Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 19, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 190f82 McKinnon: I think the second meeting in September would be appropriate as well. Give us a chance to -- Borup: That's probably even better. But we are -- that will fill it up, so -- McKinnon: I promise not to talk so much next hearing. Borup: We will remember that. Zaremba: September has five Thursdays. Are we thinking of having a fifth Thursday meeting? Borup: Right now we have four projects on the 16th. We have a number of items, but four projects. Rohm: Let's try for the 16th. Moe: I agree. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearings AZ 04-016, PP 04-022, and CUP 04-024 until our regularly scheduled meeting of September 16th. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: RZ 04-010 Request for a Rezone of .68 acre from R-4 to an O-T zone for Mittleider Rezone by Leon Smith - 125 West Cherry Lane and 1645 West 1st Street: Borup: The next item is Public Hearing RZ 04-010, a request for a rezone of .68 acres from R-4 to OT zone for the Mettleider rezone by Leon Smith at 125 West Cherry Lane. We'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject site is located on the south side of Cherry Lane, approximately 300 feet west of Meridian Road, between West 1 st Street and West 2nd Street. The applicant has requested a rezone for 0.68 acres from the current R-4 zoning to the Old Town, OT zoning designation. The subject property includes four original lots of record in Wilson Addition Subdivision, which was recorded in 1948. The map before you today shows a current zoning and that each one of those lots shown there actually contain two platted lots of record. To the north of the subject site is the horse pasture -- current horse pasture, not annexed in the city, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south are single-family homes in the Wilson Addition Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the east are also single-family homes and to the Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 20 of 82 west is the LDS church, zone R-4. There are two homes currently on this site. The home on the west currently takes access and has an address to Cherry Lane. The one on the east has access to West 1st Street and takes access from that road. With the rezone application, the applicant has provided a conceptual site plan and staff always encourages with just straight rezones or annexation applications that don't have development applications concurrent, so we can kind of get a feel for what they are looking at doing and the city kind of looks at potential for that property. Before you is the conceptual site plan that the applicant submitted. It does show two offices -- dentist office or medical clinic type uses, with parking for each one of those uses. There is a direct access shown to Cherry Lane, as well as access to West 1st and West 2nd Street. ACHD did submit a staff report that states that the depicted access point to Cherry Lane does not meet their policy for location, because access does not meet ACHD's policy and the city also has policies that state they should restrict access points to arterials and collectors. Staff is recommending that no access to this parcel be granted when these developments or a single building go in on this property. The existing single family home that is currently on the left side of this site plan, of course, can remain, that driveway can remain until such time as it redevelops. Another basis for this is they do have sufficient access and can make -- as far as staff is concerned, make the turning radiuses for the fire department and the availability for parking to work with just the access to 1 st and 2nd Street. One other thing I'd like to touch on and, then, I will stand for any questions and let the applicant give their proposal, but Meridian City Code does require a 25-foot wide landscape buffer on Cherry Lane on arterials and a ten foot wide landscape buffer on 1 st and 2nd Street or local streets, and a 20-foot wide landscape buffer along the south property line of this one, because it would be an office- clinic type use adjacent to residential uses. So, I did point that out in the staff report for the applicant's benefit and we can possibly look at some form of alternative compliance for that that is going to be 45 feet north to south and landscaping. The site is only about 130 feet deep -- maybe not even that. I don't recall off the top of my head. But it's a substantial portion of the site. Again, that's not being required with this application, just a heads up for the applicant. Staff is recommending approval of the subject rezone request to OT, with the conditions outlined in the report, which include requiring the developer enter into a development agreement, which would restrict retail and commercial uses, allowing professional offices, medical clinics, those type of uses, in the OT, and that would also restrict access to Cherry Lane in the future. As I just mentioned, the applicant did submit a response letter. They did have concerns with that restriction to Cherry Lane and landscaping -- again, the landscaping is not a requirement, just a heads up. That response letter is on the backside of the ACHD staff report. It's kind of hidden back there. It looks like it was a supplemental packet from the city clerk, although I don't see a cover sheet on that, it's just the ACHD packet is what I had, with the last two pages being the applicant's response. With that, I'll stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Craig, I notice by the drawing that is up on the screen that this, actually, is originally four lots that had two houses, each of which must have been Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 21 of 82 built across two. Does this application make that into a single lot or does it still remain four separate parcels? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, it would still be -- and I believe the Ada County assessor recognizes it as two parcels. What I did not find out is when that -- each lot on what is two parcels by Ada County standards, if a density reduction survey had to be accomplished or what, but it not be considered one parcel by the city or by Ada County. They could do something to that effect if one property bought the other and vacated the easements. Those properties -- those lot lines will be there forever. You can't vacate those lot lines, but you can vacate the easements and, then, build across them and I don't know if there were four houses or structures, one on each lot, or not. But the -- their buildings do go across the lot lines that were platted in 1948. Zaremba: So, this action would not prevent them from, essentially, any configuration of building they wanted? Just by the fact -- we are not validating that it's going to be four separate lots? Hood: I can't think of one. The only restriction they would have -- and they could -- you know, they could -- even if there was a central building, one large building, they would have to vacate any easements that run through the common property lines and so there are two separate property owners, but that could be accomplished, you know, with the relinquishments from all utilities or anyone that has an interest in anything on either side, but that could even be accomplished. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Anything else? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Leon Smith and I'm married to Janice Mittleider and we own the two lots on the left and my mother-in-law Nobella Mittleider owns the two lots on the right side. So, it's separate ownership, but we have had this ownership for a long time and in answer to one of the questions, these houses have been there forever. This is really the old part of Meridian. The thing I'd like to bring to your attention -- and I certainly won't take more than the 15 minutes that you planned to allocate to the applicants, but these houses here are not suitable residences on Cherry Lane. I'm told that there are over 30,000 vehicles a day that pass by there. My wife's mother has a patio on the Cherry Lane side that is unusable because of the noise and the fumes and just -- there is a lot of traffic there. We rent the house that's on the other two lots and we -- sometimes we have a lot of difficulty renting it, because nobody wants to subject their children to 30,000 cars a day. So, the ideal use for the properties would be some sort of professional office building, whether it be a doctor, lawyer, dentist, chiropractor, accountant, whatever. All of that requires a Conditional Use Permit, so we'd have to be back before you, if you allow us to rezone, to put your conditions on there. At this time we'd just like to have it rezoned OT and in the Comprehensive Plan Nobella's two properties on the right side are in the Comprehensive Plan as Old Town. And for some reason or other the Old Town Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 22 of 82 designation goes right down the center line of Wilson Subdivision, so that our two lots on the other side aren't in the Comprehensive Plan, but at least this makes them contiguous and so it would -- it would all be one Old Town designation. I appreciate the staff report and I tried to respond to that and, of course, my -- one of my main concerns is that there is 160 feet of depth on those lots north to south and with 45 feet taken out for flowers on Cherry Lane and on the back, the landscaping requirement would make it very different to comply with parking and have any sizeable structure on the property at all. So, I'm told -- Craig tells me that I -- when -- get by this hurdle, when we come in with the conditional use, we can ask for a variance on that, if we can show justification for it. So, that would be our plan on that one and that's why J mention that in my response. The second issue is the access on Cherry Lane. There is presently an access, but it is over on our two lots. Actually, it's on Lot 2 and goes directly into the garage of that house and we'd have to have that access and I don't know whether these two -- four properties, but two ownerships, would develop separately or not, but I'm concerned by giving up an access that may be vital to our property on the left for a development that may occur on the right two parcels. I can certain see the need for it and with the amount traffic I'm certainly willing to agree and while we are all three willing to work with the city on something on access and probably for West 1 st Street and West 2nd Street are the logical things. But I just bring that up, because it is of a concern to Jan and I. We don't want to do anything that would jeopardize our parking for our tenants on the left two parcels. So, that's sort of the sum and substance of my presentation. I'll certainly be happy to answer any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Moe: Well, yeah, I have one. I understand your concern, but if, in fact, through the report and whatnot, you would be gaining access to the properties on both 1 st and 2nd Streets, so I'm not sure exactly why you're concerned with having the access out on Cherry Lane. Smith: In response, at this point I'm not. I don't -- this is conceptual and so when we come forward, assuming you allow us to do that, with the conditional use, then, I don't know what we will have at this time and giving up that may be important to our development. I don't know. But if you -- if you insist on that for approval of the rezoning designation, then, of course we will comply. Borup: Other questions? Thank you, sir. Smith: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Okay. Seeing none -- Hood: Mr. Chair? Borup: Mr. Hood. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 23 of 82 Hood: I would like to clarify a couple of good points that the applicant brought up that I kind of just breezed right over. The Comp Plan designation is a pretty significant one that I did want to just touch on real quick. You can see from the zoning map -- I apologize for not scanning in the Comp Plan, but the Old Town designation does bisect the subject property that's outlined there in black right down the middle of the block between West 1st and West 2nd. In the staff report it does make some finding that it does have frontage on an arterial street and, as the applicant states, staff is supportive of this use being a nonresidential use anyways and someone trying to back up onto Cherry Lane with 30 to 40 thousand cars a day, it doesn't make sense to staff. So, that Comp Plan designation did kind of fudge over a little bit to -- you know, that designation will expand if this OT zoning designation is approved. So, I just wanted to point that out. And back to the access. Currently, city code would require anything in the OT to obtain -- any use in the Old Town zoning designation, except for single-family residences, to obtain a Conditional Use Permit. We are currently working on drafting a new ordinance and depending on what this subject site develops, certain. uses will be principally permitted in the Old Town zone or a staff level review and those type of things. So, I'm a little hesitant to remove or change the recommendation to. say that access is okay now, because you may not see this again, it may be just a staff level approval. As of right now, if they turned around tomorrow and submitted the application, they would -- it would require a CUP, but we were looking into amending that part of the ordinance, so I did just want to point that out and they do still, regardless of the zone, they do only have 255 feet of frontage on Cherry Lane and ACHD requires 150 feet between driveways, so you'd need a minimum of 300, plus the width of the driveway to get an access there. So, they aren't approving or denying access points, it's for a rezone only, but just based on their policy and having only 255 feet, again, staff thinks that that's sufficient and the parking concern that the applicant brought up, you could still have the same design and just have the vertical curb. I mean you could still have all these parking spaces, it wouldn't change any of those requirements, you just don't have access. So, this design would even work, not binding them to the design, but you wouldn't lose any parking by restricting access and it would work just fine like that. So, with that, again, staff is supportive of the rezone, but I just wanted to clarify a couple of those points. Thank you. Zaremba: Let me pursue the access. Would it be comfortable if the development agreement included a statement to the effect that as long as the -- even though it's rezoned to OT, if the property continues to be used as it's use, which is a residence, that the current access would remain, but when they change the use, then, the access would go away? Hood: That's exactly what staff was trying to get across, that the -- you know, the existing use can continue until it's ready to develop. I guess one -- just one other option we have is just to require a CUP in the future. Now, that still doesn't give me the sense that, you know, the access has been and it's still up for negotiations if you leave that up, but at least it comes back to this board, if you're wavering on, you know, not restricting access in the future when that develops, that is another -- another option, just straight saying you've got to come back for a CUP. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 24 of 82 Zaremba: I personally am not wavering on the future access, I'm just trying to accommodate the current use. I agree that that's not a good place for access to Cherry Lane if this develops into office uses or professional uses and stuff and that the accesses off the two side roads need to be sufficient, so -- but I'm just -- I'm trying to protect the current use as long as it is the current use, because I can understand the applicant's feeling that this may not change immediately. Borup: And was that staff's intention? Hood: Yeah. I'm sorry that's not more clear in the staff report. That condition probably could have been worded better, I guess, that the existing single-family access to Cherry can continue. Borup: And ACHD is pretty clear in their report, that it - the requirement of 150 feet and they do state that it is not approved in their staff report. Zaremba: Yeah. I would also comment -- and, again, this is not a commitment for the future, because we don't really have the concept in front of us, but the church to the west of this has no landscaping. The current properties to the east of this may develop differently, but I certainly could see alternate compliance that would be something under the 25-foot front buffer and maybe a smaller rear buffer as well. Maybe that gives the applicant some comfort, but no commitment until we see the real plan, but I just -- that's a personal opinion. Borup: Okay. Commissioners? Rohm: I just have a question of staff on this. If, in fact, at a future time their proposed development would be more beneficial with access onto Cherry Lane, can they, via the Conditional Use Permit process, apply for access onto Cherry Lane, even though the existing rezone has already taken place to Old Town? Hood: I thought I was with you until the last part, Commissioner. I thought you were asking if -- can they apply -- if you restrict access, what -- Rohm: Well, right now this application or staff comment says to restrict access not to Cherry Lane, but at such time that they actually come up with a conceptual plan to develop it commercially and it would be more advantageous for them to receive some sort of access onto Cherry, can they make that as part of their Conditional Use Permit application? Hood: I would think we would accept the application, but if there is a development agreement that restricts access, I don't know how the city -- I mean you can amend the development agreement to review that condition in the future if you wanted to, but -- does that answer your question? Am I -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 25 of 82 Rohm: Just curious. Okay. Thank you. Borup: And it would still require ACHD approval, too. Okay. Commissioners, are we ready for a motion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing RZ 04-010. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-010, request for a rezone of .68 acres from R-4 to an OT zone for Mittleider -- I'm sorry if I massacred the name -- rezone by Leon Smith, 125 West Cherry Lane and 1645 West 1 st Street, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of August 19, 2004, received by the city clerk August 13th, 2004, with the following change: On page seven, paragraph three, I would add a sentence at the end of that paragraph stating to clarify in the development agreement that use of access to Cherry Lane is acceptable until such time as the use of the existing building changes and at that point the access to Cherry Lane is abandoned. Hood: Commissioner Zaremba, in paragraph four, actually, the second bullet talks about access and maybe that would be -- for clarity purposes that may be a better place you could insert that same language, but maybe in paragraph four, second bullet. Still on page seven. Zaremba: Well, that's true for once the use changes, but it doesn't clarify that it's okay for the access to continue as long as the existing use continues. Where would you rather have me put that? On the second bullet or -- Hood: That works fine, too. I just thought you could talk about access all in the development agreement in the same area, rather than having them across site specific conditions, but that's works, too. Zaremba: Okay. I see what you're saying. And, actually, that does make more sense. Okay. Cancel my first motion, I'm going to start from scratch. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-010, request for a rezone of .68 acres from R-4 to OT zone for Mittleider rezone by Leon Smith, 125 West Cherry Lane and 1645 West 1st street, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of August 19th, 2004, received by the city clerk August 13th, 2004, with one change. On page seven, under annexation and zoning site specific conditions and comments, paragraph four, which refers to the development agreement, the second bullet under that currently reads: Access to Cherry Lane is prohibited. Access to the site shall be provided from West 1 st Street and West 2nd Street, with cross-access Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 28 of 82 between all the lots, add a sentence in that bullet that says: Until such time as the current use as residential changes, the current access to Cherry Lane is acceptable. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: We have had a request from the Commissioners for a short break at this time, so we'd like to take a short break. (Recess.) Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ. 04-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Chatsworth Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - west of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 04-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 77 single-family residential building lots and 4 common lots on 19.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Chatsworth Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - west of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Borup: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to reconvene our hearing for this evening and continue with Items 12 and 13, Public Hearing AZ 04-018, request for annexation and zoning of 19.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Chatsworth Subdivision by Dyver Development and also Public Hearing PP 04-025, a request for preliminary plat approval of 77 single family residential building lots -- or common lots on the same project. Again, we'd like to open both of these hearings and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. This application, as you stated, is for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat on 19.4 acres, located on the west side of Locust Grove Road about a third of a mile south of the Victory Road. The land is designated as medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map and the applicant has requested all the property be zoned R-8. You can see the subject site there outlined in black. To the north of that is the recently approved Roseleaf Subdivision, a single-family residential development, zoned R-8. To the west is an agricultural piece of property, an 18-acre parcel zoned RUT in Ada County. Tuscany Lakes Subdivision, the single-family residential development, zoned R-4, you can see one of the phases has been platted and shows up on this map. There is a five- acre parcel to the south currently zoned RUT and a 25-acre parcel to the south, also zoned RUT in Ada County. There is currently a single-family home near Locust Grove Road and some outbuildings there. You can kind of see the stuff that isn't green within the black outline are the single-family homes and the outbuildings that the applicant is