Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo from PlanningProject: Meridian Library Parking Lot Expansion Location: 1727 N. Leisure Lane, north of Cherry Lane on the west side of Leisure Lane, approximately % mile east of N. Linder Road Application: Rezone Highlights of Proposed Development: a Rezone (RZ) of 0.58 of an acre of land from the R-4 (Medium Low -Density Residential) to the L-O (Limited Office) zoning district. The applicant is proposing to use the property to expand the existing parking lot for the Meridian Library just to the west of the subject property. NOTE: The proposed use of the property is considered a public/quasi-public use and as such, is a permitted use in the L-O zoning district. Other: The DA shall incorporate at least the following: • Improve and dedicate Leisure Lane from Cherry Lane to the north property line consistent with ACHD public street standards, prior to approval of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the parking lot expansion. (Note: Street section may be reduced due to limited right-of-way width, as determined by ACHD.) • Parking lot lighting shall be shielded so that no direct light shines into adjacent residential properties. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan that has been approved by the Police Department, with the Certificate of Zoning Comliance application for the new parking lot. p • A Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval of the proposed parking lot expansion after the Rezone ordinance and Development Agreement have been approved by City Council. The site plan submitted with the CZC shall substantially comply with the conceptual development plan attached in Exhibit A.2. If a use other than a parking lot is proposed on this property in the future, a modification to the subject Development Agreement shall be required. Elevations: No Commission Recommendation: approval at their July 3, 2008 public hearing. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Ed Daniels (Applicant's Representative); ii. In opposition: Margaret Wallet; iii. Commenting: Allen Garratt; Terry Leighton; Janet Sanchez Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. The conversion of Leisure Lane from a private street to a public street from Cherry Lane to the north boundary of the site; u. The use of a private street for public access; iii. Improvement and dedication of Leisure Lane as a public street if used for public access to the site; iv. Restrict access to the site from Leisure Lane if public street improvements aren't made; access provided through the library property to the south or west. 8/12/2008 Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: Strike Development ent Provision #1.2A requiring improvement and dedication of Leisure Lane as public street; replace with provision prohibiting access to/from the site via Leisure Lane and no street improvements required to Leisure lane. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: Access to/from the site via Leisure Lane vs. access through the library property to the west or south (access should not be allowed to Leisure Lane from any of the properties owned by the library if public street improvements are not made). Written Testimony since Staff Report: Notes: Project: Maxwell Patio & Arbors Location: 1065 Peacock Street, Sportsman's Point Subdivision No. 2 Application: variance Highlights of Proposed Development: variance to 15-foot rear yard building setback; and limit on fence height to 6 feet in the R-4 district. Patio Cover: There is an existing patio cover on the site that was constructed in 2004. The posts for the Patio cover are set back approximately 1 foot from the rear property line, approximately 14 feet into the required rear yard setback area; the cover does not encroach into the required side yard setbacks There is also a 5-foot wide public utility, drainage, and irrigation (PUDI) easement along the rear property line that the subject patio cover encroaches into. Arbors: There are also two arbors that stand approximatelyl0 foot 4 inches tall and are approximately 14 foot 6 inches wide, that were constructed earlier this ye Property linear. The arbors are located adjacent to the rear. The subject arbors are considered fences and as such, are limited in height to 6 feet. Topography: The land where the applicant's building pad for the house and rear yard area sit is approximately 2+ feet lower than the land at the rear property line (see photos in Exhibit B). The grade on which the house sits on the adjacent property appears to be quite a bit higher than the applicant's. The neighbor's second story deck appears to encroach significantly within the rear setback area, givin them direct view into the applicant's property. g Because of the difference in topography between the two properties and the proximity of the neighbor's deck in relation to the applicant's rear yard, the applicant constructed a patio cover and arbors forprivacy. Because the patio cover is attached to the house, a building permit is required. The Building Department stated that a building permit was not issued to that address for the aforementioned structures. The p y P applicant states that she was not aware that a permit had not been obtained because she hired a contractor 8/ do the work. Thus, she didn't realize she was in violation of City ordinances. 8/12/2008 r