is not a main street out here, whereas Cheny Lane gets a lot more traffic than -- McKinnon: Right. You know, if that's something that we have to do, there are some things that we can do to provide some additional parking north-south like we can on the east side of the parking lot, but we will definitely lose at least one of those spaces. Borup: Mr. McKinnon, is this building footprint intended to stay that configuration? Is that a building that's already designed? McKinnon: It's not a building that is designed yet. Borup: Could the building design -- McKinnon: Accommodate additional parking? Yes. Borup: Well, no, I mean move the building over to here, shorten it up this way and do perhaps some angled parking in there and -- McKinnon: We have, actually, talked about that and -- Borup: You have looked at that? McKinnon: And in the letter I wrote to you, actually, we addressed that, saying that if parking becomes a major concern, we could slice this portion of the building off and, actually, add some additional parking in that area. Borup: Well, actually, not necessarily slice it off, just move it over here to the side. McKinnon: We could accommodate that. Borup: I mean so you could still keep your building size. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 23 of 119 Zaremba: Shift the building closer to the drive. McKinnon: We could be okay with that. Borup: Yes. Shift the building over and just change the building configuration and get your parking on the north. Rohm: Dave, is this opening there currently? McKinnon: No, it's not there currently. Currently it's in this location. Rohm: What do you think about just eliminating that ingress-egress? McKinnon: I'm not sure what the fire department would say about being able to pull in here and having to go all the way down to this end to do this building. Borup: We are kind of looking at two different uses here. These are the office buildings and this is the -- McKinnon: That's correct. Assisted living. Borup: -- assisted living. Zaremba: Just to throw in another opinion, I thoroughly agree with staff of the lack of safety for the park here and appreciate Dave and the applicant's willingness to move them up there. This being the in-bound side of the lane, I think that's an important thing to do. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: I'm not so sure that the ones on the out-bound side of the lane are that much of a safe issue. The traffic coming out of the parking lot is likely to be moving much slower, looking around for people backing out of parking spaces, much more -- I would be very concerned if you left it the way it is on the in-bound side, but your willingness to move it makes me comfortable with that. I'm not so heavily sure that the ones on the outbound side need to be moved, although if you shift the building right over to where the driveway is and put those three spaces on the other side, that could be another solution that would work. Borup: Other than you're restricted on those parking on north on the direction that you can pull in. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: They would only come from the one direction Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 24 of 119 McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: I'm assuming it was angled parking and maybe you can do -- McKinnon: We can do 90 degree parking. Borup: You can do 90 degree? Oh. That would get you more parking, then, wouldn't it? McKinnon: It's a wash, because of the handicapped space. You need to have that 16 feet wide and so if you lost the handicapped space you could fit three extra spaces up there. Borup: On the north side of the building? McKinnon: On the north side of the building if you cut it back and shifted it over like you were talking about earlier. Sliding the building -- Borup: Yes. If you could do 90 degree parking on the north side, you would gain parking. Rohm: I think he's saying take this off and, then, add it on here where these existing spaces are, you're building would be longer and -- Zaremba: Change the shape of it. McKinnon: One of the things that we have to worry about is marketing the building. If we create a building that's too narrow in size, we -- size is something that's of a concern, but if you're going to chop part of it and move some over, if you were to create one long hot dog shaped building it becomes less marketable. Borup: I think what Commissioner Zaremba said makes a lot of sense. I mean the concern is the -- pulling into the property. Zaremba: I could be comfortable with leaving the outbound side alone. I appreciate the change on the inbound side. McKinnon: We can make sure we do. I guess that would require a modification to the Page 13, Item Number 5. I guess I have got some language that would make that pretty simple, to reword that to state that -- Number 5 to read remove the three proposed parking stalls that are located on the east side of the eastern driveway entrance and that would make it simple to make that correction. The only other comment that I think needs to be addressed on the conditions for approval would be on Page 12 as well and that's Item Number 2. It's on the second line. We would recommend striking the pedestrian access being required on the south elevations of these two buildings and allowing the architectural design to limit that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 25 of 119 Rohm: Wasn't that something that -- Zaremba: I thought you had agreed to that in your memo. McKinnon: In the memo, yes. In hindsight, we really don't want to have to place pedestrian accesses as those pedestrian accesses are going to break up the building and require that we put doorways for people that may use those occasionally, rather than daily. Rohm: Wasn't there a setback issue along with the request to put a street side access? Wasn't there an issue on that as well? McKinnon: The issue was for staff. Staff felt that it was important to provide pedestrian access to the front side of those buildings, which would be the south elevation of those buildings, if they were to approve the reduced setbacks. Rohm: Right. Okay. Okay. McKinnon: So, we felt that the architectural standards would be something that could provide for that break in the landscape and streetscape. It was the long amount of discussion that we had at the last hearing where we talked about whether or not the new urbanism design had to include pedestrian access at the front of those buildings. That was the request from the Commission was to come up with those additional elevations and pictures of buildings that showed what some of those buildings -- if they did or did not have pedestrian accesses on the south elevations of those buildings. Rohm: Yes. From the buildings shown, I couldn't tell that it was on the street side that there was -- McKinnon: These are all actually taken from Eagle Road. This is on opposite sides of Eagle Road. Eagle Road is running north south along this building and, again, north south along this building. This building has no pedestrian access to the side that faces Eagle. Borup: Of the three, this is abetter-looking building than the one that does have a door. McKinnon: And that's what we would contend as well, that the architectural features would be more attractive than a doorway. Borup: And Ilike -- I like this type of feature, but, you know, these are just pictures you have brought. What control is there that the design is going to be comparable? McKinnon: In the staff report itself it addresses that, that the architectural design features, windows, dormers, et cetera, are placed on the south .elevation. That would be a requirement from the staff to approve that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 26 of 119 Borup: It would be on staff approval. McKinnon: Yes. Borup: Okay. Rohm; Is there a Conditional Use Permit for each building that will be brought in and constructed on these lots? McKinnon: It wouldn't be required for an additional Conditional Use Permit, Commissioner Rohm. However, there would be a requirement for a certificate of zoning compliance, which is a staff level approval. Borup: And they would review the architectural plans at that time. McKinnon: At that time. Rohm: I think it's safe to say that the thought process behind this was that if, in fact, there is a reduced setback along the roadway, that you make that side of the building look more accessible, I guess, whether it has a door or just windows and same sort of access, I guess. McKinnon: Architectural feature. Rohm: Right. Exactly. Borup: Okay. I'd like to see something like this. That does accomplish all that very well. McKinnon: Yes. Borup: Some type of projection out from the building and the roofline gable change or something. Rohm: I'd like to hear staffs comments on that while we are on that issue. Powell: I didn't review the minutes, but I did want to just give my recollection of what happened. There was quite a bit of testimony about neo-traditional or new urban designs, that the applicant was -- had stated as the reason for justifying the reduced setback. I believe the reason that he was directed to provide some elevations or some typical building construction is so that you would have an idea of what he was proposing to meet those new urbanist standards and it seems like now he's just wanting to not do them at all. I'm a little concerned about that. The architectural features, although they come out -- I mean think of how much better it would be if there was a door in the middle of that architectural feature, rather than framing just a blank wall. That's my Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 27 of 119 concerns is really if we are saying that this warrants a reduction in the landscape buffer that's been established for Cherry Lane, because we are welcoming people from the street to these buildings, then, it needs to welcome them. I mean there is -- these might look better from the street, but it was really the pedestrians were the consideration, not the cars going by. I mean that, as I recall, was the testimony from -- I believe Sharon McKibben got up and testified about new urbanism, neo-traditional stuff and, really, the idea was to see how the applicant was going to provide entrances on Cherry Lane with his buildings. I thought that's why he was coming back with elevations, is to show how he was going to do that, so that we could just -- so that -- it's kind of one of those things where it's a director's determination. Generally, I give it up to you on the -- when you're doing the Conditional Use Permits or the planned developments, but that the applicant show how he was going to accomplish that neo-traditional -- Borup: And I'm remembering basically the same thing. I think the concern was that we are going to have, you know, a normal back wall of a building and, you know, just a blank facade there. I don't -- I don't think that putting a door in necessarily makes it more inviting. I mean just --and he probably purposely put those two pictures up there, I don't know, but, you know, that one has a door and the one without the door I think to me is more inviting than the one with the door. Powell: Exactly. That's, as I recall, why we asked him to bring it, because we were concerned that we would get this type, where it's not a main entrance, it's just a side door that probably is a staff door going in and out. Borup: But it's got the windows and we were concerned about having, you know, a blank wall with no other windows or anything in it, too, so -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have had a chance to review the minutes. At the last meeting we talked quite a bit about how we would make sure that the buildings that we presented on the south side of this project, that they would be attractive and they would be not just the back side of a building. However, at that meeting we also had a great deal of discussion about the fact there really aren't any buildings in the area that, actually, show the front end of a building facing away from where all the parking is. We have to look at this as a sense of utility as well. If people are going to be parking at the back of the building and they are going to be walking around to the front of the building, it would make sense. Typically, people are going to enter from where they park and we are going make this more attractive on the front side, people can address these buildings from the street. We have provided sidewalks from the street to the front of these buildings. I don't know why Anna says that we are not trying to meet these the requirements of the architectural features. We have presented these pictures just to show you what it would look like if you put a door on the street. The main entrances for these. buildings are going to be towards where people are parking. People are not going to want to purchase a building and, then, not be able to enter through the back and require all the people that come via vehicles have to walk around the front side of the building to access these buildings. The primary entrance will be on the inside of the parking lot. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeBng December 18, 2003 Page 28 of 119 Rohm: Dave, I think it's kind of a Catch 22. The request is to have a reduced setback and -- McKinnon: That's correct. Rohm: -- in order to move towards a reduced setback, the staff would like to see access from that entrance or that side, if I understand the staffs position. Well, I -- if you want the reduced setback, that seems what they would like to see as a compromise, and -- McKinnon: Commission Rohm, the top picture on left, is that what you'd rather see facing the street? This is what staff is asking for, is to place a door facing to the street side. Borup: They probably want both. Zaremba: The perfect answer to all would be to have a facade like this with a door in it. McKinnon: If the door is not used very often and someone places a desk in front of the door -- Powell: See. McKinnon: -- what have you gained? Borup: I think a lot of it is going to depend on the design of the building and the use of building, which at this point is undetermined. McKinnon: That's correct. It may make sense. There may be a building that gets built there where they want to place a door there, but to have a requirement to place your major entrance on the south side -- Borup: Were they talking major entrance or just a second -- McKinnon: From what I gathered from what Anna said, she didn't want to see just a side entrance. Powell: Chairman Borup, they were requesting alternative compliance. As their alternative compliance they were saying that there were providing aneo-traditional street scape, where the buildings were brought up to the street scape. The major component of aneo-traditional design is having entrances on that side and now they are saying -- I mean they are basically saying they are not providing the alternative compliance that they were going to provide. I just want to make sure that that's clear, they are not providing alternative compliance for the reduced setback at this point. They are asking that that not occur. Regarding -- the reason that staff wanted to see Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 29 of 119 elevations was to make sure we weren't getting this type of thing. I just want to make that clear. We do not want to see this. We want to see something like this, where this is the main door to the facility would be there. Dave makes -- Mr. McKinnon makes a good point that that wouldn't be really practical given the design and I suppose that's staffs point all along, is that the way this project is designed, it's clearly designed to be used from the parking lot and that the setback really isn't warranted. Rohm: Well, let's go back to the request for the reduced setback, then. What would happen to this development if, in fact, we said we are not going to allow a reduced setback, how much further would they have to move -- can we go back to the site layout? How much more room would there be along this north side of Cherry Lane that they would have to give up? Hood: The standard for Cherry Lane is a 25-foot wide street buffer and a 15 -- 10 additional feet that would have to be landscaped adjacent to Cherry Lane. Borup: Ten feet. Hood: Ten additional feet Borup: So, it sounds like we are saying if they move back 10 feet, then, they could go back to a plain blank facade along there, with no windows, doors, or anything, a big flat wall. Powell: You certainly have the discretion as part of the CU to ask for architectural treatment. I suspect you would see a different site layout. They would probably move one of their buildings back to the north, but -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, two things would happen. If we put landscape buffer 25 feet back and create a landscape buffer that's not in existence anywhere on rest of the street and right now we have an eight foot buffer on each side of this project, so we put that landscape buffer 25 feet, which means these buildings would have to be moved back. This would no longer be a Conditional Use Permit. There is a project -- there is a line that runs right here. There is two pieces of property that we are dealing with on this site. One is through the assisted living and the other is for these five buildings in this location. If this came back to you, we could come back just with an office use for each one of these sites as a Preliminary Plat. The Conditional Use Permit would only be for this site, there wouldn't be any allowance from the Commission to determine what types of buildings went here. What you would end up with is your Plain Jane subdivision, where you would have buildings placed at the back, 25 feet of landscaping and parking and we are asking for you to allow us to do something different than what you see everywhere else. Rohm: Well, the one thing that you just said that I concur with completely is both east and west from that parcel of ground, the existing setback is not 25 feet, so you would have a nonconformity within a single block. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 30 of 119 McKinnon: New urbanism is a tough thing. If you look for it defined in the City Code, you're not going to find it. New urbanism is something that's mentioned in the landscape code as one of the things you can do through alternative compliance. One of the additional things that's not listed in the landscape code is, actually, listed in Title 12- 6 under the planned developed is asking for reduced setbacks. If the reduced setbacks that are requested in the planned development make sense to the Planning and Zoning Commission, they can approve the reduced setbacks. It's not tied directly to the requirements of the landscape ordinance for the reduced landscape buffers. We could design this to have three large buildings in back with parking and landscaping out front, with no facades and no changes to the buildings. There is no design review in the City of Meridian and if the project met the requirements of the preliminary plat, you could end up with that. We are asking for something different, something, which you don't see everyday, where the buildings are, actually, brought closer, and it softens the streetscape. That's one of the major things when you have to deal with the street, such as Cherry Lane, so it's a major traffic connector in the City of Meridian, approximately 15.,000 vehicles drive passed this location each day. There is not nearly that many pedestrians that walk passed this location each day. The major impact that people are going to have from this is going to be from their cars. They will be viewing this from their cars. Rohm: Okay. Mr. McKinnon, we have discussed this building quite a bit. What about this over here? Are we talking basically the same thing? The access to the building is going to be from the west or the north side of the building and, therefore, you wouldn't want any street access to that building either? Is that -- McKinnon: Street access can be provided. I don't believe that you -- the people parking here -- you don't typically walk around to the front of a building if you park in the back of the building. My guess is that you would see an entrance either here or here. This building could be split in two in this manner with a good access at either site. We are dealing with approximately 40 feet that people would have to walk in order to access these buildings, if they addressed it from the pedestrian side or from the south side. People who are walking would have to walk an additional 40 feet to get to the front door. Rohm: And it seems to me in our last time this hearing was open, the discussion was -- is that this side of the building would have windows, so it would look more esthetically pleasing. Then, there is a sidewalk right here, which is just halfway down and, then, you could have your ingress on the east side of the building. McKinnon: Sure. Rohm: Okay. Just kind of the way I remembered it, too. McKinnon: Yes. Borup: Thank you, Dave. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 31 of 119 McKinnon: Yes. Thank you. I guess, Members of the Commission, it boils down just to basically two things. One is your approval of this project to allow some of the parking to remain on the -- I guess the west side of the east entrance, the out bound as Commissioner Zaremba has called it. Those three parking spaces to remain. We will shift the parking on the drive aisle on the east side to accommodate the parking to run north south, rather than east west. We will move those three parking stalls. The other item that we would ask for a change from the staff report would to be rid of the requirement for the major access to be on the south side of these buildings. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Rohm: Not at this time. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: Thank you. Borup: Thank you, Mr. McKinnon: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? We have the same people as last time. Okay. Commissioners, how would we like to proceed? Rohm: Well, I think we may, as well close the Public Hearing seeings how there is no additional testimony. With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on PP 03-029, request for preliminary plat approval of six building lots on 2.064 acres in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, 2150 Cherry Lane. Zaremba: Do you want to close both public hearings? We have two open. Rohm: Oh, yes. Excuse me and the CUP 03-048. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. What do we see as the issues we need to discuss? Zaremba: Let me throw a new subject in here. One thing we didn't discuss that was discussed last time is the former designation of this property as quasi-public, because it was being used as a church.. My instinct on that, not property formed last time, is that the designation, as quasi public should be attached to the use, and not attached to the land. The zoning designation is L-O and we were discussing whether we could even Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 32 of 119 have office buildings there in a quasi public. My instinct is that if the use as a church does away, then, the quasi-public designation goes away. Borup: And the quasi public -- Zaremba: It may reappear again, because a nursing home is quasi public, but that has nothing to do with the former use, which means I'm comfortable with the L-O portion of this without having to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Borup: And the quasi public is strictly a comp plan -- a comp plan designation, not a zoning designation. Zaremba: Right. That's what I'm saying. It's not a zone. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: So, if we are in agreement on that -- Borup: I think so. Zaremba: -- that does allow an office in L-O zone, which it is. As for the other details -- Borup: Well, are we comfortable on everything -- are we -- well, what issues are we down to? The south facade? Zaremba: The south facade. Yes. Borup: And, then, is there any other discussion on the parking beyond your earlier comments? Zaremba: I'm comfortable with resolving only the three spaces on the east side of that east entrance and leaving the three on the west side alone. I personally don't have a problem with those. Borup: Have we changed the size of that entrance? Rohm: I don't think we need to change the size of the entrance, as long as we have eliminated the parking on the east side of that entrance. Borup: Because they are talking about going to a 25 foot entrance. I think that probably -- Rohm: That was just an option that they were looking at, but if you eliminate those on the east side, I don't think you need to reduce the size of the entrance: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee0ng December 18, 2003 Page 33 of 119 Borup: Okay. Are we down to just the one issue? Setback from Cherry Lane and the building facade? Zaremba: I don't have a problem with the reduced setback, precisely because what is adjoining it is a small setback with fences. I think the 25-foot setback, actually, would look funny, in conjunction with the other. I'm not that concerned about the reduced setback. I would like to certainly support having a more attractive facade than just a blank wall on the south side, which I think the applicant has agreed to. I was supportive of actually having the doors there, because at some time, we hope to have mass transit along Cherry Lane and there may be people arriving who are not using cars. I am not absolutely stuck to that last part, however. Rohm: Well, I think the applicant addressed that somewhat in that the sidewalk coming off of Cherry Lane parallels the side of the building that the primary entrance would be on. There would almost be a redundancy there to have ingress to the building off of Cherry Lane as well as off from the parking lot and it just -- as long as there is access to the building off of Cherry Lane, it seems in keeping to allow the reduced setback and have the primary entrance within the development itself. Borup: My two thoughts are if this is a retail building, retail use, I have a different feeling and I thing that would be appropriate and desirable. I'm more interested in the architectural design and the facade of that building. I more interested in that, than having another door there. Having an attractive looking building from the street. For an office building, I'm not sure what you gain by having another entrance, other than someone coming from a bus, but they are already walking, you know -- you know, a good -- you know, another 40 feet. Somebody that's already walked a half a mile, it shouldn't make any difference. Rohm: Yes Borup: If they are walking to it, it's the destination point, not a -- they are not trying to capture walk-by traffic. Rohm: Yes. I think the issue is that staff just doesn't want to see a blank wall -- Borup: I agree with that. Rohm: -- all the way along the south line of any buildings parallel to the street and so from an architectural perspective, if they bring a proposed building into the -- for a permit that doesn't have some sort of windows or a facade that is acceptable, probably won't get approved. Borup: Well, I hope so. I mean in my mind it would be a facade with windows and projections, roofline gables or changes, to some extent, not a straight wall. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 34 of 119 Zaremba: Look at Page 12 of the staff notes for a second and Item 2. I think we may be going this direction, so let me just suggest what I would do. Item 2 read building setbacks for Lots 2 and 5 of Block 1, may be reduced to 15 feet measured from the face of the building to the property line, if -and, then, I would delete the next three words -- pedestrian access and -- and go on with architectural design features, windows, dormers, et cetera, are placed on the south elevations. Period. Connect the main entrance, instead of Cherry Lane entrance, of the buildings with existing sidewalk on Cherry Lane, with anorth-south oriented pedestrian pathway, which is what I believe the applicant has offered to do already. Then, the rest of it doesn't change. Powell: Commissioner Zaremba, can you speak up a little bit. Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. I was not near the -- okay. Paragraph 2 in the. second -- the second printed line, I'm deleting the words pedestrian access and -- those three words. The second sentence I deleted the words Cherry Lane and changed it to main -- connect the main entrance. That's the only change I was making. I'm giving up the Cherry Lane entrances, but still requiring the architectural features in order to get the 15-foot setback and requiring sidewalk connectivity to whatever the main entrance is. Powell: I believe the last sentence you need to modify that to be consistent. Second to last. Borup: It starts with if pedestrian access? Powell: Correct. Borup: I think Commissioner Zaremba's definition of pedestrian access would just be a sidewalk from Cherry Lane to the main entrance. Is that what you intended, Commissioner? Zaremba: Well -- okay. Let's change pedestrian access to pedestrian connectivity. Well, yeah, pedestrian access can come out. If architectural design features -- no? Yes. If connecting access and architectural design features are not included. We want both to be included. Borup: And the site plan proposal we have now does show sidewalks -- looks like three of them connecting to Cherry Lane. Zaremba: I'm comfortable with that. Borup: Okay. Any other issues? Item number 5? Zaremba: Okay. Five I would suggest rewording it. Instead of remove; I would say move the three proposed parking stalls that are located on the east side of the eastern driveway's entrance to next to the parking spaces -next to the other parking spaces for the same building. Then, I would delete or reduce the eastern driveway from 41-foot Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 35 of 119 width proposed. Then, I would leave said impervious areas and change it to three parking stalls shall be incorporated into common -- et cetera. Borup: Okay. Does that do it? Zaremba: It does it for me. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I could interrupt real quickly. Just for clarification, I don't know if you're going to include in your motion or not, but the other two issues that I had brought up first with the -- on the same Page 13, the drain rock -- existing drain rock, could you just address that -- Zaremba: I got that. Hood: As well as the nine and the seven and a half foot width on the compact, quote, unquote, stalls, versus the nine-foot wide compact stalls. Zaremba: That's in Paragraph 4. Hood: That's Condition 4 on Page 13 and the previous one, Condition 3. Zaremba: Yes. Paragraph 3 I got. Tell me again the change you're suggesting for four. Hood: Staff is recommending no change for Condition 4. The applicant wants to see the seven and a half foot width on those parking stalls. Zaremba: Oh. I'm sorry. I'm with staff on that one. Okay. You were suggesting -- Borup: Okay. That was my understanding from the motion, is that all of the other staff recommendations would stand as written. Zaremba: I'm with that. Okay. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 5 on our agenda, PP 03- 029, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of six building lots on 2.064 acres in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, 2150 West Cherry Lane. To include all stuff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 20, 2003, received by the Clerk November 13, 2003. End of motion. Rohm: Second Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 18, 2003 Page 36 of 119 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council Item 6 on our agenda. The first element of this motion is to recommend approval of CUP 03-048, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for nursing home care for up to 40 patients and office use with reduced setbacks and landscape requirements in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., 2150 West Cherry Lane. To include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 20, received by the Clerk November 13, 2003, with the following changes. On Page 12, Site Specific Condition Number 2, on the second line of Paragraph 2, delete the three words pedestrian access and. On third line of Paragraph 2, delete the words Cherry Lane and replace it with the word main, so it reads main entrance. On the fifth line, this is the beginning of the third sentence, delete the word pedestrian, and insert the word connecting. On Page 13, Paragraph 3, at the beginning of the second sentence, add the words except for the existing rock in the existing drainage Swale, comma. Paragraph 4 stands as is. Paragraph 5. Change the first sentence to read: Move the three proposed parking stalls that are located on the east side of the eastern driveway entrance to -- next to the other parking stalls for the same building. Delete the second sentence. What was the third sentence now reads: Said impervious areas, parenthesis, three parking stalls, closed parenthesis, and the rest of the paragraph reads the same. Borup: No. Okay. I'm sorry. Yes. They would be incorporated into the plaza area. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: That's the end of the first element of the motion. The second element of this motion is to state that this action, knowingly and intentionally, established the precedent for Meridian that the designation of quasi public attaches solely to the current use and is, therefore, unlike a zoning designation, which more permanently attaches to the land. End of the motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Anything, staff that needs to be added? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 14. Public Hearing: AZ 03-029 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 25.13 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sheridan Place Subdivision