Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 2, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 2 of 117 they think we should know about their project, respond to issues raised by the staff in their review for us. The applicant, including any supporting staff of engineers or architects, has 15 minutes to give us their presentation. After that the general public is invited to comment and we ask that you do a couple of things. One, since we can all hear you, if it was important enough to come down, it's important for us to hear you. So, please, come up to the microphone and only speak when you're at the microphone. ~'--- When you're there -- and this is for everybody -- please begin by giving your name and ----- ~-- ~ddress, so that that can be in the record also. Individual comments we ask that you be cónCTSe,R.YQl! can, and limit your remarks to three minutes. If we have an individual that is representirigagroup of other people and speaking for them -- an example of that would be a president of a homeowners association, we do allow ten minutes, as long as the other people agree that that person is speaking for them and they don't speak. Atter the public has had their time to comment and inform us of things that they think we should need to know, then, the applicant is given another opportunity. They will be taking notes throughout and they will have another ten minutes to respond to anything that's been raised and, then, after that, theoretically, we will deliberate and our end result is a recommendation made to the City Council, where, again, there will be probably public hearings on the same subjects. So, that's what our procedure is. It looks like our light system is not here, so we will -- we will guess at the timing on it, but if everybody will cooperate, we will appreciate that. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005: PP 05-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 building lots on 4.31 acres in a L-O zone for Julie Subdivision by Paramount Development, Inc. - northeast corner of North Linder Road and West Cayuse Drive: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from April 21, 2005: CUP 05-013 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with reductions to the minimum requirements for street frontage and building setbacks for Julie Subdivision by Paramount Development, Inc. - northeast corner of North Linder Road and West Cayuse Drive: Zaremba: So, we will begin this evening with -- I will open -- or, actually, reopen the continued Public Hearing for PP 05-011, request for preliminary plat approval of 12 building lots on 4.31 acres in an L-O zone for Julie Subdivision, and also the continued Public Hearing I'm reopening for CUP 05-013, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development with reductions to the minimum requirements for street frontage and building setbacks for Julie Subdivision. Both of these are Paramount Development, Inc., and are on the northeast corner of North Linder Road and West Cayuse Drive. And we will begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The item before you is Julie Subdivision. It's a limited office development, consisting of 12 building lots on approximately 4.31 acres in the Paramount development. Paramount Subdivision received conditional use approval for a conceptual planned development in 2003, encompassing a large portion of the land between Meridian Road and Linder Road Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 3 of 117 north of McMillan in north Meridian. As part of that conceptual planned development, the applicant was required to come in for a detailed Conditional Use Permit approval for the commercial and office areas proposed with the subdivision. The one that has come in now is as stated on the corner of Cayuse -- I guess Creek Drive and North Linder Road located there. To the south is a future Meridian high school site. To the west is Lochsa Falls Subdivision. To the north is a vacant -- a couple of vacant lots zoned limited office and some vacant RUT land. And, then, to the east is portions of Paramount Subdivision, the first few phases that have final platted and began construction. The two limited office lots directly to the north of the subject lot were included in the annexation of Paramount Subdivision. They were not included in the conceptual planned development approval or preliminary plat approval. The lot we are dealing with tonight was included in the CUP and the preliminary plat for Paramount and the preliminary plat before you tonight is a re-preliminary plat, if you will, that divides it up further into the 12 lots and, then, gets the detailed conceptual -- or the detailed Conditional Use Permit approval. Moving on to the submitted preliminary plat. I'll just raise a couple of issues. We have received a letter from the applicant stating that they are in agreement with the staff -- with the comments in the staff report, with the exception of one small item that I will touch on. The lots -- and it's probably, actually, a little bit clearer from the landscape plan, the layout here. There is one access onto Cayuse and, then, the lots are accessed from an internal drive, reaching to the back lot with trash enclosures at the end of each east-west aisle. And, then, the individual office buildings laid out. As part of the conceptual -- as part of the -- as part of the detailed Conditional Use Permit, they have requested reduced setbacks and reduced frontages. The lots in the rear of the development -- I'll go back to the preliminary plat -- would have no frontage, requiring that modification to the Conditional Use Permit for a planned development to waive the frontage requirements and, then, also they have requested reduced setbacks. For the rear of the building, specifically Lots 1 and 12, this is the rear setback mentioned as two feet, which can be a little bit confusing, looking at that as a rear setback, but that is what it's considered, because the -- the buildings front into the interior of the lot here. And so that setback has been requested to be reduced to two feet, which, with the landscape buffer in front of there, still is a substantial setback from the road and esthetically gives good separation there and that landscape buffer gives the open space between that road and building. I'll touch on some special considerations in the staff report. ACHD has requested 23 additional feet of future right of way along Linder Road. This portion is not in their five-year work program and I don't believe they have funds to purchase the right of way. We have requested that the applicant place those 23 additional feet of right of way in a separate lot, which would be outside of the landscape buffer, which, on this portion of Linder, is 35 feet. The previous staff report issued for the conditioned hearing that was originally scheduled for April 21 st, was continued due inadequate posting of the site. That staff report did incorrectly state that landscape buffer along Linder right here is 25 feet, which it would be for a standard arterial. This portion of Linder is identified as a -- as an entryway corridor in the Comprehensive Plan and Meridian city code states that those landscape buffers shall be 35 feet along the entryway corridors. I did speak with the applicant about this and they did represent that by shifting the buildings a little bit, they can meet that 35 feet and I'll let the applicant address that. Also, on the submitted preliminary Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 4 of 117 plat, that landscape buffer was not shown in a separate common lot. We have requested that be placed in it's own common lot that would be owned by the business owners association. We do like to see those owned by the business owners association to insure maintenance in the future of the project and for a consistent appearance of that along the full length of the subdivision. The applicant in their letter, dated June 1 st, stated they are in agreement with the conditions stipulated in the staff report. The one item that they are not in agreement with was item one, page 15, under other department comments and it was by Sanitary Services Corporation, did have a concern about the length of the drive aisles and getting to their trash enclosures, which are at the end of each of these. The applicant did work that out with SSC and I do have a stamped plan from SSC that does give approval to this layout. So, that has been worked out between the applicant and SSC and I am in agreement with the applicant's statement in their letter. The applicant is in agreement with the -- I will touch on the reduced setbacks that were originally requested around the perimeter of the development. Meridian city code does state that on the perimeter of a planned development the setbacks cannot be reduced. This north property boundary was the extent of the Paramount planned development and, therefore, because that is an exterior boundary of the development, those setbacks could not be reduced. The applicant had proposed to reduce those to ten feet and they have agreed to modify those to the 20 feet that would be required by code. With that, I will end staff's comments and take any questions from the Commission. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Okay. Would the applicant care to come forward? Turnbull: Thank you very much, Commissioner Zaremba. David Turnbull, 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I hope you will forgive me if I don't take all of my 15 minutes, but I just want to state that we have gone through this with Josh extensively and I think we have come to agreement on all the staff conditions and so I really have nothing further to add and appreciate your support and recommendation on this proposal. I will stand for any questions if you have any. Zaremba: Thank you. I have one -- a couple very small things that I would ask. Apparently, you propose that parking stalls would be 18 feet and the sidewalk next to it six feet and the city has suggested that you put in bumpers a foot away from that. Have you considered making your parking stalls 17 feet, with a seven-foot sidewalk, so that you don't have to have bumpers? Turnbull: We don't want to have bumpers, so we will work that out with your staff. I think we have re-depicted that and I think that's all cleared up, if I'm not mistaken. Zaremba: It's the same lateral distance, whether it's -- Turnbull: We don't care to have separate bumpers. They just -- Zaremba: So, make the sidewalk wider and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 5 of 117 Turnbull: -- create a place where you can't sweep. Zaremba: Okay. One other question -- and this may be a question for both you and staff. In this we are asking to approve lots that have no street frontage and I did not see a comment requiring that there be cross-access agreements. I assume that's an easy thing for you to do, but is that -- is that something we need to ask for or put in here? Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, I would agree that that does need to be in there. Turnbull: Yes, we agree. We agree to that. I thought it was in there, but we certainly would do that. Zaremba: Commissioners, I would make an Item 16 out of that on page seven, lots with no street frontage are approved if cross-access agreements are recorded for all lots or something to that effect. Wilson: Chairman Zaremba, I also -- I apologize for failing to mention. I do need to mention for the record that we did receive a letter in opposition. The Commission, I believe, was given a copy of it and I do have a copy of it here, from a Mrs. Stephanie Sodelero, that did state opposition to the development. We do each have a copy of that and if I'm interpreting it correctly, she's objecting to having offices built in a light office zone. Am I interpreting this correctly? Wilson: I believe so. Yes. Zaremba: So, the zoning is not an issue before us, it's already established as L-O, and offices are what we anticipate having built there. Turnbull: I would hope so. Zaremba: I appreciate her taking the time to write in, but it's something she could have known. We had no one signed up to speak, but if anybody does care to speak, we do give you the opportunity. I see no one moving. So, Mr. Turnbull doesn't need make a rebuttal. So, apparently, we are. Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we close the public hearings on PP 05-001 and CUP 05-013. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 6 of 117 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: The only discussion that I would have about the next motion would be on page seven, adding an item 16. Moe: Would you, please, slow down and say that one more -- did you get that, Mike? Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Did you get that, Mike? Rohm: I got it. Moe: Well, then, go right ahead. Rohm: Do you want -- I mean I don't care. I will. Moe: You got it, go for it. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-011, request for preliminary plat, to include all staff comments for the hearing date June 2nd and presented on May 27th, with the following change: On page seven, add an item number 16 that reads: Cross-access agreement shall be required between interior lots. I think on this Sanitary Services, would that be on the CUP? To eliminate the requirement of additional use with -- or working with the Sanitary Services? Zaremba: That makes sense to me. It's probably a CUP issue. Rohm: I think a CUP issue. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Thank you. All ayes. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-013, request for Conditional Use Permit to include staff comments for the hearing date June 2nd, 2005, received May 27th, 2005, with the following change -- Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 7 of 117 Borup: Question on that. The way I see it worded, it just says that they are to contact Bill Gregory and haven't they done that? So, it's happened. Rohm: That-- Borup: Yeah. Rohm: And so we don't need to remove it or -- Borup: Well, I -- unless staff has another comment, but -- Wilson: Staff would agree that that does not need to be removed. The conditions -- and they are kind of -- their comments, they will become conditions of approval with the findings. You know, the commenting agencies do provide those comments. Rohm: We don't need to remove it. End of motion. Wilson: Yeah. Moe: Second. Zaremba: It's satisfied anyhow. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Item 7: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from May 5, 2005: AZ 05-007 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 43.18 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - north of Amity Road and east of South Locust Grove Road: Continued Public Hearing from May 5, 2005: PP 05-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 166 building lots and 37 common lots on 43.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - north of Amity Road and east of South Locust Grove Road Continued Public Hearing from May 5, 2005: CUP 05..008 Request for a Planned Development consisting of 166 residential units with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and yard setbacks for Bellingham Park Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - north of Amity Road and east of South Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: Okay. I'd like to open the next Public Hearing for AZ 05-007, a request for annexation and zoning of 43.18 acres from RUT to R-4 -- I'm sorry. From RUT to R-8 zone for Bellingham Park Subdivision. Also reopen -- I'm sorry, I was reopening a