Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 5, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Paga 4 of 54 time to talk. If the yellow one comes on with 15 seconds left to go or 30 seconds? Thirty seconds left to go -- Newton-Huckabay: Not very many. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from December 16, 2004: AZ 04-029 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 8.58 acres from RUT zone to C- G zone for Cottonwood Lane by Tom Holliday/Cottonwood Lane Partners - 985 East Freeway Drive: Zaremba: Yeah. And the red one comes on when we would like you to conclude with your next breath, please. That helps us all. Okay. So,1 would like to open the continued public -- reopen the continued Public Hearing from December 16th, 2004, for AZ 04-029. This is a request for annexation and zoning of 8.58 acres from RUT zone, which would be a county zone, to C-G zone for Cottonwood Lane by Tom Holliday, Cottonwood Lane Partners, 985 East Freeway Drive. We will begin with staff comments. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, I'm pinch hitting for Craig today and if I'm too brief in the presentation, I'm used to presenting at Council after you guys have worked out all the details, so if you need more details, please, let me know, because the applications we have tonight all present straight forward, but if I miss information that you would like, let me know. This property is a L-shaped property, as you can see. It has frontage on both Freeway Drive and -- on the south and, then, Wells Drive on the west of the property. The request tonight is just for an annexation and zoning for the property to the C-G zone and it is designated as commercial on the Comprehensive Plan. You can see there is one existing house on the property. Over the past pass few years two hotels and multiple office buildings have been constructed near this parcel and they are not showing up on the aerial, but as you know, they are along Freeway Drive, the hotels are, and the applicant has presented a conceptual site plan. Let's see. I'm sorry, but it threw me for a loop for a moment. The property actually goes here. So, there is the L-shape. This is another property. That's another hotel. And, conceptually, they have proposed a hotel and/or restaurant toward the south end of the property, some commercial office uses kind of at the bend of the Land, then, multi-family on the western portion of the property. And as we go through, staff is recommending approval of this project, but we are recommending that only the southern portion be C-G and that this northern portion be zoned L-O and that would accommodate the offices and the multi-family. The multi-family currently are not an allowed use in the C-G. And, then, I'll skip forward to the special considerations that Craig pointed out in his staff report. The first one is just kind of a platting issue. There is -- in the original plat for this subdivision -- it is a recorded lot in the subdivision. They specifically stated the setbacks on the plat, so those setbacks, technically, would still go forward and they are 25 foot front setback, 20 foot side setback, and, then, a 25-foot rear setback. How you determine that on this piece of property is a good question, but we did want to point out to the applicant that there were those recorded setbacks on the original plat. The multi-use pathway at Five Mile Creek -- you can see the bend of it Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 5 0154 here as it comes through the property. That is the actual creek. And, then, the flood plane encompasses almost all of this area just south of it and, then, it extends into the property as well. They will have to -- we are recommending that they -- that the city enter into a development agreement with the developer, so that we can make sure we get a pathway along Five Mile Creek. Landscaping, Craig just pointed out what the various landscape buffers are required between the different uses and we would expect to see that on any future development. And, then, the conceptual site plan future uses, we did evaluate the site plan and it does comply with our codes, but we understand that this was just conceptual, but we just wanted to reiterate that this -- the conceptual plan was not approved with this application. And, then, the existing residence would not be allowed to -- if the zone changes, the existing residence could not be altered or changed without conditional use approval, because it's no longer an allowed use in the zone, The only comment of -- the two comments of note, one was that Craig, at the bottom of page eight, he's noted at least ten days prior to the City Council hearing he would like the applicant to submit a new legal description to the Planning and Zoning Department, one for the CoG portion of the lot and, then, one for the L-O portion of the lot, just so we make sure we go into the City Council hearing knowing that we have those -- the proper legal description. And, then, the other condition of note is with regard to the development agreement and as you see on page nine, Craig has detailed those out. Applicant will be responsible for any cost associated with bringing sewer and water service to the area. No alterations, expansions, reconstructions to the existing single- family residence. All future development must be in accord with the city standards as we have talked about before. And the applicant will be responsible for the multi-use pathway construction along Five Mile Creek. And, then, any other conditions that the Commission and/or Council may want to place on the project. So, with those conditions, staff is recommending approval. You will see comments from the other agencies. Those are just kind of a heads up to the developer that this is what they will be expected to meet when they do come in for future development, but, again, this is just a straight rezone, so we do not have conditions of approval, other than the improvements we are asking for in the development agreement. With that I'll end staff's presentation. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions for Director Canning? Would the applicant care to step forward and comment, please? I failed to mention that in all public testimony, when you come up to testify, please, begin by stating your name and address for the record. Thank you. Bowhecker: David Bowhecker, 334 South Bitterroot in Boise. I'm the agent for -- real estate agent for Tom Holliday, he's from out of state, and the applicant is in agreement with the staff report, Zaremba: Specifically you -- you were in agreement with calling it two zones, L-a and -- Bowhecker: Yes. We will do -- yes. And we will do the legal description. We'll get a surveyor. We have not contacted a surveyor. We think we can meet that deadline, but that will be what we have to do, get a surveyor to get those legal descriptions. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 Page 6 of 54 Zaremba: Commissioners? Rohm: Wow, that's pretty simple. We have got to complicate things a little bit. Borup: And, Mr. Chairman, that was the only question I had, if the time frame is okay for you. Bowhecker: Yeah. That -- if you can tell me when that date is. I don't know the date of the -- Zaremba: We don't know when the City Council hearing is going to be, but ten days before that is when they are asking to have the final -- that's a standard request. Canning: Generally -- Commission. Zaremba -- or Chairman Zaremba, excuse me. Generally, the time between the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council is just about a month, so you would have about 20 days. Bowhecker: We will make the call tomorrow. Should be able to get that. Zaremba: And let me express appreciation for providing a concept plan. That does help everybody decide whether the zoning questions are correct and we do try and treat them just as a concept plan, not etched in stone. But we appreciate having them. Thank you. Bowhecker: All right. Thank you. Zaremba: Is there anyone else who cares to testify on this subject? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 04-029. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: The Public Hearing is closed. Is there a motion for -- Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-029, to include all staff comments, conditions of the staff memo date -- Public Hearing date January 6, 2004, transmittal date January 3rd, 2004. '5. It says '4 on the sheet, actually. End of motion. Zaremba: Is there a second? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6, 2005 paga 7 of 54 Rohm: Second. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from December 2, 2004: PFP 04-008 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval for 4 building lots on 8.02 acres in an I-L zone for Nola Subdivision by Bergey Land Surveying - SWC of East Pine Avenue and North Nola Road: Zaremba: The next Public Hearing is Item 5 and we'd like to reopen this continued hearing. Again, this is PFP 04-008, and, again, there has been a request to continue this until February 3rd for further information from the applicant. . Anybody care to make that motion or do we need some staff discussion on it before we do that? Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission, the only staff comment I have is that we do request that you advise us what you would like us to do if we do not receive the information requested ten days in advance of the next hearing. The options being prepare a recommendation for denial or continue it another month. Moe: We haven't opened it -- Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question? Zaremba: It is open. I believe I reopened it. Newton-Huckabay: Has this one been continued three times? Borup: No. Newton-Huckabay: Two times? Borup: I believe it's the first continuing. Wilson: It was continued at the December 2nd hearing, so this would be the second hearing, Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Borup: Mr. Chairman, that's a question I had. At that meeting there was discussion of continuing it to the 16th and they thought that might be a little tight and that this meeting would be plenty of time --