Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 16, 2006 P&Z Minutes >- , Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 14 of95 Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 2nd, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: All right. Now, before we open our first Public Hearing for testimony, I would like to make a few comments. The general procedure for opening and taking testimony on an item is we, first of all, ask the staff for their report. The staff is there to present the application's project in terms of how it affects the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance. They tell us if they are in compliance or if there is things that need to be changed, but, basically, their position is neutral. After the staff has made their presentation, then, we give the applicant an opportunity to present the project from their perspective. That's, basically, their sales pitch. After the applicant has made their presentation, then, it is, then, open to the public for your testimony. At that time the testimony that we receive as it relates to those specific projects -- as you make your presentation it's best that you're able to speak to either Comprehensive Plan or ordinance as you speak to the project. And not necessarily do you have to use either the Camp Plan or ordinance, but it's best if your comments tie back to that, because that gives us something to validate testimony. The second thing is many times a group of people will have a single spokesman, like a president of a homeowners association, that will speak to a project. And if that's the case, what I will do is I will ask for a show of hands for those people that that individual is speaking for and, then, unless that -- a spokesman has omitted something that you feel is pertinent, then, you're actually relinquishing your time to that spokesman and they are given extra time at the mike. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Ada County Highway District Ustick Road Property by the Ada County Highway District - 3595 East Ustick Road: Rohm: So, with that being said, I would like to open the Public Hearing -- continued Public Hearing from January 19th, 2006, for AZ 05-060, relating to the Ada County Highway District Ustick Road property and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is an annexation request only at this time to a -- from Ada County RUT district to a general commercial C-G district. The property site is located approximately a quarter mile to the east of Ustick-Eagle Road intersection and this one will relate to several other projects. There are two other projects in the area tonight. With this annexation the -- ACHD owns the property, but they will be doing a future split of the property in order to sell the remainder that they do not wish to continue. This area is primarily residential at this time, but this portion here south of the site has been annexed into the City of Meridian Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 15 of95 and services to Red Feather Estates Subdivision to the south and east, as well as the portion that did the attachment has not been developed. It is currently a C-G parcel that has been bound by a development agreement. The future collector road system would connect from Ustick all the way through to Fairview approximately to where Records Drive is across from the Meridian Crossroads development. This collector system would primarily be developer funded, but ACHD needed to acquire this property in order to make sure that it was -- started off in the right direction. However, the property is approximately 170 feet wide. A collector road system is an approximate 65 foot wide roadway and so they will be doing the division in order to split the property in the future. Since they are a governing body, this would be a piece of property that would come up to the highest bidder. Now, with that property, since we know that there will be a remainder that would be bound by development agreement, the development agreement of this site would provide for a minimum of two cross-access points. We anticipate one to be in the middle of the site somewhere and the second one to be at the southern property boundary. With that, the next hearing item also is bound by those same development conditions. This is pretty straight forward and I guess I will stand for questions. Staff is recommending annexation with the development agreement as stated in the staff report. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Moe: No questions. Rohm: Okay.. At this time I'd like the applicant to come forward, please. McKay: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'm here this evening representing Ada County Highway District. We submitted the application for annexation and rezone of this particular piece of property. As Joe indicated, we have requested -- I think I wore it out Tuesday night. The particular piece of property in question is approximately 4.92 acres in size. It's only 169 feet wide -- or 166 feet wide. I'm sorry. And, then, it's extremely deep north-south. Ada County Highway District ended up owning this particular piece of property, because when they decided to expand and rebuild that section of Ustick Road, the property owner would not sell any right of way and they said if you want the right of way you need to purchase the whole parcel. So, they ended up with the entire parcel in order to facilitate the expansion of Ustick and the acquisition of the necessary right of way. It is the desire of the highway district to, obviously, do a one time split of this property, therefore, allowing the property to be C-G and potentially be utilized with the adjoining property to the west in some type of future development. They also want to retain 60 feet along the eastern boundary here, which would be utilized for a collector roadway that would come down into the interior of the section and would link up with Allys Way, which is the signalized intersection at Fairview up by Sportsman's Warehouse and Lone Star? Isn't that -- yeah, right there at the corner. They believe that this will, obviously, alleviate, you know, some of the congestion that we are seeing on Eagle Road and Ustick by creating what we typically call a continuous collector that comes out from -- goes from one arterial to another to a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 16 of95 signalized intersection. We have reviewed the staff report and I think we are in agreement. There was one thing on page number three, just in the summary, we wanted to make sure that it was clear. It talked about no direct lot access to the future roadway. I believe that should have read no direct lot access to Ustick, other than the future roadway. I think that's what the intent was. This roadway will be a 50 foot -- 60 foot wide right of way, with a 46 back to back. It will be three lanes with a bike lane. ACHD, it's my understanding at this time, doesn't know when that will be installed, but that is the plan. In reviewing the staff report on page six, bulletin number six, it says a street buffer constructed in accordance with city code shall be installed along Ustick and the future collector roadway. It is the desire of ACHD to install a landscape buffer along the collector roadway, but only on the west side. The reason being is, obviously, with 166 feet in width, where we are keeping 60 feet for future continuous collector going southbound, they are only left with 106 feet of usable area. Secondly, the lots in Perkins-Brown Subdivision, which are located here and take access currently off of Duane Drive, are 640 feet, approximately, in depth. At some point in time those lots, being the fact that they are very long and about 200 feet wide, some are a little narrower, could potentially redevelop. They would have access to that collector for redevelopment purposes. All of the homes are pretty much located along that Duane Drive corridor and so they -- most of them have some pastures or yards or so forth. We ask that the Commission take into consideration that this particular parcel is interconnected with the property to the west. I think it's call Una Mas. We would like our application to stay in sync with the adjoining application, since they are interrelated in a vehicular fashion. The district has been working with these property owners to get some cross-access for them, so that they can have access to this collector roadway and, therefore, alleviate congestion on Ustick or Eagle Roads. Do you have any questions? Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Before you sit down, I'd like to ask staff if you have any objections to the two changes that she's suggested to the staff report. Guenther: Well, staff has drafted the staff -- or the development agreement conditions in accordance to the ordinance and staff would not find that the -- eliminating the eastern landscape buffer would be a severe encumbrance on any of the properties accessing that, since sewer and water would, actually, be closer to their properties as well, as well as easier to access than having to get through a common lot, essentially, in a future subdivision or something for ACHD to maintain. So, no, staff would not have any problems amending the development agreement to require only the western portion to be a landscape buffer, but I would recommend that you hear public testimony prior to and taking that into consideration. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 17 of 95 Zaremba: On that same subject, I would just clarify one thing. It's ACHD's intent to build that collector right to the east property line? McKay: Yes, sir. It is their intent. Zaremba: So, if there is no landscape buffer there, the edge of it or the curbing -- back of curbing or something would go right along the other people's property line? McKay: Yes, sir. Which would, then, obviously, facilitate future access for them. Also, one thing I did fail to mention is Summer's Funeral Home is located adjoining that and, then, the LDS church has a facility there. A ward is there. ACHD -- it is their intent to, obviously, try to convince those property owners to take access off this new collector and eliminate some driveways out there to Ustick and Duane Drive. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: Becky, would you go over your first comment? Is that page two or page three? McKay: Page three, sir. Borup: Yeah. I had the same question. Moe: Could you go over that one more time? McKay: I believe it referenced -- last sentence on it says there will be no direct lot access to the future road and a system of cross-access points or internal streets will be established by ACHD. I think Joe intended to say there will be no direct lot access to Ustick Road, except for the future road and a system of cross-access points or internal streets will be established by ACHD. Is that not correct, Joe? Borup: Is there any restriction on individual lot access on a collector in commercial? In a residential you cannot have a driveway access onto a collector, I believe, but that doesn't apply to commercial, then? McKay: Commercial collectors I think function a little bit differently, but there would be, obviously, offsets required. One hundred seventy-five feet between -- edge to edge, I believe. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Thank you, Becky. At this time it's open to the public for public testimony and we do not have anybody that has signed up, but you're welcome to come forward, sir. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Belcher: Fitzroy A. Belcher, 2920 Duane Drive. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm here tonight to represent the people on Duane Drive and very much opposed to the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 18 of 95 doing away with the landscaping on the east side of this right of way. Becky stated that in the future we may want to subdivide. As it stands today, the covenants say we can't go less than two and a half acres, so there is no way to break those lots down and have that right against our properties. We'd like to see landscaping on both sides. We can't break -- we can't subdivide. Borup: Sir, we see projects all the time coming in before the city that that has happened. Belcher: I'm sorry? Borup: We see projects all the time that are developed. So, it is quite common. And the owners in that association can amend those bylaws. But you realize that if they do put a landscaping buffer there that you would not have any access at all? Belcher: Yeah. We don't need the access. We don't want the access. Borup: Okay. Rohm: I think one of the other things that I'd like to point out to you that may change your view a little bit is this road is being fully developed by this applicant, as opposed to, typically, a developer will only develop two-thirds of the road and, then, leave the balance of the road for the adjacent property owner, the people on the other side, to develop at some point in time down the road. And in this particular case the road will be curb to curb and will be completed and there will be no obligations of the property owners on that side to complete any additional roadway. So, it's -- from my perspective, it's almost like there is a little bit of give and take here inasmuch as the county is willing to fully develop the road and the fact of all of your homes sit back significantly from the roadway, it's almost like the property in itself offers its own buffer if you -- if you can appreciate that. Belcher: We have about 600 feet from the lots where the houses are back to the back property line. However, most of those are all fenced now and they are all -- in pasture. Almost everybody has stock. And I don't know what the traffic up and down there is going to do with the stock. Going to bother them. I don't know. Rohm: Yeah. Thank you for your testimony, sir. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. At this time I'd like to ask the balance of the Commission if they have got any final thoughts on this application prior to moving forward. Baird: Mr. Chair, it might be appropriate at this time to allow the applicant rebuttal. Rohm: Okay. Becky, would you like to come up and -- okay. Any questions of the applicant by members of the Commission? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 19 of95 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one. And, actually, this may either be for staff or for the city attorney. At a joint Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council meeting or workshop, rather, that we had a few weeks ago now, we discussed development agreements and the lag time between when the development agreement was finished and prepared for the applicant's signature and the requirement for them to return it signed. We did not discuss what is on page six of this staff report under analysis, where it says the applicant shall contact the city attorney with 18 months -- within 18 months to initiate this process. Of course, the initiation of process has to happen long before the signature part of it. It just seems to me that that's an extraordinarily long time. I realize we have probably had that condition for a long time, but if the goal is to finish the annexation of a property, the annexation is not complete until the development agreement is complete. If we are going to discuss that there should be a shorter time for the applicant to return it after the city attorney has prepared it, I think there should be a shorter time in the initiation. Rohm: Mr. Baird. Baird: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I was not in attendance at that joint meeting, but Mr. Nary was, and I'm not sure where that 18 month period came from. I suspect that this particular applicant is motivated and organized and we will see them calling us right away, because I think they want to get this taken care of and maybe they can make a commitment as far as what that time frame would be and we could re-insert that time period and I would also probably have the Commissioner -- or the Commission inquire of Mr. Guenther if he has any idea where the 18 month time period came from. It looks like we have got a technical thing going on over there, though. Guenther: Mr. Chair, Craig is trying to look it up. I believe that section came from the portion of the UDC which sets time frames on annexations and platting for expiration and 18 months is when they have to complete within that time and I believe it is stated in 11-5-B, which is under for the expiration provisions. However, we are trying to locate an ordinance to verify that for you. Rohm: I think in this particular application it's almost a moot point, because it's going to take place way prior to the 18 months. So, I'm not sure that we will be bumping up against that anyway. Zaremba: And, Mr. Chairman, I am not necessarily certain that we need to solve that for this applicant either. I think it's going to be -- but I think as a boilerplate issue, again, since it does show up in other applications, if staff would promise to look into it and discuss it another time, I would be satisfied. Rohm: A point well taken. Hood: Mr. Chair, I would just like to confirm that we will look it up. It doesn't look like we have the UDC. We got a new computer this week and they didn't put our UDC on the computer it doesn't look like. So, I don't have access to that. I would just Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 20 of95 recommend that we strike that 18 months in case it isn't in the UDC, because as you noted, they will probably comply with that anyways and, if not, we aren't requiring something that isn't required by code. So, just to be safe, I'd recommend that we just strike out that time period at this time and they need to comply with the UDC. So, whatever it says they have to comply with anyway, so -- and we will look into that. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Well, if we just take out the words within 18 months, the whole rest of the sentence still makes sense, so -- okay. Thank you. The applicant has been nodding her head yes. Do we need that testimony on the record? Borup: No. Let's just do it. Rohm: I think we are clear on that. I think at this time -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-060, Ada County Highway District Ustick Road property. Moe: Second. Rohm: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded that we close AZ 05-060. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Newton-Huckabay: Whoa. I have got a question. Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. I don't mean to be pushy. Newton-Huckabay: I guess I got to speak up. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I was just trying to refresh my memory regarding the buffer on the east side. Isn't there a buffer to the north? I mean -- Guenther: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that would be the Ustick Road buffer, which will be a 35-foot landscape buffer to the north, which would -- which is written into there -- into the development agreement. Newton-Huckabay: No. Isn't there an east -- the road north of that. This is the signalized one right behind Lowe's; right? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 21 0£95 Guenther: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: The one north of it, doesn't that have a buffer on the east side of the collector that's already built out? Whatever -- Heather Meadows or -- Guenther: Yes. Zaremba: If I can interpret your question, we are talking about where the center line of the two different roads would align; right? Depending on whether there is a buffer or not. That's the question. Do they align. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Zaremba: Depending on whether there is a buffer or not. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. And I guess that's -- because as I -- I don't think they will, but -- Guenther: Mr. Commissioner, Chairman, Mr. Inselman from ACHD is in the audience and he indicated that there is a land use -- or landscape buffer on the other side of the road as well. Baird: Mr. Chair, if we could reopen the hearing and get Mr. Inselman on the record, I think that would be the best course of action at this time, since there is an open question. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move to rescind closing the Public Hearing and reopen it for AZ 05-060 and I would note that nobody has left the room since we closed it. Rohm: Okay. Is there a second? Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we reopen AZ 05-060. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Can I complete my statement before you call him up here? Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: Thanks. My question is this: If there is a buffer and the streets wouldn't line up, which I didn't think that they did without a buffer, I would think that we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 22 of 95 would need to have a buffer on the east side of the property and so that the street would line up. Zaremba: Good point. Newton-Huckabay: And that it would look like -- if for no other reason -- I mean that esthetically it looks like it's a continuous flow. And I have completed my statement. Rohm: Okay. Would Mr. Inselman like to come forward, please. Inselman: Commission, Gary Inselman with Ada County Highway District. The intersection is already constructed with the road project that we just did with the developers at Lowe's and the other side of Eagle and the roadways do align at Ustick and, then, it is the desire to swing the road to the east to allow access to the Summer's Funeral Home and the church and, then, continue the road straight south for the distance that those parcels require. Borup: The radiuses are already in, there is no curb cuts to do anything; is that correct? Right. The intersection is already there. Rohm: So, you will just be continuing the existing roadway to the south. Zaremba: Well, the part that I heard is that it would curve. There would be a slight curve to the east to -- somewhere south of Ustick it -- okay. At Ustick it aligns with the road across the street and that requires some bit of landscape buffer to do, but some distance south of Ustick the road would shift slightly to the east and eliminate that landscape buffer for the purpose of connecting to the two properties that agree to connect, but, then, it would continue along that property line from then on. Rohm: On south. Zaremba: Oh, there is a drawing to my right. I was looking the other way. Guenther: Mr. Chairman, this is, actually, from the Una Mas project, which we will hear next. Zaremba: Okay. Guenther: This is their drawing, their rendition of the ACHD intersection. Zaremba: And is that a fairly accurate depiction, as far as you're concerned, Mr. Inselman? Inselman: Something to that effect, yes. Zaremba: Okay. .~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 23 of 95 Rohm: It appears to be very clean cut to me. Thank you, sir. Any other questions of Mr. Inselman before we move forward? Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have anymore questions about the buffer to the east -- or to the south I guess it would be. No. To the east. To the east. Newton-Huckabay: Well, isn't -- the Summer's Funeral Home sits on Ustick, so where is the access off of the proposed street? It's right there? So, it's going to access at the back of their property? Rohm: I believe that's the intent, to take access off of this new roadway. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess to me it doesn't make sense, other than the mere fact that I guess you have got many more feet of land to sell on the other side, so -- but -- Rohm: I think that might have been the point. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'm just stating my opinion. I would have put the landscape buffer all along it, but -- Borup: Well, it does allow -- as was stated, it does allow direct access to that property. Newton-Huckabay: To? Borup: To go to that collector. Yes. Someone leaving Summer's would not have to go down to Ustick and down to Eagle and back to Fairview, they go directly to Fairview. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, we don't have to belabor this any longer. Borup: That's what I was thinking. Rohm: Okay. With that being said -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing for one final time on AZ 05-060, Ada County Highway District Ustick Road property. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close -- reclose AZ 05-060. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba, are you ready to move with a motion? " Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 24 of 95 Zaremba: I am ready. I was trying to find the third place where I need to make a comment and I have found it. Therefore, Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 05- 060, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of February 16th, 2006, with the following modifications: On page three, paragraph I, the very last sentence would be changed to read as follows: There will be no direct lot access to Ustick Road, except for the future road -- and, then, the sentence continues the same as it was. On page six of the staff report, item ten, the last paragraph introducing the bullets, there is an underlying statement that says the applicant shall contact the city attorney. In that sentence I would strike the words within 18 months and leave the rest of the sentence the same. In one of the bullets following that, the bullet actually begins on page six and continues onto page seven, I would add a sentence to that bullet that says that a landscape buffer will not be required along the east side of the future collector roadway. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-060 with modifications to the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.55 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Una Mas by Una Mas, LLC - 3475 East Ustick Road Rohm: One down. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from January 19th, 2006, for AZ 05-061 for the project Una Mas and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The Una Mas annexation request is, again, just an annexation request. What we have tonight is a 9.55 acre site that would be requesting annexation from RUT to C-G. With this site it is also mostly agricultural at this time. Currently, there is two main issues with the site. One is that ACHD on Ustick Road has not provided them with an access point -- a future access point to Ustick with the current roadway configuration. The access would be full access immediately off site to the west. And, again, from the future roadway that we just had discussed, which is why the extensive portions in the development agreement address cross-access and vehicular circulation between all these parcels. That is the main concern that staff has with this site. Secondly, that the southern portion of this property staff is recommending to ACHD that a 42 foot wide road system, half of it be reserved, not dedicated, to provide for a future either public or a collector --