Loading...
December 8, 2005 P&Z Minutes - ,. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 31 of 36 Borup: I think we have discussed everything. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on PP 05-054 and CUP 05-050 oh. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: And I will continue -- I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers PP 05-054 and CUP 05-050, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 17, 2005, and the preliminary plat dated September 8th, 2005, with the following modifications to the condition of approval and, basically, in Exhibit B, page one, item 1.1.9 should read: The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a 20 foot land use buffer along the western boundary of Lot 6, 7 and 8, Block 14. Period. Strike: Which complies with the requirements, et cetera, to the end of the statement, and add: Due to existing public -- Borup: Would that have been a period or a comma? Minor detail, but you're setting -- Newton-Huckabay: Are you interrupting my motion over semantics? Borup: No. I'm saying your sentence may make more sense. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Sorry. Shall I start over? Borup: No. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Block 14. Period. Strike: Which complies with the requirements of UDC to the end of the statement. Due to existing public utility easement on west side of plat, install shrubs and other ground cover within said landscape buffer. Period. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: AZ 05-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.87 acres from R1 to C-G zone for .. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 32 of 36 Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 North Eagle Road: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: PP 05-053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 commercial building lots 15.33 acres in a proposed C-G zone and an approved C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC- 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road: Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: CUP 05-049 Request for a conceptual Conditional Use for retail, restaurant, drive-thru and office uses in a proposed C-G zone and an approved C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 and 3085 North Eagle Road: Zaremba: And I will open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-052 and PP 05-053 and CUP 05-049 and entertain a motion to continue all three of those to our regularly scheduled meeting of January 5th, 2006. Moe: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Guenther: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Where did that voice come from? Guenther: That's from me. Zaremba: Go ahead. Guenther: Thank you. At the behest of the applicant, I just want to just make you aware -- and this Commission has scheduling rights all to its own, which is kind of nice, but the Bienville project may not be heard on the 5th. And in respect to the applicant here, I think a lot of it is they have been here for -- scheduled for at least a month and a half now and they will be scheduled out a month and a half due to the noticing error from the November 20th hearing. The Bienville project is sounding like it's having some ACHD issues with its road system and they may not have it complete by the 5th, as well as, you know, there is other issues that might require a tabling of the item and I think Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 33 of 36 that, just to be fair to this applicant, that we should either give her some confirmation that she will be heard on the 5th or if she's going to be tabled out indefinitely until the Bienville project, so that there is consistency with what we are looking at. Zaremba: I would express the opinion that it's specifically the results of ACHD's opinion of Bienville that will affect my opinion of Sadie Creek. So, if there is anticipation -- I think my answer is whenever anyone of them was heard, I would want to hear them both at the same time. So, if you raise the issue that Bienville may not happen on the 5th, I won't be chairman at that time, but as a voting member I would vote to continue this one as well. Do we have a consensus on that? Borup: Mr. Chairman, well, I had a question -- ACHD's concern, is that with the internal roadways or with access? Guenther: What they are looking at with Bienville -- and I got the project here. Craig, can you unfreeze that, please? Okay. Never mind. Zaremba: Just concerning my own opinion, before you go on on this, is what a real good concept plan that this Commission asked for and they didn't provide, but, see, it was our mistake not to ask for us to see it. Borup: Well, but -- Zaremba: This is a case where we said would you put a concept plan together before it gets to the City Council. Borup: But Sadie Creek was the one that wouldn't cooperate with that. Zaremba: They withdrew their annexation, yes. Borup: So, I don't -- I mean, yeah, I'm sorry they got delayed, but-- Zaremba: You can say something to staff, because this is not an open public hearing at the moment. (Inaudible discussion from audience) Borup: Well -- oh, yeah, we already continued it, didn't we? Newton-Huckabay: Well, yeah, we had public -- people here left under the understanding that we could not be -- Borup: So, my question still was -- is ACHD's concern on internal roadways or access points? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8,2005 Page 34 of 36 Guenther: They are on internal roadways and they are all -- and this is why I mentioned this on behalf of the applicant. All the internal roadways are located within the Bienville project, not on the Sadie Creek project. The public road system that would attach to Ustick Road and come through the Sadie Creek project -- the Bienville project is definitely reliant on the Sadie Creek project being approved. If the Sadie Creek project is not approved, the Bienville project loses its road connection to Ustick road and so, therefore, is most likely going to have to be eliminated. But this project is not dependent on the Bienville project. It's got all of its access points to Ustick Road already and that's why staff would feel comfortable going forward with this project alone if the Bienville project would be tabled out and stuck in ACHD review. Borup: We can still -- I assume we can still review the proposed design and layout for Bienville. That's on the agenda. So, we would have that information. So maybe -- you're saying with these stub streets and cross-access would stay the same? Guenther: Yes. And currently, the -- currently, the projects do not align perfectly. They are very close. These are still general projects that will need to come back for detail review, most likely through certificate of zoning compliance where the cross-access points will be further defined. But this applicant was in first and we are approving their project first, regardless of the timing, and the Bienville people are the ones who would be required to lineup with their access points for the cross-access. So, this project is not dependent upon Bienville, but Bienville is dependent on Sadie Creek, is what my point is. Zaremba: I'm not sure I agree with that. One of the questions about this project is whether they should have a right-in, right-out on Eagle. And the solution to that is what Bienville was doing. Borup: Well, we already -- we do have the letter from lTD. Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission -- Zaremba: Mr. Baird. I know what you're going to say. Baird: -- I would caution you to avoid any discussion on the merits. You have already changed the hearing. You're not on the record. Unless you want to reopen. Zaremba: No. And I think that the discussion -- as Mr. Baird points out, we need to remain focused on whether or not we can tell the applicant that it will be heard on the 5th or whether we are going to try and keep it together with Bienville. Guenther: That's correct. Zaremba: And my opinion would be to keep it together with Bienville. But let's get everybody's opinion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 35 of 36 Moe: Well, quite frankly, that's why we voted earlier this evening to continue, is because we did want to have it all together. Zaremba: And even if Bienville is having ACHD issues, that's still why I want to hear them both together. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I guess I'm going to have to agree with you. I don't have enough information to make an opinion otherwise, so I think that's the whole, was to get them closer together, so we can make a better planning decision on this larger piece of property, then, that would be appropriate in my mind as well. Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: We can still hear it. You know, if we keep postponing so many things, continuing, we are going to just get jammed up further down. It doesn't mean we have to approve it. We can still continue it, but that doesn't mean we can't hear it and assuming that we would be able to see how it does tie with the adjoining project. I would need to see that before I had a final on whether it would continue on or not, but -- Newton-Huckabay: And that's fair. Borup: But the hearing that -- again, depending on the agenda for the 5th. If it looks like it's going to be too full, then, maybe we might not want to spend a lot of time. But I think we'd make that decision that night and my intent -- my preference would be to go ahead and hear the application and, then, decide at that point whether to -- what action to take. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to ask a clarifying -- so, you're say irregardless, if we hear it -- we will at least make the commitment to hear -- to hold the public hearing on the -- but not necessarily make a recommendation? Borup: Well, yeah, we'd make a decision then. We don't have to. We don't have to approve it at that meeting. We are just saying we would have a hearing. Zaremba: I would say they probably should come to the 5th prepared to present. But they may not get an answer that night. Baird: And, Mr. Chair, I would caution against making any definite assurances. There are always other reasons why matters could be continued. But I think what you have done is you have given the applicant some direction and some guidance and I think that's all that you can do at this point. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 36 of 36 Zaremba: And express it as an opinion action. Baird: Yeah. Just a legal disclaimer. Moe: So, having said that, then, what I would do is -- Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Zaremba: Could I get a second? Borup: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:37 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED I I DATE APPROVED DAVID ZAREMBA - CHAIRMAN ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK