Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/15 PZ Hearing MinsMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 6 of 25 Oliver: No? Clarno: Thanks. Oliver: Thank you very much. Any other discussions, Commissioners? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we continue Granton Square Subdivision, AZ 14-015 and PP 14-019, to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting for February 5th, 2015. Freeman: Second. Oliver: We have a motion and a second to move Granton Square, AZ 14-015 and PP 14-019, to the February 5th agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Oliver: Okay. Now, we are moving to the public hearing process. We will open each item. We will have a staff report finding regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code, with staff recommendations. The applicant will come forward to present these -- their case for approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. Any public testimony will then follow. There will be a sign-up sheet, which I have in front of me now. Any person wishing to testify will come forward and will be allowed three minutes to speak. If they are speaking for a large group, like an HOA, there is a show of hands -- a show of hands that they are representing that group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After each testimony has been heard, the applicant will have the opportunity to respond to those and has another ten minutes to do so. Then we will close the public hearing, the Commission will have an opportunity to discuss and hopefully be able to make a recommendation to City Council at that point. G. Public Hearing Continued and Renoticed from December 18, 2014: AZ 14-014 Sulamita Church by Architecture Northwest Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Black Cat Road: Annexation and Zoning of 9.76 Acres of Land with an R- 8 Zoning District Continued to February 5, 2015. Applicant will correct a noticing error with the property posting signage H. Public Hearing Continued and Renoticed from December 18, 2014: CUP 14-019 Sulamita Church by Architecture Northwest Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Black Cat Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Develop a Church on Approximately 8.47 Acres in the Proposed R-8 Zoning District Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 7 of 25 Oliver: So, we will now open the public hearing. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item AZ 14-014 and CUP 14-019. Do I have someone speaking to that? Watters: Thank you, Chairman Oliver, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning and a conditional use permit. This site consists of -- Baird: Mr. Chair? Sorry to interrupt. There is a possible issue with noticing that we need to get on the record before we go any further with this matter. The matter was originally scheduled for the regular meeting on December 18th of 2014. There was an error in the mailed notice that gave the wrong address. So, we required that the meeting be continued to tonight and that proper mailed notice be sent. An issue came up today where the City Clerk's Office was contacted by a neighbor, who indicated that the sign that was posted, another form of posting, the sign on the site was covered with a black plastic bag and I went by this afternoon and verified that the bag is still on the sign. So, I'd like to hear from the applicant or the applicant's representative about what was going on with the sign, when the bag was put up, and we will take it from there. Mr. Chair, if you would ask the applicant to come forward. Oliver: If the applicant could come forward for both AZ 14-014 and PP 14-019. Hatch: Good evening. Jeff Hatch representing Architecture Northwest. Our address is 224 16th Avenue South, Nampa, Idaho. 83651. The mailing error that you are referencing -- if I'm not, you know, correct, was a press error, is that -- Baird: It was a -- no. It was a -- there are three forms of notice that are required for each hearing. One is that the -- a notice get published in the paper and that was done properly. The site needs to be posted with the date and time and certain information and that was posted in advance of the hearing with the proper date. The third form, the mailed notice that's mailed to residents within a 300 foot radius of the site, the initial mailed notice contained an error that basically referred those people to a different site. It didn't reference Black Cat and Cherry Lane, it referenced something on the other side of town. So, somebody receiving that notice would have looked at it, said, oh, doesn't matter to me, because it's not in my neighborhood, and thrown it away. So, that's why we require -- the city went ahead and mailed another notice. We opened the hearing on the 18th for anybody you saw the sign, got notice, and, then, anybody who was here that night would have known to show up tonight. What I'm getting at is when -- when was the sign -- when and why was the sign covered up, so -- Hatch: The sign was originally posted for the correct date that was noticed on the letter that was issued. In contacting the city planner that we were working with, we were notified that we did not have to repost the sign, because this was an error performed by the city. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 8 of 25 Baird: That's correct. What concerns me is that a neighbor contacted the city and they said that in advance of the hearing the sign was covered up with the plastic sign, so they were watching the sign to see when that was going to -- you know, when the new hearing date was going to be. The sign is -- even though the hearing date was changed, the sign should have been per our code left up and visible and readable up until the date of the hearing and it's my concern that it wasn't. I'm trying to confirm on the record what date the sign was covered up. Do you know? Hatch: I don't know what date the sign was covered up, but I do know that the date -- the sign had been covered up since the -- the prior one that it was actually dated for and the reason for doing so was for clarity, so that people didn't know it had already past. Baird: Yeah. It's unfortunate that that happened, because it produced just the opposite result in the residents. We had somebody call up and say that they were told in advance of the 18th don't bother coming, because it will be continued and, you know, they covered up the sign. So, what I'm getting at is if we are not able to confirm that the sign was clearly posted up until the evening of the hearing of the 18th, unfortunately, we are going to have to continue this one more time, so we can get all three forms of notice correct. Hatch: That would be a question for the person who actually covered it. Baird: Can you find that out and let us know? Hatch: Yeah. Oliver: Commissioners, do you have any questions? Freeman: Not yet. I think we need to wait to see if we have more information on when the sign was covered and, then, figure out what to do. Marshall: It is rather unfortunate. Freeman: Yeah. Hatch: Apologize for the back and forth. In talking with the representative who covered the sign per the verbiage in -- in the -- in city code, it requests that the sign be covered after three days after the hearing meeting. So, in talking to them they said that they did that per the suggestions of the city. So, it would have been covered on the 21 st. Baird: It sounds like there has been some miscommunication. I don't want to turn this into an evidentiary hearing, but I have got a neighbor who says it was covered up before the hearing. Hatch: Do you have any documentation for that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 9 of 25 Baird: Maybe we could -- Mr. Chair, can we entertain -- if the -- if Mr. Law is willing to come forward and tell me what -- is Mr. Law here today? Sorry to turn this into a hearing, but we -- this is important stuff. If somebody didn't get the proper notice, we got to do it right, so -- Law: Okay. You guys are out of line, I'm going to tell you that first. Baird: Sir, if you could give you name and address. Law: My name is Brent Law. I reside at 40888 West Cherry Lane. I'm right across the street from this property. I am in Meridian. The intent of my phone call today was not to have this happen. I simply called because I wanted to find out for sure if this piece of property was still in the agenda for tonight. Because of the confusion at the last meeting I didn't know for sure whether to show up tonight to hear what was going on or not. I'm not opposed to the meeting or opposed to the -- the sign being covered or anything else. I was simply doing it out of information to find out is this on the agenda tonight or not. So, if it created -- if it was wrong for the way they did it, I didn't mean to do that to them, but at the same time I was simply questioning why was -- you know, was the sign covered, because we were kind of concerned -- that's how we found out last time the meeting that was taken off the agenda. Last time we saw the sign get covered, because we called -- there was actually another neighbor there who called the planning and zoning or you guys -- called somebody and found out that it had been taken off the agenda. He then called me and told me, hey, there is no point in going tonight, because it's been taken off the agenda and we just assumed that means it's off the agenda until -- there is probably a new posting of the sign. Well, then, we did receive the notice that it was put back on today's agenda, but because the sign was still covered we are like, wait a minute, so is it on tonight or not. That's the only reason we made the phone call was to find out for sure and I didn't -- you know, I knew it was some kind of regulation as far as the sign being covered or not, but that really didn't make any difference to me, I was simply questioning is it still on the agenda tonight. That was all I was trying to find out. So, if it created a legal problem, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to, but at the same time I wanted to know whether to come to the meeting or not, so -- any questions or anything? Did anybody -- Freeman: Not from me. That clarifies for me. Thanks. Baird: I'm curious when did you believe that the sign was covered up? Or did you have knowledge that it was -- Law: The sign was actually covered before the last meeting and the only reason we know that is because that's how my neighbor -- he and I were talking and we walked over and looked at the sign previous to the meeting, like, I don't know, probably a week before and we actually walked over to the sign, looked at the date on it and everything and then -- you know, because -- just to make sure of when it was so we could be here. Well, a few days he noticed the sign was covered up. Now, to say it was three days, four days -- I don't know. All I know is it was before the last meeting and that's how we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 10 of 25 knew -- he called in to find out why is the sign covered and that's when he was told that it was taken off the agenda. So, we -- it was -- you know. And he called us the day of the meeting. So, it's possible it was posted that day. Baird: That's all the information I need. We can have Mr. Law sit down. Thank you. And acknowledge that you weren't trying to cause trouble, I just wanted to find out what -- what you knew and when you knew it. Law: Yeah. Okay. Baird: So, Mr. Chair, I'm not here to say who was right and who was wrong. There has, obviously, been some confusion created as to when the sign was covered up. These things aren't just esoteric things that -- that have to be followed just because it's in the rules, there are possibly people out there who were confused by what happened who aren't here tonight thinking that the sign was going to be reposted with the right -- right date, even though that's not required, but the sign -- as far as the covering up, unfortunately, there must have been some miscommunication to the applicant about that, because this is the first time I had ever heard of the sign being covered with a black plastic garbage bag. So, given that situation, with apologies to the applicant and everyone here tonight who is here for the meeting, we have to renotice the hearing -- unfortunately that because of what happened with the sign, the sign is going to have to have a new hearing date put it on and the city will provide whatever additional notice is necessary. So, what I would do at this point is find a meet -- a meeting date that we can continue this, put that on the record, so that people here tonight can put that on their calendars and be here and anybody else who was waiting, because of the situation with the sign, they will get that notice and they can be here, too. So, apologies to everybody, but that's the only way we can do it. Oliver: So, taking -- having said that, staff, is there a date when -- Watters: Chairman Oliver, February 5th would be the next available Commission meeting. Marshall: I would ask, Mr. Chair, if I could. Oliver: Yes. Marshall: Question of staff. Does that provide us with enough time to notice this? Watters: The -- Commissioner Marshall, it has been noticed correctly in the two other forms of noticing. It's not required. However, I would strongly suggest the applicant update the sign at this point and just put the February 5th date on it just to avoid further confusion on this. Baird: All we are looking for is clarity. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 11 of 25 Marshall: Just a sign patch. They don't have to redo the -- Baird: It looks like the applicant wants to be heard as well. Oliver: Would you like to come back? Again, restate your name and address. Hatch: Jeff Hatch representing Architecture Northwest. Address is 224 16th Avenue South, Nampa, Idaho. 83686. The construction and procedure that we have performed up to date has been mostly through phone call. So, to proceed properly and to make sure that we follow the instructions properly, it would be very helpful if we could have some kind of documentation as far as what we need to do to make sure that this goes through properly, through the dialogue we just had it's still not very clear for us. Baird: I'd ask you to -- Sonya, do you have time to meet with them after this or are you presenting the next item as well? Watters: I'm presenting the next item. Baird: Okay. Hatch: It can be just an e-mail or something. Baird: Can you give them your contact information and follow up tomorrow? Watters: Yes. Baird: Appreciate it. Hatch: Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Freeman: Mr. Chair, in light of discussions regarding proper posting of this project, I would move that we continue AZ 14-014 and CUP 14-019, Sulamita -- Sulamita Church to the February 5th regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, so that it -- so that the sign can be properly posted for the appropriate amount of time. Marshall: Second. Oliver: It's been moved and seconded that we take and move Sulamita Church, AZ 14- 014 and CUP 14-019, to the February 5th meeting in order for them to repost. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Oliver: With that I had ten people testify -- who would want to testify to that. That we will have to move to the February 5th meeting. Thank you, though, for coming in on that. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 12 of 25 Baird: And, Mr. Chair, if I could just mention one thing. If there is anybody here tonight who can't be here on the 5th, we are accepting written testimony up until the date of that hearing, so send letters or e-mails to the city clerk and I apologize for the inconvenience. I. Public Hearing: MCU 14-006 Baltic Place by L.C. Development Located 82 S. Baltic Place Request: Modification to the Planned Development to Allow a Five -Foot Instead of Ten -Foot Wide Interior Side Setback for Lot 5, Block 1 and 15 Feet Instead of 20 Feet Between Buildings in a C -G Zoning District Oliver: Okay. At this time we would like to move to Item I on the agenda, which is MCU 14-006, Baltic Place, by LC Development. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Oliver, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a conditional use permit modification. This site consists of .14 of an acre of land, zoned C -G, located southeast of the South Baltic Place and East Franklin Road intersection. There are existing offices to the west and east and a parking lot to the north of this site, all zoned C -G, and contractor's yard to the south, zoned I -L. In 2001 a conditional use permit, planned unit development, was approved for a mixed use residential -commercial development for Baltic Place Subdivision, which included the subject property. The applicant is requesting a modification to that previously approved planned unit development for this site. At the time the Council required ten foot interior side building setbacks on each of the commercial lots, with a 20 foot separation between buildings. The applicant is requesting a reduced interior side setback from ten feet to five feet per the site plan here and a reduced separation between buildings from 20 feet to 15 feet for Lot 5, Block 1, Baltic Place Subdivision. The other lots around it are developed out, so it's just -- this one doesn't show yet, but it has been built upon and this is the only lot we are talking about here. The concept plan as shown there -- it was approved with the planned unit development. On the left shows how the site was proposed to develop. A new site plan on the right was submitted by the applicant with this application, which shows how Lot 5, Block 1, is proposed to develop with the modified setbacks and, again, the lot we are talking about is this one right here on the left. The city code that was in effect in 2001 did not require minimum interior side setback in a C -G zone or a separation between buildings. However, based on International Fire Code in effect at that time, the fire department requested a greater setback and separation between buildings for fire suppression and protection. The fire department has reviewed the applicant's request and has determined the reduced setback and separation between buildings meets current International Fire Code and does not object to the modification. Because the fire department does not deem there to be a life safety issue with allowing the proposed separation between buildings, staff is supportive of the proposed modification as requested by the applicant. The application Shari Stiles, the applicant's representative, has submitted written testimony in agreement with the staff report and staff is recommending approval. Staff would stand for any questions Commission might have.