Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 6, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 52 of 54 Borup: So, probably, the amenities would be another number seven in this case. Moe: Well, I'll go ahead and add a number seven under the site specifics and that the applicant will work with staff to -- what word did you say -- determine what amenities will go in the tot lot. End of motion. Rohm: I'll second that. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 04-033 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 15.92 acres from C-2 and RUT zones to CoG zone for Star-It by Avest LP - 355 North Ten Mile Road: Zaremba: Thank you all. Next we will open a Public Hearing, which is Item 9, AZ 04- 033, request for an annexation and zoning of 15.92 acres from C-2 and RUT zones to a CoG zone for Stor-It by Avest LP, 355 North Ten Mile Road and we have a request from the applicant to delay any further comment on this, so do we need staff comments or shall we go straight to a continuance? Canning: Chairman Zaremba, just a quick update. This is another one where the applicant is reconsidering whether they really want to annex into the city at this time. So, we may end up just pulling -- they may end up withdrawing it. We are not sure what they are going to do yet, so if we just continue it for probably two hearings and, then, we will see if he's made up his mind by then. Zaremba: Okay. You're thinking February 3rd or-- Canning: Yes. I have been trying to keep your 20th agenda light, so that -- for the Compass presentation that we talked about earlier today. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: For the 3rd or continue it for two full hearings? Zaremba: February 3rd is the one that I think was being suggested. Canning: I think that should be fine. Borup: Did they express how much time they felt they needed? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6.2005 Page 53 of 54 Canning: Probably when something froze over, but at this point, no, they have not, so -- I mean if you wanted to move it to the second hearing in February that would probably be okay, too. Borup: Mr. Chairman? The other question I -- and this may be mainly just for my curiosity, but their letter stated it was unanticipated and I want -- that kind of surprises me that it would have been unanticipated. Weren't they aware of requirements -- and are they talking about the street -- Canning: The big issues were the street widening and, then, the location of a pathway across their property. Borup: So, maybe the pathway may have been unanticipated. Canning: I think that was the straw, yeah. Borup: Okay. Canning: I think they didn't realize that -- what they came to realize is if they annex now, they end up dedicating right of way. If they wait until ACHD does their road improvements, then, they are paid for the right of way and I think that that was one of the big factors. And, then, having to install the pathway was the second one. Borup: So, if they proceed ahead, they'd proceed with a county application? Canning: No. They'd have to be refused annexation by us, which we haven't done at this point. Borup: Okay. Before the county -- that's what I was wondering. So, they would not develop it. Canning: And my understanding is the county -- they are on city water and the city made it a clear condition of approval that they would not approve any additional development with city services until the properly were annexed. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: That already runs on their existing development; right? Canning: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue Public Hearing AZ 04-033 to the February 17th, 2005, date. End of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 6. 2005 Page 54 of 54 Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: I believe we need one more motion. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: We have adjourned at it looks like 9:55. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED DAVID ZAREMBA - CHAIRMAN _I_I- DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK Meridian Planning & Zoning February 17, 2005 Page 29 of 76 Zaremba: We have four in favor and one opposed. The motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you all. Traditionally somewhere in the neighborhood of 9:00 o'clock we take a break and I believe this would be an appropriate time to take about ten minutes and reconvene. (Recess. ) Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from January 6, 2005: AZ 04-033 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 15.92 acres from C-2 and RUT zones to CoG zone for Star-It by Avest LP - 355 North Ten Mile Road: Zaremba: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene our meeting. Let the record show that all Commissioners are present again and we will move on to Item 9. I will open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 04-033, request for an annexation and zoning of 15.92 acres from C-2 and RUT zones to CoG zone for Stor-It by Avest LP, 355 North Ten Mile Road, and we will begin with staff comments. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. I will try and be very brief with this one and if you have any questions, please ask. This is an annexation. The location is right off of Ten Mile just south of the railroad right of way. This is bisected by Ten Mile Creek. The east portion is the C-2 zone and the west portion is the RUT zone. At this time the front -- there is the aerial photo. At the time the front here has existing storage units on it. The bridge in this location recently was completed, as well as they are going -- they are proposing to put in new buildings in this area in the rear and two new ones in the front. This is a conceptual plan. There is no approval for the actual buildings at this time. What we are looking for the -- being addressed in the development agreement for the site would be the compliance with the five year work plan along Ten Mile Road, as well as meeting the Comprehensive Plan for the multi-use pathway along Ten Mile Creek on the western portion of the site. This site is also bordered by a proposed multi-use, multi-family high density to the west and this is all proposed, since everything there is vacant currently. And a church site to the south. We have met with the church site and they will be putting the pathway to the Avest property off of Ten Mile Creek and that's part of the reason why this pathway needs to continue up -- continue through. To the north is a recent R-8 development that has also continued the pathway on the west side of Ten Mile Creek. At this time it's -- the staff report reflects what our comments would be. We believe that all of the issues for the site can be addressed during the development agreement and the site would just be redeveloped through certificate of zoning compliance in the future. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions for the staff? Newton-Huckabay: I have none.