Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 6, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6. 2004 Page 19 of 52 Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close this Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 9 on our agenda PFP 04-004, request for preliminary plat approval of two building lots on 2.3 acres in an I-L zone for Haztech Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, 475 North Linder Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 4th, 2004, with one change and that is on page five, the comment is actually being made by the Fire Department, paragraph six, reads: Fire sprinklers will be required for all buildings associated with this project and we will add to that: If, in fact, they are required by an adopted safety code, such as the IBC or the IFC. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any apposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 04-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.22 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Magic View Court by Larry Hellhake - 2855 Magic View Drive: Borup: Okay. Thank you. Next item is Public Hearing PFP 04-004, request for preliminary/final plat approval of two building lots -- excuse me. Public Hearing AZ 04- 008, request for annexation and zoning of 5.22 acres from RUT to C-G for Magic View Court. Like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This application is just for annexation and zoning tonight. There is no associated development applications with it. The applicant is proposing a C-G zone. The land is currently in the county, RUT zoning, outlined here on the south side of Magic View Drive. The Magic View Subdivision is, essentially, this area here south of Greenhill Estates, east of Woodbridge Subdivision. The applicant is proposing to, essentially, match the zoning that has already been approved on several other lots here in Magic View Subdivision. The zoning in the Comprehensive Plan during the -- that amendment process a couple of year ago, the 20 plus property owners in this subdivision were fairly involved in that process and submitted several different letters asking for a change, essentially, from their current rural five acre lot subdivision, to a commercial. Office designations were put on the perimeter and commercial designations were put on the interior. There is an existing -- actually, two hotels that are being constructed iri this area right now on the corner of Allen and Freeway and, then, at the corner of Wells and Freeway. Hubble Homes, Hubble Engineering has their headquarters located on this lot, which is adjacent to the south side of this and, then, there is Medical Imaging and Meddian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 20 of 52 some other clinic and office type professional office facilities that are already annexed and located here. W.H. Moore Company is developing this limited office parcel to the north. The history with annexation applications, as you know, is typically to come in with some kind of development application. We have been hearing more from developers at the staff level lately about the difficulty in marketing property that is not annexed and doesn't have city sewer services. My understanding from the applicant that's the main driving force why they'd like to get this -- why they'd like to get this in. They have submitted this concept plan with the application that shows a basic office layout on the property. If the Commission desires or the City Council, this could be included as part of the development agreement, which would, essentially, encumber this parcel with this plan or one similar to it. Staff felt that being in a commercially designated area in the Comp Plan, one that's rapidly transitioning, there is probably a lot of activity on the market from -- with interstate proximity, that we would kind of be setting ourselves up for a lot work in the future if we set up a specific plan that may or may not be feasible. So, we did ask for something to kind of demonstrate what they might be thinking about and that's the reason why this was submitted. If you adopt the staff recommendations as we submitted them, this would not be attached as a required element of the development agreement. We didn't even recommend a development agreement be entered into. So, I think I have addressed sort of the main outstanding items. On page three -- I'm sorry -- page four of the staff report,. paragraph I, that's the reference to the development agreement that the C-G zone, as you well know, has a number of uses that may be fairly intensive. We had this discussion with the Southern Springs project that came through several months ago on Overland and Meridian Road and that was also about afive-acre parcel. It was an expansion of Southern Springs One and they were wanting to cross the Ten Mile Creek, five acre -- the Commission and Council both approved that five acres with a C-G without a development agreement for some of the similar reasons, but I did want to point out that that's certainly an item for discussion tonight. And, then, the last thing to point out would be on page five, special, considerations, Iwas wanting to make the Commission aware there that there is an existing residence. The aerial photo here, as you can see, it's up on the north end of the parcel on the northeast corner. There are some out buildings there. And wanted to just point out for the applicant the current owners, the Commission, that if it was annexed to a commercial zone, that existing residence would not be permitted any expansions or significant alterations that change the footprint of the building without a Conditional Use Permit. Zaremba: On that subject, Brad -- Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: -- if they continue to use it as a residence until such time as they find a commercial buyer for it, once it's annexed are they required to hook up to city sewer and water anyhow, whether they keep the residents or not or can we grandfather the septic system until such time as it changes hands? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, typically what we have done in the past is as long as they maintain it as a home residence, we will allow them to continue to use their well and septic. If they do expand the structure, like Brad's talking, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 21 aF 52 they have to go through the Conditional Use Permit process, we probably at that point in time would make them connect, but as long as it remains basically the way it is today and is lived in as a home, we wouldn't make that requirement. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Anything else? One comment I guess I maybe might make and that's on Brad's comment on in the past we have usually had a project associated with the annexation and I think that makes a lot of sense on some of these stand-alone parcels that are maybe a single parcel next to residential or where ever they may be, But -- and as he's alluded to, I think we have a different situation here. This is more or less expanding commercial development and I, for one, don't have any concern with a straight annexation and zoning in this situation. Rohm: At such time that they develop, will there be a Conditional Use Permit required for that? Borup: Not at this point. I mean not with this -- if we follow the staff report, other than -- other than the development agreement, which would limit -- isn't that correct, that the development agreement would eliminate a lot of commercial uses or uses that would normally be -- could be approved in a commercial zone? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Title 11 of the zoning ordinance, you know, outlines all of the allowed uses, conditional uses, prohibited uses, and so if this was annexed as C-G, you just go down the schedule of uses and if it says that your use requires a conditional use, you have to do a conditional use, but a lot of the uses in the C-G zone are allowed with just coming in for a building permit. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: But are you anticipating in the development agreement to either eliminate some of those or require a conditional use or are you anticipating just following the current -- Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, you just caught me off guard, because I didn't remember recommending a development agreement and, in fact, there is not, so -- Borup: Oh, there is not. What am I thinking of? I'm thinking back to the last application. Sorry. Rohm: So, if there is not a development agreement, then, we'd make the change, then, they can just build anything that falls within that zoning. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Rohm: Without any additional applications being made. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. There would be no public hearings, et cetera. I mean, you know, there are some uses that would require the conditional use, but at this point if you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 22 of 52 approve it as in the staff report, it would -- it would just be a building permit for the majority of the allowed uses, with no public hearing. Borup: Okay. Rohm: And staff is okay with that? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Brad, as you pointed out, this area has already been subject to a lot of public comment and public hearing and we haven't found out yet if there is anybody here tonight specifically to speak on it, but I -- even before we hear them, at this point I would agree with staff that there has been enough said about this that making it a C-G zone and the allowable and conditional uses that are established in the chart are comfortable for me. Unless I hear some objection from public testimony that they want further restrictions, I would not go with a development agreement or anything, I would -- just normal process. Personal opinion, which I can reformulate if we hear public testimony to the contrary, but -- Hawkins-Clark: Last week the Commission, I believe, heard an application on Ten Mile and Ustick for that McNelis Subdivision, where somewhat similar situation, just a request for annexation and I think one of staffs recommendations has been that if it's on an entryway corridor where it will receive a lot of high visibility from the public, we typically would like, in that case, to recommend a conditional use for those that are on the arterials. You know, Magic View Drive certainly is going to carry more and more traffic as the subdivision builds out, since it does connect out to Locust Grove Road, you know, indirectly, but Woodbridge Subdivision has, you know, over 250 lots, so -- but it's not an arterial and so we felt being more internal to a project that it was okay to move ahead as we recommended. Borup: The only permitted use I noticed on the chart that may not be desirable was a bus or rail station and I don't think we have to worry about either one of those going here. Zaremba: If I were designing either one of those, this is not where I would put it. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Hellhake: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Larry Hellhake, 3837 North Hall Drive in Eagle and I represent the owners of the property Bob and Kathy Barnes, who are also present. And, basically, in reviewing the staff report, we agree with all of the points. I would like just to point out two areas, the ones that you have discussed. We have had several people approach us over the past time that we have had the property marketed and each person seems to have a different need, but all of them do fit in the C-G zone. We have looked at motels, a couple of motel people have looked and there is still one. Right now we are negotiating with a medical group Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 23 of 52 that is talking about build two buildings. We did make the plan that you -- that we presented to Brad as a possibility that if we did not have somebody to purchase the property, we may do it ourselves and, then, have maybe six lots. So, we wanted to keep it as broad and as open as we could and allow the most uses, which, obviously, the C-G zone allows us to do. So, we would like very much to have that C-G zone and allow the flexibility to work with any entity that would comply with that zone. As far as the residence, we fully believe that that will be taken out of there. It's not anything that could be even remodeled or fixed that would work as an office or anything like that, so the residence I would guarantee will be removed, destroyed, hauled away in a truck, or donated. Anybody want a house? But it's nothing that really has any value for the property at this time. Other than that, we concur with all of the conditions. We would like very much not to have a development agreement at this time, but be allowed to come back, either ourselves or with a purchaser in the future, to work with you on a C-G zone and we would ask that you would approve this. Borup: Okay. Hellhake: I would be happy to answer any questions. Borup: Any questions for Mr. Hellhake? Rohm: I think staffs answered most of my questions. Thank you Zaremba: That's true. I would only comment -- thank you for supplying the concept. That does help us make sure that we are all envisioning the proper zone for it, so it is handy to have a concept. And we accept a concept as just that. It's not etched in stone, necessarily. That being said, we can't put any conditions on a concept, but I would comment that I like that you are suggesting that there will be at least drive aisle access to the undeveloped property to the west and to the south and would only ask that you maybe consider whether or not one could be put on the east through the Hubble property. It may or not be possible by how they are designed, but -- it's not a condition, it's just a comment to consider and thank you for providing the concept. Hellhake: If we do decide to do that ourselves, we would consider that. I'd meet with them and -- they have landscaped and fenced that, but, obviously, D-8 Cats can open up fences real quick, so -- Zaremba: True. Cross-access is a handy thing Hellhake: Definitely in an area like this. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 24 of 52 Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Before a motion is made, maybe just a point of clarification. I understand the house is going to be demolished and hauled off, but I'm under the understanding that it's lived in and it will be until such time that an application does come forward or that somebody comes in to develop the property. So, I would request that we add a condition, if you would, simply to address the sewer and water issue for that existing structure. I have got one formulated here if you want to consider this. That we just not require the existing home to be connected to city sewer and water unless the use changes from residential or the home is expanded in the future. Rohm: If that's going to happen, it won't make any difference. It won't change things a bit. Freckleton: Right. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: And the purpose for that is annexation would normally require connection. Is that your point, Mr. Freckleton? And this allows that to continue. Freckleton: Yes, sir. Hawkins-Clark: Just one other point of clarification. Annexations without development agreements, they are not technically conditions on the property, they are just comments that are made as a part of the findings. You can't condition an annexation or condition a rezone, so it's just for that clarification. It would be in the findings, but it would be comments that would be for the public record. Borup: Okay. Moe: I'm there. Borup: Yeah. And then, staff already has that in their report, in sight specific comments. So that that we have would be comment number seven, I guess. Moe: Oh. Yeah. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, AZ 04-008, request for annexation and zoning of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 6, 2004 Page 25 of 52 5.22 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Magic View Court by Larry Hellhake, 2855 Magic View Drive, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of May 6, 2004, received by the city clerk May 3rd, 2004, with one change. Under site specific comments, which begin on page five, we will go to page six and add a paragraph seven that says as long as the existing residence continues under its same use, .the use is not changed, or the building is not modified in any way, they may continue to use the current septic and well system. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: But not require hook up to city sewer and water implied in that, I assume. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Okay. Second? Moe: That's a second. Borup: We had a second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11. Public Hearing: PFP 04-005 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval for the re-subdivision of Lot 10 and portions of Lots 9 and 11, Block 11 into 3 building lots on 3.46 acres in a C-G zone for Copperpoint Subdivision by Larson Architects -east of South Eagle Road on the south side of East Copperpoint Drive: Borup: Thank you. The next item is Public Hearing PFP 04-005, request for preliminary/final plat approval for a resubdivision of Lot 10 and a portion of Lots 9 and 11, Block 11, into three building lots on 3.46 acres, C-G zone, for Copperpoint Subdivision. We'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Like Brad, I, too, am pitch hitting for Steve tonight. I just read the staff report for the first time about an hour ago, so bear with me, but I will try to highlight some things in the staff report, just for the general public. This is a preliminary/final plat for athree-lot subdivision on 3.46 acres located in Silverstone on the south side of East Copperpoint Drive. This is just north of the application -- three applications ago on the agenda tonight that Mr. Larsen referred to. This property was originally platted as part of the Silverstone Phase Two. It was recorded in October of 2002. There was a record of survey done on this property in 2003 and moved some of those lot lines around from the original lots in Silverstone Phase Two were approximate size and the lot hasn't changed that much, but the legal description now is a portion of three different lots. There is a CZC that's been issued on this site. The applicant -- this subject application is to provide two mirror lots within the developable area here. That CZC was issued on Lot 3 of the proposed subdivision. I don't know if your eyes are very good, but I can't see which one is Lot 3 and I don't know what the CZC was, but -- the southeast corner Brad says.