Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 7, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 9 of 110 agreement to move forward with. If there is, it will move into engineering and start answering some of those more specific questions. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Borup: The only comment I would have, just to echo the comment that it's probably time to move forward. We have been studying this for a long time and sometimes I get impatient with the studies, other than in this situation I think what we have here is something -- a better proposal than we have seen in the past and probably something that better suits the needs of Meridian better than some of the earlier proposals. So, maybe for once it -- it was better to wait and do more studies, but I like what this proposal does. Mae: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Mae. Moe: Just to follow up to Commissioner Borup, then, I would recommend that we send on to the City Council. approval of the Alternate C split corridor design for the Downtown Meridian Tra~sportation Management Plan._- Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Thank you both very much. Appreciate that. And I will add we have seen a lot of new cooperation between ACHD and the city, not only on that subject, but it has eased out into other subjects around the city and the county as well, so very nice. Item 5: Recommendation: VAC 05-006 Request for a Vacation of a private road known as E. Herons Crossing Lane and Meridian City sanitary sewer easement for Quenzer Commons Subdivision No.9 by Brighton Investments, LLC - west of North Locust Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road: Item 6: .Recommendation: VAC 05-007 Request for a Vacation ofa portion of the 1 a-foot wide easement centered on the interior common lot line of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Olson and Bush Industrial Park Subdivision by Dennis Kelley & Walter Sigmont - 3131 East Lanark Street: Item 7: Recommendation: VAC 05-008 Request for a Vacation of platted utility easements of Lots 16, 17,21-27, Block 2 of Honor Park Subdivision No. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 10 of 110 3 by Franklin / Stratford Investments, LLC - south of East Franklin Road and west of Stratford Drive: Item 8: Recommendation: VAC 05-009 Request for a Vacation of the public utility easement on Lot 8, Block 20 of Paramount Subdivision No.4 by Paramount Development, Inc. - south of Chinden and west of Meridian Road: Zaremba: The next four items on our agenda are very similar recommendations for vacations of easements. The staff comments are pretty clear. There may be one or two that we need to make comments on, but let me ask legal counsel is there any reason why we cannot consider all four items at once? Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, no, you could -- you could receive a staff report on all of them and if you need to separate them out, because of particular comments to vote on, you could do that. Otherwise, you could also -- if you want to approve them with staff comments and the comments from the applicants together, you could do that as well. . Zaremba: OKay.. Thank you. In that case,_1 believe we will do that. Again, these are recommendations that are not public hearings, they will be discussion among us and I . will open -V AC 05-006, V AC 05-007, V AC 05-008 and V AC 05-009 and staff can sort of - touch the high points of each. Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. I will just take a couple minutes to tell you -- there is really just one of these that I'll spend some time on. I think the other ones are pretty clean. You have seen these quite often. This number five is, actually, two easements, it's private lane easements, as well as a sewer easement along the north side of Paramount. The sewer easement was created when the White Trunk project came through originally across there and Public Works needed that easement, since they didn't know where the road was going to be. The sewer went in the road when it was constructed, which took care of the need for the easements, since it's in the right of way. These two lot owners in Crestwood Subdivision, these five- acre lots, have -- they gave their consent with the original. preliminary plat. So, we are recommending approval on that one. Item No.6 is the Olson-Bush Subdivision off of Eagle Road. This is Lanark -- East Lanark here on the north side. This is an interior lot easement, which we have received all the relinquishment letters from. the utility companies on that, as well as the consent from both property owners. Item No.7, Honor Park Subdivision, each of the easements that are shown on here are interior lot easements. There is currently no buildings on any of these. In our staff report we had recommended for this Lot 27 -- there is another -- one more lot in Honor Park -- again, this is East Franklin Road here on the north and Stoddard here on the east. The applicant owns all of these lots, but does not own Lot 28, which is in Honor Park, their northerly owned Lot 12, I believe it is, here south of 16. So, we have recommended that this five foot and this five foot not be vacated. They agree to that. The big issue is that Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7,2005 Page 11 of 110 Idaho Power did send a letter -- did you get that in your packets? I know I didn't get it until just today, so I'm assuming that you did not get it, but -- Zaremba: We do not have it. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Essentially, the letter is from Eileen Vanderpool at Idaho Power Company and it states that their main electrical utility services come down these two private lanes, these cul-de-sacs, that come off of Stafford and their concern is just a big -- they have a -- you know, an available easement to get to all these buildings, eventually. They do have concern that if these are all vacated, you know, they just don't know for sure where they are going to go. So, they are asking for the applicant to keep working with them, Idaho Power, to -- you know, where these buildings are going to go, how the lot lines are going to adjust, and basically make sure that they can get their utilities up through from those private cul-de-sacs, you know, to the buildings. So, it sounds like -- the way that the staff report that you have in front of you is written is that they have to provide Idaho Power relinquishment before City Council. Based on this letter, it doesn't sound like they are going to get it before City Council, but you never know. I think the way that it's written is probably okay. If they don't get it, then, the City Council won't approve it. But our main concern was with 27 and 16 and they have agreed to thqt So,' I think. from the city's R-erspective we have preserved the ten-foot interior on both .of those -- the full ten feet. The last vacation is here in Paramount Subdivisiön No.4, there at the very north boundary of that phase and they are proposing a lot line adjustment, that's what's kind of necessitating this request. We have not received a letter from Cable One that is -- would need to be supplied before City Council. Otherwise, we don't see any issues with that. It's just the north boundary of that lot that they are proposing to vacate. So, I don't think that there are any changes to the staff report for any four of these vacations, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners? Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Mae: As far as the relinquishment on Cable One, that's just a timing thing, do you know? . Hawkins-Clark: That's my understanding. They just were not able to supply the letter before this meeting. Mae: Okay. Okay. Zaremba: And I had one general question that would apply to all of them and probably others that are similar. One of the items listed under these easements is that it's also a drainage easement, so that when you pave over a portion of what was open property Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 120f110 and put buildings on it, you need some place for runoff to go. Do we lose the drainage if we give up the easement? Hawkins-Clark: I might ask our Public Works representative to address that. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, on the Commercial properties you won't lose the drainage, because they -- by statute, they have to keep all their drainage water on site, so would drain to a certain point where it would, at that point, go to a subsurface facility, drainage swale, something of that nature. On these -- on these lots like the one you're looking at on Paramount, it's a lot line adjustment. Once they vacate this easement, they adjust Lot 4 forward, I'm assuming, to make the lot bigger and at that point there would be another ten-foot easement created -- it would be five foot, signed on that -- on the new lot that would be submitted with the next phase of this. So, the easement like on Paramount, we needed it going away, it's being restricted and you have to vacate, bring those in line and, then, dedicate the easement over. So, I don't believe that drainage will be a problem on these. Zaremba: Thank you.' That was very helpful. Any further discussion? Newton-Huckabay: I have no comment. . Zaremba: Mr. Nary, should we make the recommendation individually or can we lump ~ them all together for a recommendation? Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, you can make one motion and a recommendation on all the items together in one if you'd like. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: I guess that's one question in regards to making reference to staff comment and such, we do have different dates in regards to being received by the city clerk's office. Is that going to matter? Nary: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Moe, you can simply reference the particular application and that's fine. Mae: Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward onto City Council recommending approval of VAC 05-006, VAC 05-007, VAC 05-008, and VAC 05-009, with all staff comments for the hearing date of July 7th, 2005. . .. . Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 7, 2005 Page 13 of 110 Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. At this point the rest of the items on our agenda -- or most of the rest of them are public hearings, so for those of you who are not in regular attendance at our meetings, let me run through our procedure a little bit. You have seen part of it, but there is more on public hearings. On each of these items our professional staff and the applicant have already spent quite a bit of time together and so we begin, actually, with a presentation from our staff telling where the project is and what the project is and any outstanding issues that are remaining to be considered and resolved. Following that there is a presentation by the applicant and we allow the applicant 15 minutes for that and that's to include any supporting members the applicant has brought, engineers or architects or lawyers or anything else that they have brought and we ask that that be confined to 15 minutes. Then after that the general public is invited to bring to our attention anything they think we need to know, something you like about the project, something you don't like about the project, and we ask that you confine that to about three minutes. Hopefully, our meetings don't end up going until 1 :00 o'clock in the morning, but it helps if you're a little concise. We do make an exception to that. If there is a person who is a spokesman for a group -- and an example of that would-be the president of a homeowners association, for instance, and that person identifies themselves and members of the audience agree that that person is speaking for them, that, person can hav.§! ten minutes to make all the points that everybody would have made. And we always appreciate it if you can just say, well, I agree with what Joe just said. That helps. Following that, then, the applicant will have ten minutes again to respond to issues that the Commissioners have raised or the audience has raised and see if they can help resolve any of the issues that have been raised. And, typically, then, we close the Public Hearing, the Commissioners discuss it a little bit, and we make a recommendation to the City Council where there will be, again, another Public Hearing on the same subject. We do have a handy little light system here. When the green light is on you have plenty of time. When the yellow light comes on, you should start to wrap up. And when the red one is on, please, conclude fairly quickly. Other than that, I believe we are ready to continue on. Item 9: Item 10: 'Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from June 2, 2005: AZ 05-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.18 acres to R-4, R-8 & R-15 zones for Westborough Square Subdivision by JLJ. Enterprises, Inc. - SEC of Jericho Road and Chinden Boulevard: Continued Public Hearing from June 2, 2005: PP 05-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 7 building lots and 1 common lot on 5.39 acres in a proposed R-1S zone for Westborough Square Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - SEC of Jericho Road and ChindenBoulevard: Continued Public Hearing from June 2,2005: CUP 05-027 Request for Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development approval of a mixed-use development consisting of 10 multi-:family buildings and 6 office buildings with multiple buildings on a single lot and a waiver of the street frontage requirement in a proposed R-1S zone for Westborough Square