Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 16, 2006 P&Z Minutes -. ~ " Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 24 of95 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-- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 25 of 95 commercial collector roadway. That is to be determined by ACHD. Staff does feel that there is a severe need for traffic to -- especially commercial vehicular traffic, which will be loading trucks, semi trailers, and such, to not take access to Ustick at this point. So, cross-access across this parcel, probably at the southern boundary for a full roadway, would be desirable in order to allow for loading traffic, large truck traffic from any commercial properties in that area. Keep in mind that the property to the west is zoned general commercial, which we will also see tonight and the property to the south is zoned general commercial, which we shall see sometime in the future. Staff doesn't anticipate this entire site to be retail type of commercial uses, but possibly office and additional residential uses that would be able to take an access off of the commercial road with another type of future roadway system. And that would just be for a reservation of that future roadway system, so that it is available for any future development needs that may arise. Staff foresees that there would be those needs, therefore, that will be written into the development agreement. The second point would be that a cross-access road would be designed to a private street standard, with a minimum of 24 foot wide paved surface, with a five foot wide landscape buffer and a five foot wide sidewalk for pedestrian access in the east-west direction in order to provide for some sort of a mid block or mid development connection. We would foresee this parcel would come in as either -- well, two to five lots for a preliminary plat and the cross-access could be provided at the lot line, which would connect the parcel to the west to the future collector roadway. That one, as shown in this rendering, could be designed as a slightly meandering type of a roadway, but staff feels that no parking shall be allowed or backing out on that roadway in order to facility vehicular movement between the portion of the property west of the site and the future collector roadway system. Currently, this site here, there will be -- Article H of the UDC does not allow for access points to Eagle Road. So, therefore, the east-west connections are paramount to the success of the commercial operations in this area, which is why the extensive development agreement would be required. In my discussions with the applicant, they feel that these cross-accesses would be -- they should be able to design around them and, therefore, staff is recommending approval of this site, with the cross-accesses as listed in the development agreement requirement of the staff report. I will stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. Any questions of staff? Not at this time. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Rosin: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Jon Rosin, Hansen-Rice, 1717 Chisholm Drive, Nampa, Idaho. We are in agreement with the staff report, with the clarification that we would like to also see that if they are asking for the 42-foot area along the south of the property, if that's truly where it's located, we are good with that. Along this -- along this edge right here. We have had discussions with this applicant, as well as ACHD, and we believe we have come up with two access -- you know, we have come up in agreement with at least two access points -- cross-access points across our property line this way and we are -- Moe: Can you show me the other one with -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 26 of95 Rosin: From this drawing? Moe: I understand the one on the south side. I'm just curious -- Rosin: Yeah. This one right here is the 42-foot that they are requesting and we have come up -- we had a meeting with ACHD and the applicant to the west and we are showing right now somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 feet or so from Ustick having some kind of a meandering access -- cross-access to get through our site over and, then, another one down here that lines up with theirs that would also meander through the site. Our goal is, you know, to have offices, retail space, and, you know, we don't want -- I mean we have purposely aligned these lots up so that people would have to meander to keep the speeds down. We really don't want a freeway going through the sites where we have, you know, the offices and a lot of people who are working there. Moe: So, you're anticipating that you would have three cross-access points off the west side? Rosin: Yes. We are okay with that. We are willing to -- you know, we are willing to work with them. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Actually, I would ask Mr. Rosin a question if I could. Since you have been talking to ACHD and the other applicant and somewhat together, I guess, do you have any greater comfort that it may be you that acquires this piece of property that will be the remainder of ACHD? Rosin: Not at this time. We don't know. We sure -- we would sure like to pick that up, but price will dictate. You know, it would definitely help us in our development, but it depends on, you know, what happens when it goes up for sale. Zaremba: Okay. I assume that has to be a public process. Rosin: It does have to be a public process. Zaremba: There may be other bidders and so forth. Rosin: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: At this time I'd like to open it for public testimony. We don't have any additional individuals signed up for this, but at this time I will open it to public testimony. Moe: Mr. Chairman? .,' Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 27 of 95 Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing for AZ 05-061. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-061. All in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 05-061 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 16th, 2006. End of motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-061. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, it's not part of the motion, but I would support the request of one of the applicants that AZ 05-060 and 05-061 stay together. That they go onto the City Council at the same time. Rohm: Yeah. I think that's appropriate. Zaremba: Just a scheduling question for staff. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: AZ 05-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 17.25 acres from RUT and R1 to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: RZ 05-019 Request for a Rezone of 10.05 acres from C-G to R-8, R-15 and C-G zones for Bienville Square Subdivision by Red Cliff Development, LLC - 2935 North Eagle Road: