Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 5, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 52 of 64 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 03-068 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for professional office and retail use in a C-G zone as required by the Final Plat for Mallane Professional Offices by Thomas R. Williams -south of North Hickory Way and north of East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Okay. The last item is Public Hearing CUP 03-068. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Powell: I need to excuse myself from this one, so I just wanted the record to reflect that I'm leaving. Borup: Okay. Powell: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Public Hearing CUP 03-068, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for professional, office, and retail use in a C-G zone, as required by the final plat for the Mallane Professional Offices by Thomas R. Williams. We'd like to open this hearing at this time and begin with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the Mallane Professional Offices project and you should have a staff report that has got a transmittal date of January 29th, today's hearing date, and stamp received February 2nd. The project is located, a s you can see, in the M allane Commercial C enter h ere a t the -- located on Fairview and Hickory. You can s ee the a erial photo. C urrently on this lot Louie's Restaurant already exists and there has been a project approved in this location for a D.L. Evans B ank. The p roposed project f or t he Mallane Professional Offices is intended for Trinity Home Mortgage and would be located north of the D.L. Evans Bank project. The main reason why the project is a conditional use is because it's required as a note on the plat. The reason why it was required as a note on the plat was because of the proximity to existing Dove Meadows Subdivision. The Commission and Council felt at the time the plat was being done and the rezone was done that they wanted to review any use that goes on these lots to consider the potential impacts. Other than that requirement, it would be a permitted use in the existing C-G zone. This is the original site plan that was submitted with the packets. There has also been a revised site plan received, which I will get to in just a moment. I believe the only issues to deal with tonight are the seven special considerations on pages four and five of the staff report. The first one deals with the parking lot and needing to get the drive aisles to be 25 feet Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, ZOO4 Page 53 of 64 and the parking stalls at least 19. As designed on this original plan, they were 20 foot drive aisles,-- or 20 foot parking stalls and 24 foot drive aisles; so they could borrow a foot from one and give it to the other and resolve that. For landscaping, the staff report points out that there was a bond originally submitted with the Mallane Commercial Subdivision for the landscape improvements and other subdivision improvements and they have since expired. We will require that that bond is renewed prior to issuing a building permit and that all those subdivision improvements, including the landscaping, including the wall, will need to be in place prior to occupancy of the structure. The last item in the special consideration there dwelt with the need for a planter to breakup this long row of parking. In the revised plan that was submitted they have added the planter in this location right here. However, this revised plan has -- does not have trees in the planters, so we will need to add a condition for the landscape plan that trees be provided in all of the planters per the landscape ordinance. Item number three is the future development area. Going back to the original site plan -this thing is not working very well. This is all one lot today. However, the --this proposed building only utilizes a portion of the lot and so we had asked that the undeveloped portion be landscaped with at least grass and noted that the future expansion would require a CUP. Now that the application has submitted a revised plan that shows how the building footprint could be extended and the parking to accommodate that would be provided, staff is in agreement that we could probably approve this project for the entire site and not have to require the expansion area to come back for a separate CU, as long as the Commission is agreeable with the layout. What we would do is require that the expansion area be tied to the same type of elevation and building materials as the first phase of this building and subsequent to design review by P&Z staff to determine that it is in compliance with that. Zaremba: And to stay within the same footprint and that kind of stuff? Siddoway: Yeah. There is a little bit of latitude. The Conditional Use Permit ordinance itself has certain amounts of modifications that can be done at staff level, others that would have to come back to the Commission and, then, if it doesn't fall into one of those two categories, they would just have to come back wRh a new CU. But the ordinance is. is already equipped to handle minor modifications and so rather than to require any use to come back for another CUP, since we do have the building layout, the parking, we an elevation of the proposed building, and we would -- if we can tie it to similar building materials and structural requirements for the expansion - if it didn't look similar to this, we would just kick them out and require a new CU, but if they did, then, we feel like it could be handled at staff level, if the Commission agrees. Zaremba: So, specifically, on page six, item seven, we could change that to read: Any future expansion may be approved at a staff levels, 'rf it has - Siddoway: Ihave -- Zaremba: Oh, you have a statement? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 54 of 64 Siddoway: I have written up proposed modifications to the staff report for all of the things I'm discussing, so -- Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Siddoway: And I've also the applicant review them and he can respond to the proposed changes as well. Zaremba: Okay. Sorry to interrupt Siddoway: That should help with your note taking. I should have handed those out at the beginning, probably. Item number four deals with the sewer and water mains. Bruce, I don't know if you want to say anything specific about this, but the point being is they have been under construction with the subdivision improvements, but the developer has not yet requested inspection of those, so they have not been finaled, they have not -- and they will need to be before this project receives a building permit. Item five deals with curbs and sidewalk and what we are pointing out on there is that site plan does not show curbing along the south end of the parking or around the south end of the property and out. And the associated condition requires curbing to be installed. The second paragraph of number five requests that the sidewalk that's at the north end of this parking row that, then, dead ends, be continued on and connect to the sidewalk that's running along Hickory Way. The last item on that is a statement that the Commission consider whether or not a sidewalk should be also required along the south side of the property at this time or whether it could wait until future development. That sidewalk is not currently in the report as a condition of approval, it's just raised as a point of consideration for the Commission. With the submittal of the new site plan, which shows a future layout that would be very different than just a straight curb, what the applicant and staff have talked about is providing an extruded curb -- it would be concrete along their property in the location as described, that could be modified into this configuration when it happens. And, then, also allowing the provision that if the -- they are actively working to get a tenant to expand the building already. There is not one currently oh board, but they have requested that if they have a tenant secured for the future expansion area, before needing occupancy of this building, that the temporary curbing not be required, because the permanent curbing will be forthcoming in short order. So, staff is in agreement with that. Item number six deals with signage. Borup: Maybe while you're still on that -- Siddoway: Yeah. Borup: The plat shows existing curbing and sidewalk along here; is that correct? Siddoway: Yeah. Right on that corner and right on this corner coming in. Borup: Right. But this area is all part of the application and fully developed, either with parking or drainage area. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 55 of 64 Siddoway: Yes. Although the drainage area will be modified with the future driveway that comes through there. And they are also adding additional parking on the south side that they are not currently constructing. Borup: Okay. But --and this is paved along here? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: So, then -- but we are not proposing sidewalk along this area? Siddoway: There is not, no. And so I guess that's part of the same question and maybe we can get the applicant to address the issue of sidewalks in that area. Borup: Okay. And that's why I brought that up. I guess you haven't mentioned in my mind any justification to not have that -- Siddoway: Not have sidewalks in here. Borup: Along here. Over here, yes, that makes some sense. Siddoway: Well, this is -- there couldn't be sidewalk through here under the current design, because it's directly accessed by parking. This is just a drive aisle. Borup: Oh. Okay. Siddoway: It's not a street. Borup: I was looking at that incorrectly. Siddoway: Yeah. There is cars pulling directly in this way and there is a drive aisle here and cars pulling directly in this way and this way. Borup: Okay. I see that --okay. That's -- then, how about from here on up to where the drive aisle start? Maybe that's -- that's probably the only area that would apply. Siddoway: Could be. Borup: Okay. Siddoway: Yeah. Borup: Thank you. Go ahead. Siddoway: Any other questions on that before moving onto signage? The Conditional Use Permit does ask for some basic signage information. I'd point out that there is no Meddian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 56 oP 64 freestanding sign proposed with this application. The applicant is proposing athree-by- twelve sign on the building in the front. The applicant has run some calculations and shown them to me just prior to the hearing that shows that they. are well in conformance with the allowable 18 percent of the face area of the facade. So, I will let him -- Zaremba: You're saying one side --one sign on the front, nothing on the street side? Siddoway: I believe that's correct. I'll let the applicant address that with you. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: I can show you on the elevations, this being the main entrance, there is an area right here that is intended to hold that sign. That's where it's intended to go, as I understand it. The last item is the trash enclosure and on the original site plan the trash enclosure was here, just a sidewalk in front of it, and parking, no direct access to it for SSC. They have worked with SSC since submittal of this plan and on the revised site plan you will see that they have ramps going to the trash enclosure and they have agreed to stripe the area in f ront of it, so that it doesn't become a p arking stall a nd remains as access to the trash enclosure. So, I believe that is taken care of. So, you have the proposed changes to the staff report. There are several based on the revised plan that was submitted after the report was done, but, hopefully, writing them up this way will help facilitate a motion and I'll stand for any questions and turn it over to the applicant. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: Just a comment. You did a good job of writing this down. Very much appreciated. Zaremba: I second that. It's very helpful. Siddoway: Thanks. Borup: Okay. Sir, yes, come on up for the applicant. Williams: Good evening. I'd like to thank staff for doing a good job on this. Helping us out, so -- my name is Tom Williams, I represent the applicant Trinity Mortgage and it's a little unusual how he's asked us to develop the land, but it's been driven by the financial ability to move his office to Meridian where he wishes it to be and his actively seeking tenants to complete the project, you know, and the remaining balance of it. We are working off of the original approved subdivision plan and so what we did is we took the original plan and we have just taken our template and just ovedaid it right over what was already previously approved. You were just discussing sidewalks. There is an interior sidewalk in this project and if you can see it here and here and if we were to look at the original approved plan, that sidewalk continues up and across and continues on up and, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 57 of 64 then, ties into the street sidewalk up against the area here. So, just to answer that. The parking -- Borup: W hile you're on that, was it -- does the existing sidewalk go to this point, to where the parking aisles start? Williams: On the already approved subdivision plan there was no sidewalks on that side of the street. Borup: Okay. Your site plan shows a sidewalk here. Is that incorrect, then? Williams: There is no sidewalk shown there. Borup: Okay. The plat that was submitted has a note that says there is. That's what I was -- it says existing sidewalk to remain. Williams: In this area right here? Borup: Yes. Williams: I don't believe there is any sidewalk existing there. Borup: Okay. Then, the plan is incorrect; is that what you're saying? Williams: Well, it very well could be. Borup: Okay. Williams: You know, I brought a copy of the original plat that we were working off of and --'now, maybe staff might -- I don't know if he has it with him there -- Borup: Well, it does not show a sidewalk. There is a note that says there is one there, but the drawing just shows a curb. Williams: Yeah. Well, the drawing shows a curb and I just took a look at the original plat and the sidewalk is like right here, so -- Borup: Okay. Williams: Anyway. Borup: Well, the sidewalk is off your property. Go ahead. Williams: Staff also pointed out to us that the -- the landscaping issues are something that the original developer is going to have to maintain for us, too. The plantings along Hickory Way, I understand there is some other issues as well. You know, our applicant Meridian Planning 8 Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 58 of 64 is -- our owner is -- you know, he understands and agrees to landscape the interior of the lot, has requested that, you know, at the time of -- we get the occupancy permit for this, if he does not have a tenant to complete the balance of the building that, you know, he would sprinkle that and grass -- put in grass and maintain it as landscaping, so -- Borup: Now, did you understand the stafFs comment on the landscaping? Williams: I believe we do. Borup: I m can f hat t he b and h as a xpired. So h ave y ou t alked w ith t he owner o f t he property? Is he planning on renewing that bond? Williams: Well, we have talked to our client, who is not the Mallanes -- Borup: Right. Williams: -- that developed it. He is aware of it and he is in contact with the Mallanes, the people that we understand are responsible. Borup: So, your okay with the staff report as written, then? Williams: I believe we are. I mean it's pretty clear that there is some responsibility there that should not be falling on our client's shoulders, so -- Borup: Right. But you also understand that this is the project before us, so this is probably the time to get that corrected. Williams: That's correct. And staff pointed out that that issue would need to be resolved prior to occupancy permit for our client and we understand that. Borup: Okay. Rohm: I'm a little bit uncomfortable with just throwing some grass seed out there and just assuming that it's going to grow and fill in and look like the balance of the landscape within the development. It seems to me that it should be developed to the same standards as the balance of the landscaping, if, in fact, you don't have a tenant for that at the time of permitting. And I could see that just turning right back into a vacant dirt lot when the grass doesn't take hold. Williams: Yeah. I can understand your concerns. The original developers of the subdivision, from what we understand, are required to landscape this strip from the back of sidewalk to a setback line about right there and it starts at the corner and runs all the -- and this is just on this lot. I mean there is more on up the way, but there is this entire strip here that will be -- that I understand the Mallanes a re going to landscape, you know, in addition to what grass might be here. You now, they would landscape it, put Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 59 of fi4 grass in it, automatic sprinkler, whatever the City of Meridian's ordinance would ask them to do. Rohm: Yeah. I just don't want the buffer to be well maintained and, then, the balance of if turn into a dirt lot. That's my only point. Williams: Yeah. Rohm: And if the building goes in, then, it's a moot point, but, otherwise, it needs to be maintained just as the buffer. Williams: Yes. And the owners of the Trinity Mortgage Company, you know, they are a top drawer outfit, they understand this, they don't want a dirt lot in front of their building either. So, we talked about this specifically, so -- Moe: Now, I wanted to make sure you're aware -- we talked about that before you got occupancy that those improvements would be done. Based on the staff report here; basically, that the bond needs to be renewed prior to building permit issuance. So, that's something you're going to probably want to bring up with them, that they are going to have to get that bond renewed prior to you guys getting your permits. Williams: I understood staff to say that the bond would be renewed prior to getting the occupancy permit. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, the way it is written is that the bond would need to be renewed prior to building permits and all of the improvements would have to be complete and built prior to occupancy. And that's standard for subdivision improvements. Williams: Do you have any comment on that, Dan? Is that -- I guess I would agree with that, too. Borup: Yeah. Otherwise, you know, how long do you go without having the landscaping completed. Williams: But it's not my client's responsibility for that. Borup: Right. But, hopefully, your client has some pull if -- Rohm: I would think so. Borup: -- if Mallanes want to sell this property. And that's one of the --that is one of the conditions on purchase of this property is seeing that that is complied with: Okay. Anything else that needs to be covered that we had any questions on the staff report? Did you have an opportunity to see the proposed changes? Did you get --okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 80 of 84 Williams: Yes, we did. Borup: Does that all make sense to you? And anything you question on that? Williams: No. I believe we are in agreement with that. We did talk to staff on the' new revised site plan, the parking dimensions have been corrected in one spot for sure. There is a question about another, but they will be the correct dimensions: And the. way we understand it, we are going to put a tree in each -- each planter island throughout the parking there. Yeah, we are fully aware and understand the conditions of the need to landscape the balance of that lot prior to conditional use, if, in fact, you know,' our owner has not been able to, you know, find an additional tenant. We request the ability to use to use an extruded curb along Evans -- by D.L. Evans Bank and that the sidewalk and the extruded curb would be rebuilt, you know, in the event that he would, you know, find that tenant and so -- and we had some discussion about a sidewalk along that --'the area right in here and, you know, if we put the sidewalk in there, it's just going to get tore right back out, you know, when they continue to build on it and so -- and I believe it's owner's intent to try to have somebody in there within 18 months, so -- the architecture of the building, you know, it's -- we are using some stucco, synthetic stuccos, and -- at the entryway to their office, we are -- you know, we are looking at some -- maybe some stone columns and a steel frame with some color to it, as well as, you know, a skylight element that's going to, you know, extend back into the building. You know, as we turn the comer, it's a little less of a statement, but still it leaves us a place for some additional signage and some well-defined front doors and I would see that theme continuing on in the event that we get to continue to -- you know, to build it, you know, with a new tenant. I'm just going through the list here. The signage -- he has -- the existing sign he has is 36 square feet. Quick math, the' elevation we are putting it on is 36 feet this way, 16 feet this way, 18 percent of that is 103 square feet and we are proposing 36 square feet. He's chosen to sign in that location, because that's the front of the building that faces Fairview Avenue. Borup: You're not proposing any monument signs or any -- Williams: No. Borup: Okay. Williams: You know, when you look at the site plan, you can see where you drive in right by Louie's, that's the front door to that property right there and that's why he's -- why we have settled on where we are at with that. And agree to stripe. the aisle in front of the dumpster. The dumpster is enclosed by a colored concrete block, athree-sided piece with a steel framed door with some non-transparent bats in it, so -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Williams: Any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 61 of 54 Borup: All right. Thank you. Williams: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Are we ready to close? Zaremba: Did you ask if there is other public testimony? Borup: Yeah. Well, Ithink --anything else that anyone would like to add? Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on this item be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Rohm: Motion carried? Borup: Yes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Interesting side note. I think the shape of the -what, apparently, is going to be a glass skylight is going to fit right in with the glass pyramid across the street, part of the church across the street. Borup: Were you aware of that? Had you seen their building design? Okay. Zaremba: Other than t he notes that we already have from Steve, is there any other comment anybody needs to make? Rohm: I don't think so. Zaremba: That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 14 on our agenda, CUP 03-068, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a professional office and retail use in a C-G zone as required by the final plat for Mallane Professional Offices by Thomas R. Williams, south of North Hickory Way and north of East Fairview Avenue and this refers to the site plan dated 1./29/04, received by the city clerk February 4, 2004, and this recommended approval is to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of February 5, 2004, received by the city clerk February 2, 2004, with the following modifications. Beginning on page six, paragraph five, the second bullet, that sentence can be deleted and we will replace that sentence with the following words: Add trees in all landscape planters in conformance with the landscape ordinance. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 62 of 64 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, sorry, maybe we could the attorney, but we may be able to just reference this memo, since it's been entered in the public record, and just reference it, unless you want to do them item by item. Gabbert: I think that would be correct, if you just wanted to say including all staff comments as proposed on this additional sheet. But if you would like to read them all out, that's acceptable also. Zaremba: The additional sheet is not dated -- or at least my copy of it ish't. And I, actually, was going to change a word or two here. Siddoway: Okay. That's fine. Go ahead. Zaremba' I realize it's longer to read them all, but referencing it might be questionable also. Borup: Okay. Go ahead. Zaremba: I will try and read fast. Page six, paragraph five, to the existing third bullet add: The grass will not be required in the future development area if a tenant has beeri secured prior to occupancy of the currently proposed structure. Page six, paragraph'six can -- Borup: Well, can you clarify that again? Zaremba: The intent there -- Borup: The intent would that there would be a tenant for the new proposed addition was my understanding. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Yeah. Siddoway: You could use the wording for number eight down below. It says tenant has been secured for the future development area prior to occupancy. Zaremba: On the subject of the third bullet is the future development. Borup: Right. So, that may be -rather than secured prior to occupancy of the proposed structure, it would be for the future proposed -- Siddoway: No. It's for the current one. For the phase one. Siddoway: Yeah. But prior to occupancy of the current phase one building. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 83 of 64 Zaremba: If they don't have the second building tenant -- Siddoway: Prior to occupancy. Zaremba: Right. Occupancy of the currently proposed one, they have to grass -- Siddoway: That's exactly right. Zaremba: And I think it reads that way. Siddoway:, Yeah. I do, too. Zaremba: So, we are saying the third bullet is landscape the future developmeht area with at least grass or other vegetative ground cover. The grass will not be required in the f uture development area if a tenant h as been secured prior t o occupancy of the currently proposed structure. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Does that -- Borup: Well; it does. But the tenant needs to be for the new proposed addition, not a. tenant for this building. Zaremba: Okay. I can see adding that. Okay. So -- Borup: Well, I think everyone understands. Zaremba: -- the added sentence -- the added sentence will now read: The grass will not be required in the future development area if a tenant for the future development has been secured prior to occupancy of the currently proposed structure. So, we keep the two different structures straight. Borup: Right. Zaremba: I agree with that. Okay. Moving on. Still on page six. Paragraph six can be deleted. Paragraph seven is deleted and replaced with following: The future expansion is approved with the layout shown on the revised plan dated 1129/04. Elevations of the future expansion shall be similar to the elevations and materials provided for the first phase of the building, comma, and will be subject to design review by P&Z staff. Period. Any major change shall require a separate CUP process. Paragraph eight. The second sentence is changed to read: A temporary extruded curb will be allowed in these areas. If a tenant has been secured for the future development area prior to occupancy of the currently proposed structure, the temporary curb will not be required. On page seven, we will add a paragraph 16: Incorporate the two special recommendations in the ACHD Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 64 of 64 staff report, page five, as conditions of approval on this application. End of change. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Commission Moe, the last motion of the night is always reserved for the new Commissioner. Moe: Such a deal. I propose we adjourn. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Okay. it's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Meeting adjourned at 10:29. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:29 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED KEITH BORUP -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK