Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 2, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 107 of 117 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-020, annexation and zoning of 1.3 acres, to include all staff comments, conditions, in the staff memo dated May 26, transmission dated of May 27th, with all staff comments, with the one additional comment on page six, the last bullet point, to add that the existing residence and well can remain as currently used, until such time as the property develops, and along with the current use of being -- access to Franklin Road to remain as the residential use. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second to make that recommendation for AZ 05-022. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 22: Public Hearing: AZ 05-021 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.78 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Redfish Subdivision by Ben Miller - 4120 North Linder Road: Item 23: Public Hearing: PP 05-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 office building lots and 2 other lots on 2.521 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Redfish Subdivision by Ben Miller - 4120 North Linder Road: Zaremba: Okay. We are getting there. I would like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-021, request for annexation and zoning of 2.78 acres from RUT to L-O zone and Public Hearing PP 05-021, request for preliminary plat approval of five office building lots and two other lots on 2.521 acres in a proposed L-O zone. Both of these for Redfish Subdivision by Ben Miller and located at 2120 North Linder Road. And we will begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Chairman Zaremba, Members of the Commission. The Redfish Subdivision is a proposal for a limited office zone from RUT, what it is currently. It's 2.52 acres, exclusive of right of way on North Linder Road, immediately to the north of Sawtooth Subdivision -- or Sawtooth Middle School. To the north and east lies Baldwin Park Subdivision. Across Linder Road to the west is some vacant RUT and I believe Watersong Subdivision. And further north along Linder Road is another subdivision and some vacant RUT land. And, then, some proposed commercial as part of future Paramount Subdivision. On the Comprehensive Plan this property is designated as medium density residential. The applicant has applied, under the same Comprehensive Plan text amendment that was mentioned with the earlier application for properties under three acres that lay on an arterial road to gain limited office zoning for office uses only. And I'll get into that here a little bit more here in a few minutes, hopefully not Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 108 of 117 completely rehash the conversation earlier. The applicant is proposing a total of five office buildings and I apologize for the orientation here. North is to the right. It just fit a little bit better this way, you can read it a little bit better with the road along the top there. It is a proposal for five office buildings and, let see, so five building lots and their proposal is for two other lots also. Twenty-one thousand square feet, approximately, of office buildings. Because this is an annexation-preliminary plat, we aren't giving detail approval of the buildings at this point. That would be under the certificate of zoning compliance application, once the requested zoning and preliminary was approved. But the parking provided is more than adequate for the depicted building sizes. The depicted building sizes would require I believe 54 or 53 parking spaces and they did provide -- they did provide 74. So, the parking definitely seems adequate. A couple things I'll just point out as far as the preliminary plat goes. And I think we might, actually, be able to see easier here than on the actual preliminary plat and so I'll stick with this plan. The submitted preliminary plats -- I guess I'll have to try and explain it on here. The office lots did not extend to Linder Road, therefore, not giving them the required frontage. The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for any kind of reduction to the frontage or setbacks, so they do need street frontage. The submitted preliminary plat doesn't have frontage, so what staff is recommending is that the applicant extend the lots to the Linder Road right of way and, then, provide the landscape buffer in easements. We would normally prefer that the landscape buffer was in a lot under separate ownership, but in this situation it is staff -- it is staff's recommendation that those lots extend to Linder Road right of way to give them the frontage required by code. The land use buffers proposed by the applicants do need some more plantings to meet Meridian city code along the -- and this is the west -- or, sorry, the east property line and along the north. There is a required 20 foot land use buffer between the proposed office use and the existing single family residential properties. In that 20 foot land use buffer, because there is a six foot existing fence, the requirement for vegetation would be one tree for 35 feet. It does not appear that the applicant has provided that, so staff recommends that at least six additional trees be provided along this boundary of the subdivision on the east side and at least three more on the north boundary to meet those requirements. If there wasn't an existing -- if there wasn't an existing or proposed solid six foot fence, then, that requirement -- that should be a 60 percent visual buffer or block, but because that fencing exists and I think that is reduced to the one per 35 requirement. The only other thing I will touch on briefly is the development agreement conditions that staff has put in for the annexation and zoning and I would agree with most of the conversations that went on with the previous application. I will just speak briefly to the intent of that text amendment and that was for property such as this where no stub street was provided from the adjacent residential properties. Residential development is not feasible and that amendment was specifically with property such as this to give them an option for development where there may not have been one under the current circumstances. Not to open up free reign to the limited office zone for the conditional uses that were mentioned to a great extent earlier. So, you know, it's the Commission's discretion to do as you may with the conditions on the development agreement there. As far as the hours and the allowed uses go, I think the applicant is okay with the professional and medical office uses. That is what they have proposed and their application letter Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page1090f117 actually specifically mentioned the development agreement would limit the uses to professional and medical office. So, I'll let them speak to that. And as far as the hours of operation go, I will leave that to the Commission's decision. I don't think, other than that, I have anything and would stand for any questions. Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners? If we made the suggestion that the hours be 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., that would be comfortable for staff? Wilson: I think to shoot for some consistency, yeah, maybe it's appropriate. It's pretty subjective, really. I think it's reasonable. Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I'd let the applicant come and tell us. Maybe 7:00 to 7:00 is fine. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: He's not going to say 7:00 to 7:00 now. Would you? Moe: That's my point. Zaremba: I let the cat out of the bag. Moe: Yeah, I think he did. But, you know, I guess we'll wait and see. Zaremba: I think the applicant may have been here for the previous discussion on the other issues, so may know that that one's negotiate-able. If the applicant would care to come forward, please. Hobbs: Chris Hobbs with Pinnacle Engineers at 12552 West Executive Drive. We are in agreement with staff comments and recommended conditions of approval and we will go ahead and accept the change as indicated. And with that I'll stand for any questions. Zaremba: It sounds like it's pretty straight forward. Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: I just want to make one comment and this development kind of brought to light something that we had suggested that a day care CUP would be appropriate in the other one and that -- this would be another location where a day care would -- I would think would be a very appropriate use when you have the density of homes that you have right there. I'm wondering if -- Craig was mentioning earlier that as we make these rules, maybe a day care -- you know, do you see what I'm saying? A Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 110 of 117 day care would maybe be a conditional use that you would want to have on these types of developments. Zaremba: That is not mentioned in the resolution, but we certainly would be able to add that again to this one as an exception to the resolution. Newton-Huckabay: Well, he was -- he was saying that he was in the process of making a standard -- you know, a standard -- Zaremba: I would support that being a standard one that -- the situations where that resolution is going to apply at small in-fills in the middle of residential, would be a piece of property that can't be residential. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Zaremba: You make a good point. That's a prime location for a day care kind of a use. Borup: I would think in that case the site plan would have to change, unless -- I mean there is no outdoor play area. Maybe that's not necessary, but -- I might have been making an assumption. Zaremba: Well, I think if we made it a possibility as a conditional use -- Borup: They could design it as such. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Zaremba: And we could discuss whether they would have the play area or not, if somebody asks. Newton-Huckabay: I just -- you know, I mean what if we happen to have 55,000 people living in north Meridian? Zaremba: It sounds reasonable if you want to add that as a variation. Hobbs: Our client agrees with that. Zaremba: Those are acceptable? Thank you. Megan Letterman has also signed up to speak. Your point has been made, I take it. Okay. In that case Mr. Hobbs doesn't need to make a rebuttal. Anybody else care to speak on this issue? Okay. Commissioner? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 111 of 117 Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-021 and PP 05-021. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05- 021, to include staff comments dated May 27, 2005, for the hearing date June 2nd, 2005, with the following changes: On page seven, item three, about two, three, fourth bullet down, we will -- we shall add: Or day care center on that bullet and the following bullet, change it from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: I would suggest a modification to that: Or day care centers still be a conditional use application. Rohm: Exactly. Zaremba: Does the second accept that? Moe: Yes, I do. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-021, to include staff comments for the hearing date June 2nd, 2005, received May 27th, 2005. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 2, 2005 Page 112 of 117 That motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 05-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 137.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - on South Eagle Road between West Victory Road and West Amity Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 05-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 491 building lots and 67 other lots on 136.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - on South Eagle Road between West Victory Road and West Amity Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 05-026 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family detached residential building units and single- family attached patio homes in a proposed R-8 zone for Messina Meadows Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - on South Eagle Road between West Victory Road and West Amity Road: Zaremba: At this time I will reopen the public hearings for AZ 05-017 and PP 05-019 and CUP 05-026, moved to this point in the meeting from earlier in the meeting. All of these relating to Messina Meadows Subdivision. And we will ask for further testimony. Traditionally, we give the applicant the last word, so what I would like to ask is that either Mr. or Mrs. Stark come forward and suggest whether they feel -- Guenther: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: -- an agreement is being worked towards -- I'm sorry. Just a moment. Guenther: May I interject? Zaremba: Yes. Guenther: Maybe to try and speed things up here, the applicant and the owners have indicated to staff that there are six conditions of approval that they would like to add that I believe are a combination of their efforts, that if they are approved by this board could be read into the record and finalized a little quicker. And if you want me to read them, then, we will get this going. Zaremba: Okay. What I, then, propose as an alternate is we will have staff read these conditions and, then, I still would like for the record to have one of the Starks come up and say and, then, the application will come up and say this. Guenther: Thank you. The first condition, which I would like counsel to interpret as well, is the -- they came to an agreement on the property line, which would need to be