Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 15, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 25 of 80 Borup: Now, you're saying denial for the preliminary plat. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Yeah. ~_ -Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, move that we deny PFP 03-007, for the reasons stated in the staff rrremos and, in addition, we don't have jurisdiction if the land is not annexed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Is the CUP a recommendation or a final? Powell: Recommendation. Zaremba: I thought so. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending denial of CUP 03-071, both because we don't have jurisdiction if it's not annexed and for the reasons stated in the staff memo. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Thank you. Mr. McKinnon, I guess you get to face your applicant. McKinnon: I guess I get to go to Council, too, so -- got to face both. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 04-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.06 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane: Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 04-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -northeast comer of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane: Borup: Okay. Next on our agenda is Items 7 and 8, pertaining to Southstone Subdivision. I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 04006, request for annexation and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 26 of 60 zoning of 3.06 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision and Public Hearing PP 04-008, request for preliminary plat approval of eight commercial building lots on the same property. Okay. Both public hearings are open and we'd like to start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, this is an application for a rezone of 3.06 acres. It's currently located in the county with RUT zoning. The applicant's proposing a rezone to L-O, which would allow light office uses. And there is also a request for a preliminary plat for eight commercial building lots. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Eagle Road and Girdner. I'm going to go through some of the surrounding land uses, because it's an important part of why we are recommending this zone change. Sutherland Farms Subdivision is located to the north. It was approved as a planned development and while there is R-4 zoning, the planned development allows light office uses. Sutherland Farms Subdivision surrounds the property to the north, to the east, and to the south. To the east of the subject property Sutherland Farms Four, which you will be seeing soon, is a revised plat, will be proposing some single family and attached -- attached single family home, but, then, to the south, again, to Sutherland Farms is R-4 zoning. Again, the planned development allows light office uses on that property to the south. So, the combination of the surrounding land uses with the light office uses to the north and to the south and the property's location on a major arterial and the proposed consistency matrix, which Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval on April 1st, 2004, and is going to go to City Council April 27, 2004, the combination of those -- those factors of surrounding land uses and the compatibility of the matrix, we -- staff felt that this rezone was entirely appropriate for the area and we are recommending approval. Actually, the actual subdivision -- let's see -- is an eight lot light office sub. There were a couple of minor changes that were recommended by our police chief and the applicants conceded to go ahead and make those changes. They wanted to make sure that the access point on the southern part of the subject property did not line up with the access point to the north, so we didn't have a straight shot. The applicant's agreed to go ahead and shift that access point on the north side of the subject property to the west, so there will be kind of more of a circuitous route to get through the parking lot. And since the staff report was written, we have received a revised plat, so we now know that the drive aisles do meet the approval of the fire chief. They will be 25-foot drive aisles. Are there any questions of staff? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I did have one. ACHD made a comment about their proposed driveway on Eagle Road and your comment was that they do not have direct access off of Eagle Road. From the small drawing I had, I could not interpret as well as I can from the one that's on display now, but it does appear that they do have a driveway going to Eagle Road, which ACHD, apparently, is asking that they not have. Borup: I think that's an existing driveway. Isn't that what that is? Or am I misinterpreting that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 27 of 80 Zaremba: We will ask the applicant. Bdrup: Oh, there we go. You're right. It does. Okay. Now I see that. Did you have anything else, Mr. Zaremba? Kirkpatrick: I did want to point out that with the consistency matrix not having been approved yet, this applicant is, essentially, following the consistency matrix through the process. If the matrix is not approved by Council, this application will lose it's ability to ask for the L-O zoning and it would die, essentially. So, just kind of keep that in mind. But the director's determination was that it was okay for this to follow the matrix through the process. Zaremba: Well -- and I would support that. I anticipate that the matrix will pass and it seems to me appropriate that this should be L-O. If that doesn't happen, then, we need to fix the matrix. But I'm agreeing that this is something that should happen, but I did have the question about the driveway access to Eagle Road. And the applicant is now here and that may not be what you want to start with. Borup: Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. I'll just go ahead and address ACHD. If you can go back to the full site, Craig, not --just the overall vicinity map. Or Wendy. I'm sorry. Kirkpatrick: Oh, I'm sorry. McKinnon: You will understand a little bit better about ACHD's comments. ACHD right here at the Ridenbaugh Canal -- and that's the cutoff location for Eagle highway and this is -- it no longer becomes a highway at this point. It's no longer ITD's jurisdiction once it crosses the Ridenbaugh to the south, it becomes ACHD's jurisdiction. And you see the site there. They wanted to have a shared access at this site. Their staff report says that it doesn't meet policy, but they would like to see this access at this location and they asked for a waiver for that and that was approved and so they approved that for shared access for that and the site to the north, so that's how they have asked us to modify that. So, you can go back to the site plan, Wendy, the one we were just looking at. They want this to be moved up, so that it's more towards the center, so that the property to the north can have access, because they felt that there should be access to that property between the Ridenbaugh Canal and the collector street going into Sutherland Farms. So, that's the comments from ACHD and they were, actually, very supportive of this site and the location for the driveway, so that they could both receive access for that. In addition to that -- Borup: Could you explain that again? You said on that driveway access to be moved up? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Apol 15, 2004 Page 26 of 60 McKinnon: Well, just to allow access to the north. Borup: On this application it would be eliminated. McKinnon: This -- it's right here. They want cross-access to the property to the north. Zaremba: It would be half on this property and half on the other property. McKinnon: It would be all on ours with across-access. Borup: Okay. It still stays, but there would be across-access? McKinnon: It's across-access. And you should have received a letter from me stating that the only change that we had to the staff report that we wanted to see was on page seven, it was item number 14, and there was a requirement for across-access and cross-parking with the lot to the north and we don't know exactly how the lot to the north is being developed and so we are more than happy to give them across-access, but at this point to require across-parking agreement seemed premature, so we would ask that we not be required to provide parking for that property at this time, because we don't know why they would need parking on our property, because everybody is required to have parking on their own site, so if we can just have it modified, so that we don't -- we are not required to have across-parking agreement with the property to the north, we would be happy with that. Just one other thing that came up. Just recently we found out that there was an application from Sutherland Farms to revise the office or multi-family to the east of this site. Originally when Sutherland Farms was approved, this was to be office with multi-family and we designed it with that in mind and the reason why it's important now is because this ten foot landscape setback, which is the dotted line you see running up through there, but all of a sudden, if it does single family, it would jump up to a 20 foot setback, because there is a requirement fora 20 foot setback adjacent to residential. When we designed the project we were looking at ten feet, because it was going to be like against like, which requires just the ten-foot buffer. Now there is a change in that and I'd just like your opinion on that as to how to deal with that. Sutherland Farms has not come in to ask for this to be changed yet. It was supposed to be on the agenda tonight and they have moved it off the agenda, so that would be something I would love to receive comments on, if we can continue to keep the ten foot buffer there or not. We have some flexibility in here to maybe move this over. We have got a large landscape area between these two buildings. They could possibly be moved, but we'd much prefer to see the ten, because we designed it with the intentions of this being zoned the way it was and now it's being modified as a planned development, so that's just something I would like to receive comments back on. Zaremba: I would ask for confirmation from staff, but my instinct would be they have not officially made the change in their request yet and if you go in under the assumption that it's going to be the way that it was, your requirement is a ten foot landscape buffer. If Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 29 of 60 they change their impact on the area, I would think that the additional buffer would have to be on their site. Kirkpatrick: That's the director's interpretation also. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: So, I would say regardless of what their application does, you're currently obligated to ten feet and we don't know otherwise at this point. McKinnon: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Iwould agree with that. The only thing that may change is if their application changed before yours was approved, then, that may put a different light. Zaremba: Well, I -- Borup: But at this point Iwould -- Zaremba: Iwould still think the extra buffer would need to be on their side. Borup: That seems -- I agree with that. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: But that's an opinion, but it seems to be shared by staff as well. McKinnon: And just so I'm clear this time, I am asking for approval tonight on this one. Zaremba: I guess a question to staff. Are you comfortable giving up the parking part of the cross-access agreement at this point? Kirkpatrick: If I would talk to Dave for a second, I just wanted to clarify -- so you will just be doing this before the final plat is signed? Your concern is coming up with an agreement before everything -- McKinnon: No, Wendy, it's just the cross-parking. You know, you're required to provide parking for your entire site on site and, typically, across-parking is only required if you can't fit all of your parking on your site, but you need to use someone else's parking. We are not agreeing to let them use some of our parking, which is what across-parking would be. So, we will do across-access, we have no problem with providing that. We just don't want to provide them with parking on our site and so that's all we are asking for. Kirkpatrick: That's fine. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 30 of 60 McKinnon: Okay. Cool. Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Comments. Thank you, Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Okay. Borup: Do we have any public testimony on this application? Seeing none. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move to close the Public Hearing. Borup: Do we want to second that? Zaremba: I'll second that. On both items. Moe: Oh. Excuse me. Borup: Yeah. That motion was for both Items 7 and 8? Moe: Yes. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: And second. Borup: Motion and second to close Items 7 and 8. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Thank you. Okay. It sounds like from what staff was saying maybe the only staff report would be item 14 on page seven that would need modified. Zaremba: Well -- and the access point to the property to the north, which the applicant has agreed to move, means that a new plat will need to be done for the hearing. That's probably a standard condition anyhow. Let me look real quick. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, one other way to modify that would be just to strike the third word parking and, then, again, the -- I think it would be the fifth, sixth, and seventh word that -- the phrase for shared parking. If we were to strike that it would delete that from the -- Borup: That would be a lot simpler. That would be a lot simpler than to put in a new sentence. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 31 of 60 Moe: In his letter he had a recommendation. Borup: Yeah. But I like Wendy's recommendation better. She's saying just cross --just eliminate the word parking and, then, the three words for shared parking, which would -- the sentence would, then, read: Across-access agreement between the subdivision lots and -- well, maybe that is a little awkward. Between the subdivision lots and for the property to the north, the subject property must be submitted. Pardon? Freckleton: You could scratch the word for, too. Borup: I did it. Oh, do you mean -- oh, the second for. Zaremba: But, then, we need to add -- Borup: -- oh, right. And the property to the north. Zaremba: We need to add a paragraph 15 that says a new plat will be submitted ten days before the next hearing showing the movement of the access to the property to the north; right? Kirkpatrick: Yes. Go ahead and add that. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on our agenda, AZ 04-006, request for annexation and zoning of 3.06 acres from RUT to L-O zones for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., northwest corner of south Eagle Road and East Girdner Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date April 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk April 12th, 2004, and I would just note for the applicant that there is an unlikely event that the -- what are we calling it, the zoning matrix may not be approved by the city before this, but we assume it will be and that this is a safe recommendation. End of motion. Moe: I would second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, PP 04-008, request for preliminary plat approval of eight commercial building lots on 3.06 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Southstone Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., northeast corner of South Eagle Road and East Girdner Lane, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of April 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk April 12th, 2004, with the following changes: On page seven, paragraph 14, will be changed as follows: Across-access -- delete the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 15, 2004 Page 32 of 60 word parking -- agreement -- delete the word for shared parking -- between the subdivision lots and for the property to the north of the subject property must be submitted. And on page 17 we will add a paragraph 15 that says: Ten days prior to the next hearing the applicant will submit a revised plat showing that the north access to the north property -- that the access point to the north property is moved to the west. End of motion. Moe: That was on page seven; correct? Zaremba: That is on page seven, a new paragraph 15 Moe: I second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Zaremba: I did have one left-over question. How did McKinnon get the first two items on the agenda when last year he was always the last one? You have moved up in the world, sir. Item 9: Public Hearing: RZ 04-004 Request for a Rezone of 9.47 acres from R- 4 to L-O and R-8 zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to April 29, 2004 Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 15 building lots (14 office and 1 residential) and 1 common lot on 9.47 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to April 29, 2004 Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 04-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for office and assisted living in proposed R-8 and L- Ozones for Southwoods Subdivision by Calderwood Community, LLC - 2090 South Meridian Road: Renoticed to April 29; 2004 Borup: Maybe. He got denied. As mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, the next project, Items 9, 10, and 11, there will not be a hearing tonight. It has been re-noticed for April 29th. And also as has been mentioned, Sutherland Farms -- are we okay on that? That's also continued to the 29th. I think maybe we will want to take a look at that at the end of the meeting and see if that works. Zaremba: We can choose adate -