Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 5, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Pianning & Zoning May 5, 2005 Page 7 of 32 Guenther: We can do that, too. Moe: I would agree with that. Newton-Huckabay: I think that's fair. --~ Zaremba: Do we have a consensus among Commissioners, that being the suggestion? Rohrn: It works for me. Moe: Yes. Rohm: My personal feeling is whatever information he has as of that date prior to, he make his recommendation one way or the other. It doesn't -- it doesn't have to be an address of each ,and every issue, just where ever staff falls at the end of the disclosures, you make your recommendation based on that and, then, we will act on it, but to conclude, I think that it's safe to say that we are not going to continue this indefinitely and if, in fact, all conditions aren't addressed, more than likely we will move to deny. And that being said, I think we should continue it to the 2nd of June and we will give them that time and if it's not done, then, at that time we will conclude with a recommendation. Newton-Huckabay: Is that a motion? Moe: Is that a motion? Rohm: That's a motion. Zaremba: Is there a second? Moe: Second. Zaremba: Okay. It's moved and seconded to continue this until June 2nd, these three items. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 05-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct 7 office buildings in a previously approved Planned Unit Development of Lot 6, Block 1 of Resolution Subdivision No.1 for Sagecrest Subdivision by Larry Sundell - south of East Overland Road and east of South Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: Next on the agenda, Item 9. I will open the Public Hearing for CUP 05-017, request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct seven office buildings in a previously approved planned unit development of Lot 6, Block 1, of Resolution Subdivision No.1 Meridian Pianning & Zoning May 5,2005 Page 8 of 32 for Sagecrest Subdivision by Larry Sundell, south of East Overland Road and east of South Locust Grove Road, and we will begin with the staff comments. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The applicant is requesting detailed Conditional Use Permit approval for seven office buildings in the L-O zone. The site is designated high density residential in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan. It is currently vacant. However, the parking lot has been improved on the site. This is an older aerial and you don't see the parking lot or the apartments that are just to the south of this site. This site is located on the south side of Overland Road, approximately 800 feet to the east of Locust Grove. To the north is the new movie theater and some other commercial businesses. To the south, again, there is the multi-family Sagecrest Apartments and Mountain View High School. To the east are some professional offices, also zoned L-O, and to the west on the corner of Overland and Locust Grove is currently vacant. This site includes Lots 1 through 9 and Lots 54 through 59 of Block 1 of Sagecrest Subdivision, which was recorded in 2004. With that approval five building lots were platted on the west side of the access drive here. The applicant is proposing three buildings. On the east side of that drive two buildings are platted -- or, excuse me, two lots are platted and the applicant is proposing one building. These buildings do not meet the setback requirements of the L-O zone and, therefore, the applicants -- I noted in the staff report -- either needs to re-subdivide, re-plat the property, excuse me, because the buildings do span across the property lines or show buildings -- additional buildings that meet those setback requirements of the zone. I would like to make note that I did not, in the staff report, include this building with that requirement. I did catch these three buildings that span across these five lot lines. We do need to modify that site specific condition or staff would request that you modify site specific condition number three to add a second sentence requiring the same for the building or buildings on Lots 54 and 55, that they either need to reduce the number of build-able lots or propose buildings that meet setbacks. So, basically-- Zaremba: Page six? Excuse me. Page six of your site-specific number there? Hood: I have it on page seven, Commissioner. I'm sorry. Page six. Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Hood: Number three. It might be worded the same as the first sentence, just changing the lots to read 54 and 55 and, then, the three before the or to a one -- or proposed buildings meet the same -- so that sentence is the same. I'm sorry I didn't scan in a picture of that -- the subdivision Sagecrest, but there are lot lines that run right through the middle of those buildings, so that's the request there of staff. The applicant has submitted detailed elevations for those and they are quite attractive buildings. There are four different -- four different types of buildings, some two story, and, then, the single story here, an A, a B, a C, and a D on the seven lots. Combined a total of 20,566 square feet. I did talk with the applicant this week and we did discuss the buildings spanning across those lot lines and trying find some way to fix that problem, as well as asking him to get with SSC. I haven't followed up with them about SSC or where they ...' Meridian Pianning & Zoning May 5,2005 Page 9 of 32 stand. There were some dumpster issues there and I may ask him to address that before you tonight. But I think those were the two main things with this application. With that I will stand for any questions you may have. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Okay. Thank you, Would the applicant care to come forward? Sundell: My name is Larry Sundell, I'm the architect for the owner of the property Edge, LLC, and I have received the staff's report and I agree with all of the findings of fact. The first item that I would like to address, though, is the waste enclosure. We have located two dumpsters on the site. I was unable to locate Bill Gregory or his assistant Steve. Bill Gregory is currently on vacation, I believe, in Hawaii and won't be back for awhile and Steve was gone until Friday. I do not believe that to be an issue, in that we have located dumpsters at each end of the project and I just could not currently get them to sign off on it, so we would do that for the meeting of the Commissioners. The second issue, which is the property lines, we choose to do the development as it's presented here and would go through the process of changing those property lines and will do whatever is necessary to go in that direction. Though, it is very timely -- or time consuming, we would go in that direction. There are no easements in any of these areas and the owner had purchased a property that was currently rezoned to do office buildings, but in each of these areas they became very small office buildings, in the neighborhood of 1,000 to 1,200 square feet each and it just was not economical to build seven little tiny office buildings and so he wished to consolidate those into larger buildings. So, we are in the agreement with the staff findings. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? We have been given a note from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District responding that they want you to apply to them fora land use change application, since they think that's going to change the Cook's Lateral or something. Are you aware of that note? Sundell: I am not, but could you repeat that? That they -- a land use change? Zaremba: I can give you a copy of it. Land use change application. It was sent to the city clerk and received on May 2nd. Sundell: This project is a development of a previously approved larger conceptual Conditional Use Permit, so at that point, which was approximately -- I'm not sure of the time, but let's say two years ago, that was approved to be offices, as a larger total development of a very large area. It had two sections of commercial offices and, then, an apartment complex. So, I find this surprising, but we will answer that. Zaremba: The city would be in agreement with you. The city agrees that that has happened. Sundell: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 5, 2005 Page100f32 Zaremba: I think Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District is just coming up to speed on it, so - Sundell: I got you. Okay. Zaremba: -- they are asking you to let them know that it's not farmland anymore, Sundell: We will do that. Zaremba: I think. And a question for staff. Do we need to make that one of our conditions or is that entirely a separate operation? Hood: Mr. Chairman, this is their standard letter for all development applications they send. They have added that last -- second to the last sentence specific to this project, the Cook Lateral, but they do just send this out and say if you are changing land use, you need to apply through the district. So, pretty standard. Zaremba: And while you're here, one other question and I will kind of toss this back and forth between you and staff as well. On the east end of the project is there any thought of making that a cross-access into what will be the project east of it? We try and make things that connect, so that we don't actually -- Sundell: Actually, we would like to do that, because the current owner of this is also the owner of the adjacent property. Zaremba: Would that be acceptable to staff? Hood: Mr. Chair, that would be acceptable on -- I was just going to point out that that has been developed already and there is an existing sales office for Corey Barton Homes right there, but we would have no problem with that, just it had already been developed and getting the cross-access from that parcel to this one -- we will probably never see another development application there and so it could be -- but, no, no problems with doing that. No. That's encouraged. Sundell: It would simply eliminate two or three parking places, but in all reality, it would -- for this particular owner, it would make the total larger project flow and would be of benefit to him. Zaremba: Do we need to do something to enable that? Hood: Mr. Chair, if that came in within their building -- first building permit out there, I'll be reviewing that certificate of zoning compliance and I have no problem with them improving that drive aisle all the way over to the property line with that plan of extending that, so I don't think any motion needs to be made on this. We can allow them to do that, pave it right to the property line. Meridian Pianning & Zoning May 5,2005 Page 11 of 32 Zaremba: Sounds good to me. Commissioners, any other questions? Borup: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, on the lot line, does the applicant need to file a new subdivision plat or lot line adjustments or -- Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the -- I did briefly touch on that in the staff report. Currently it is a new subdivision application. We are, however, proposing in the new UDC to have a lot line adjustment application for a -- to reduce the number of build-able lots. We just don't have that mechanism today. The only mechanism is a plat. So, I would encourage the applicant just to wait a couple three months, hopefully, and we will have that staff level ability to actually remove lot lines, But right now we don't, so -- Borup: I take it that's what your preference is, is wait and -- Sundell: Well, I would like to not impact the project negatively, okay? But there is a time line that I was prepared to go through to show you what we have gone through to get to this far and what we have to go through in order to achieve the results in the end. I wouldn't mind. Borup: I think what Mr. Hood was alluding to is that the city recognizes on these type of commercial and office projects that when it comes in you don't know what's going to necessarily going to be built and developed. Sundell: That's right. Borup: So, the new ordinance he's talking about would enable staff to do those lot line adjustments, eliminate a public hearing, and -- but that's not in effect yet, is the problem. Sundell: I have been in contact with staff about that. Borup: So, the question is, then, are you preferable to wait until that passes or proceed ahead with a new plat? Isn't that the two choices? Sundell: Those are the two choices. Currently in time we would be wise to wait for the lot line adjustment law or mechanism to be passed and if we were to plat it, it would be an additional three months beyond that, so in time line that's our shortest avenue. Borup: Okay. Well, I think that's what the city's trying to do is make things like this where it makes sense, just to make it easier. You will probably be the first one to use that. I don't know. Sundell: I would like to go through my time line, if you wouldn't mind. Zaremba: Sure. Thank you. Meridian Pianning & Zoning May 5, 2005 Page 12 of 32 Sundell: We raced to get the project completed and into -- for a hearing on February 15th and we did achieve that goal and all of the drawings and requirements were met at that time. It's now May 5th that we are being heard. So, it's a little frustrating on the side of the developer just to be heard and I understand Meridian is growing and there is six hearings per time, but it seems like an exaggerated time line on our side. So, now it's May 5th and this goes, then, to the county commissioners that would be on June 6th -- 7th. And, then, they have a ten day appeal and, then, if we do -- redo our platting, it's approximately five to six months and if we do the lot line adjustment wait, that's three months. So, we have, essentially, drug what was a project that was part of a larger conceptual conditional use plan, that was planned for offices to be here and it's now in the nine -- approximately nine month time line on the developed side. It's frustrating and I just wanted to express that. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: And I think we empathize with that, but the fact is this was a platted subdivision with platted lots and you chose to develop it such that you had buildings crossing those lot lines and so that was a conscious choice -- Sundell: That's correct. And you are right in that. The owner purchased it and you just get what you get. I understand that, so take it into account. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Let's see. Let me ask staff a question that displays my ignorance if I can. At what point is the certificate of zoning compliance important? Is that before anything breaks ground or is it before occupancy? Hood: No. It's before anything breaks ground. It's actually number two, I believe, on the building department's requirement for me to stamp the plan from the Planning and Zoning Department, saying that the buildings comply with setbacks and that they are proposing landing, parking, and those things, so -- Zaremba: So, this does have to be done first. Hood: Yeah. And those two little buildings -- now, the three on the north side of this could be -- there could -- after four weeks with or whenever the City Council gets to this, the applicant could tum around and submit a certificate of zoning compliance for the northerly three buildings as shown, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Thank you. Sundell: There is a small error in that small, but because on lot -- Building A also is divided in half. It doesn't matter. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 5, 2005 Page 130f32 Zaremba: We will assume you understand the process of needing to fix them all. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the applicant. Why would it take an extended period of time to do a re-plat? I'm a little curious. Sundell: I would have to defer to staff for that, because that's what I was told and I went to the engineers about that and they said it's a very complicated process. I don't know that process, so I would have to ask staff that question. Rohm: Okay. Borup: I assuming that you're talking about the time line. They submitted this February 15th and it's going to be, what, June before it hits City Council already? Hood: Yeah. Average -- I'm sorry. Machelle may be able to help me out, but turn around from Planning and Zoning to City Council is about four weeks, so before it gets to the City Council -- and I believe that's maybe what Mr. Sundell was referring to, not the county commissioners, but the City Council action on this being approximately four more weeks. Rohm: Well, four weeks is better than three months. Borup: No. But he's got to resubmit a new application, so it would be like going clear back to February. Sundell: Correct. Rohm: Yeah. I think that, really, the ball's in your court to decide which way you want to go. If you want to take the -- Sundell: We have to take the -- it's our choice to take the shortest time line process and that would be, my understanding, to wait for the lot line adjustment law to be passed. Rohm: And that's -- Sundell: And that's not a guarantee. Rohm: That is not a known date certain and -- I don't believe it's a known date certain, anyway. Maybe it is. Zaremba: If it's not, it will go before the City Council and assuming how many -- whether or not they have to continue their hearings to get all the public testimony or not, I -- the City Council is as interested as we are on having some of these changes. I mean this is one of the examples of why the ordinance needs to be changed. What you're asking for is something that we desire to have happen also -- Meridian Plenning & Zoning May 5,2005 Page 140f32 Sundell: I was aware of that. Zaremba: -- to make that process easier and, unfortunately, you're caught right in the shift between ordinances here, but I would assume the City Council has no reason to prolong it, assuming they don't get heavy objections from the general public and based on the response that we got, which was mostly positive, I would expect it to go through fairly quickly. Borup: I agree. Zaremba: That's just a personal opinion. Sundell: I'm not sure if that question was answered, but-- Rohm: Yeah. I'm satisfied. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Sundell: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I was just thinking that we were debating something that we really didn't need to debate that point. I think Mr. Sundell's made a decision. Zaremba: Okay. Works for me. Let's see. Nobody else was signed up to speak on this issue, but here is an opportunity, if anybody wishes to. Okay. Apparently we have heard from all the public, in which case Mr. Sundell doesn't need a rebuttal to having had no comments. Commissioners, further questions, discussions, motions? Close the Public Hearing? Borup: I did have a question. Or we could close the Public Hearing also. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: That's just clarification on -- on that change. Mr. Hood said Lot 54 and 55. I didn't hear the block number. And does that also affect -- does that take care of the northem -- and we don't have an overlay, so on my plat is doesn't look like it affects Building A-1, but -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, I did miss that side. Everything on the east side of that drive aisle -- there are four platted lots there. The two buildings that are shown, those are Lots 57 and 58, all of Block 1. So, 54, 55, 57 and 58 of Block 1: Borup: Okay. The little plat you gave us does not show that many lots. Okay. That's good enough. I just saw it. Meridian Pianning & Zoning May 5, 2005 Page 15 of 32 Hood: I'm sorry, I missed that and I apologize to the applicant as well for missing those four platted and the two buildings. Borup: Okay. So, the one that's in the application, that lot to the south, is also divided in half? Hood: Correct. Borup: And those are 54 and 55? Hood: Yes. Borup: And 57 and 58? Hood: And 57 and 58. Yes. Borup: Block 1. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing, Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The Public Hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup, you appear to be prepared to -- Borup: Oh, I was just prepared to close. Zaremba: -- make the motion. Borup: Okay. I don't have this rewritten, but I'll try. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of -- maybe I'm not ready. Of CUP 05- 017, which is a Conditional Use Permit for development of Sagecrest Subdivision, to include all staff comments and conditions of the staff memo dated April 28th for the May 5th hearing, with the addition of paragraph three on page six, to add to the first sentence, after -- I think that's a question, Mr. Hood. Your staff report says -- your comments say five, six, seven and eight of Block 1, and, then, you said 56 -- or 54 and 55 of also Block 1? Hood: Correct. Borup: With a -- okay. That's a private street. Hood: There is a drive aisle and all of this was a larger subdivision of those -- Meridian Planning & Zoning May 5,2005 Page 160f32 Borup: It's a drive aisle, then, for-- Hood: Correct. It's a private drive. Borup: Okay. To add to that -- to also add that Lots 54, 55 -- I can't read my own writing now -- 58, 59 -- Lot 54, 55 and Lots 57 and 58 on Block 1. Did I get the right numbers there? Moe: Yes. Zaremba: May I ask our attorney a question, Since everybody understands what we are trying to do and the applicant, essentially, has agreed to move forward in some fashion to solve this problem, do we need to get all of these numbers down or can we simply say the requirement is to make the lots conform to the buildings, so that no building is across a lot line? Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the staff is going to prepare the draft findings for the Council. You probably want to -- if Mr. Hood feels he has enough information to prepare the findings, that the Commission is in agreement with the staff's recommendation and the comments that have been made by the applicant, if he feels there is enough information and there is transcribe-able record from it, I think that, certainly, you don't have to make sure you don't miss a number here, I think you will be fine. But at least make sure Mr. Hood's comfortable with that. Borup: I think the numbers were down and the motion was over. Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Second. Zaremba: All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 05-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 120.15 acres from R1, RUT, CoG and I-L zones to CoG, I-L and L-O zones for Pinebridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - east of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 05-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 55 building lots and 7 other lots on 120.15 acres in proposed CoG, I-L and L- 0 zones for Pinebridge Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - east of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue: