Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 4, 2006 P&Z Minutes ~ :t.. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 3 of 84 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: At this time I'd like to -- oh, before I open this, have some comments. Many of you attend these Planning and Zoning meetings infrequently and I'd like to talk just a little bit about the procedure that's used and what we do -- we will open up a hearing for a particular project and the first thing we do is we ask staff to give their comments. What they do is they talk about a project in terms of the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. They kind of spell it out from that perspective, just as it conforms to the laws of the City of Meridian. At such time that they have completed their presentation, the applicant has 15 minutes to present the project and what they do is they present it from a sales perspective. They try and sell the project to us, based upon the value back to the city. Once those two presentations have been made, then, we take public comment and everybody has an opportunity to speak to the project and they will be heard. And that's the procedure that we use and there is some time limitations and as we move through this we will talk more about that. Item 4: Item 5: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: RZ 06-001 Request for a Rezone of 5.40 acres from R-8 to L-O (Limited Office) for Sundance Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction - northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots on 3.77 acres in a proposed L-O zone for Sundance Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction - northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: CUP 06-011 Request to modify the previous Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development (CUP 01-026) by adding additional office lots, changing building and parking layout and allowing potential drive through sites for Sundance Subdivision No. 5 by Dave Evans Construction - northeast corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road: Rohm: But to start off with, I'd like to open up the continued Public Hearing from the April 20th meeting of RZ 06-001, continued Public Hearing PP 06-014, and CUP 06-011, all related to Sundance Subdivision No.5 and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. There is also a fourth application with the file numbers you just mentioned. You do not have to act on that tonight. It is a miscellaneous application to amend the development agreement that's currently in effect for this site, which leads me to the presentation of the subject project. It was approved in 2001 as part of Sundance Subdivision. There were four office lots that were platted in the R-8 district and the applicant is, essentially, cleaning that up, if you will, and proposing to rezone the area outlined in green there on the screen to an L-O and office district. It is 5.4 acres. There are 12 commercial lots. Sorry the scan didn't come in too well, but, trust me, there is 12 commercial lots. There is cross-access Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 4 of 84 for all 12 of the lots to use. Two access points into the site. This kind of cross-hatched area here is an entrance to Meridian Road. And, then, there is also an access here to Ustick Road and the drive aisles, if you can use your imagination a little bit -- actually, I think I have a landscape plan that will show it a little bit better. The drive aisles. So, all of the lots within the subdivision can use two access points. There is also a stub street to this property through the residential portion of Sundance. Staff is recommending that they extend the driveway to that stub street, so the residents within Sundance can get to the office lots without having to get onto the arterial street system and -- and so that is in the staff report. Also while I'm on that topic, there is also a condition there that a note be placed on the plat. This access is about 450 feet, I believe, away from the intersection. This one's a little short of that. I think it's around 400 feet. In case this access does become a problem in the future, I have talked with ACHD and we would like them to, basically, be the enforcer if there is a life safety issue in the future, they do have the ability to close that access down here and, then, all access would have to be through that subdivision. I'm going to jump back to the aerial real quick and it is at a scale that you can't really see it too well. There are some existing homes here and, then, here is your -- kind of your -- it's not really a collector, there is front-on housing, but that's one of the main entrances into the residential portion of Sundance Subdivision. So, that's where the driveway would tie in and, then, they could get out to Ustick Road. I think maybe just one more point. This is a very clean application from staff's perspective, as I mentioned earlier. It's kind of a clean-up. The Conditional Use Permit is proposing some additional lots, as I pointed out in the plat, there are 12 where four was approved originally. It was a pretty inefficient use of the land. There is over five acres here and those four lots just -- like I said, it wasn't a very efficient use of land. So, there are 12 lots here. They also -- the applicant also requested to have approval to construct or possibly construct a drive-thru in this general location on -- I believe it's Lot 8. Staff is recommending that that not be granted with this application. It is close to residences. We would want the neighbors to have another shot at that in the future. It does say for a financial institution, but sometimes those can be pretty heavy traffic generators or at different times when some people may have some concerns. So, if, in fact, a drive-thru is wanted on this site in the future, it would -- the way the staff's report is written, would need to come back to you again for that approval. I think I'm going to keep it short and sweet this evening and that's the staff report in a nutshell. Staff is recommending approval of the subject applications and I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yeah, Caleb. I just wanted to make sure, you know, through the -- through the report I did notice that the applicant was looking to do some commercial in this as well and staff has recommended no on that as well; is that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 5 of 84 Caleb: Just a clarification. I did contact the applicant when I was working on this report. The letter -- the submittal letter did talk about a retail aspect and I did talk with them and said, you know, the office zone is really more for professional offices and those types. It is their intent to just have those uses that are allowed in the L-O zone, conditional uses as well, if it does call for a conditional use, but no retail uses. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions? Zaremba: Mr. Chair, yes, I would ask one of Mr. Cole, if I may. In the conditions of approval under the Public Works Department, there is a 2.3 that talks about how water service is done. Are you likely to want to require them to loop their water system, have two connections? And, if not, then, forget it. If so, should we state that? Cole: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, it's, actually, already looped through this. During the Sundance portion of this when it was platted as Sundance, they have a connection through the -- to the east, to the extra driveway that Caleb talked about earlier, and also they go out and connect to the west through the northernmost entrance there. So, we have already got a loop through there. Zaremba: Thank you. Cole: Thank you, sir. Zaremba: That's it. Rohm: At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? And, please, state your name and address for the record. Mokwa: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tim Mokwa with Toothman Ortman Engineering on behalf of the applicant, 9777 Chinden Boulevard, Boise. I don't have a whole lot to add, other than what staff has already discussed. Regarding the request to modify the development agreement concept plan, it was pretty sketchy and as staff mentioned, it was an inefficient use of land and that's even more so true today, just four or five years later, as you can imagine. With regards to the -- to the drive-thru, we would request that those -- that restriction be removed. You know, that's, of course, at your discretion, but we are here for a conditional use modification. It's a Public Hearing we are limiting our request to one drive-thru and only for a financial institution on two specific lots. So, we provided Caleb with a concept for how that would be done. So, I'd like to ask you to consider that. And the only other item that I would like to ask you to consider or reconsider, items 1.1.4 and -- of the preliminary plat condition -- recommended conditions of approval and item 1.3.2, the recommended conditions for the Conditional Use Permit. Both deal with the proposed access on Ustick. That access was approved by ACHD back in 2000, I believe it was, or 2001 in this development agreement and the subdivision was approved and, in fact, they -- they Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 6 of 84 purposely -- there is a common area of 20 feet surrounding this -- 20 feet surrounding this property along Meridian and Ustick. They purposely platted those out as accesses there, realizing that the access on Ustick did not quite meet their separation standards from the intersection. I would request that that -- those conditions be removed from the conditions of approval, if you elect to approve this, or recommend approval, since that __ I really don't think that that application is any more likely or should not be any more likely to be taken away than other access that ACHD has approved through a development application. They approved these applications. At times down the road -- sometime down the road, no pun intended, they will -- they will add a restriction for right- in, right-out only and build a center median. That can change the access, but that's dealt with at that time. This application has been reviewed by ACHD, both in 2001 and now, and they have approved that access and so I would request that you would remove those two conditions. But other than that, I have reviewed the staff's report, all their recommended conditions of approval, and I have no other objections or issues, so I'd stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Questions of the applicant? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mokwa, on the last subject you were discussing, there is actually two parts of it. Are you in agreement with making Santiago Court connect through, being a roadway or driveway, instead of just a pedestrian path? Mokwa: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, we hadn't originally shown it that way, but we are in agreement with that and we will do that. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: And I assume -- and the other part in that, too, is a direct access to -- to Ustick and you already assumed that also, that there would be no direct access to Ustick. Mokwa: Yes. We agree with that and will note that on the plat. Borup: So, the only -- the only part was just the part about potentially closing that access. Mokwa: That's correct. Borup: Not the whole -- not that whole paragraph. Mokwa: That's correct. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, if I can add -- yeah. Just to be clear, the last sentence of preliminary plat site specific condition 1.1.4 says: Specifically the note shall state that direct lot access to Ustick Road may be prohibited in the future if ACHD deems it necessary. I would -- I guess I would argue that that is always a condition of an approach approved by ACHD and I don't think this approach is any more likely or less likely than any other that they have approved. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 7 of 84 Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? I think that I'd like to talk to you a little bit about the drive-thrus. Typically, this Commission wants to see as a separate application on a drive-thru and with this Conditional Use Permit it wasn't so designated as part of the application specifically and I think that in fairness to the neighbors and -- and previous applications and applications in the future for drive-thrus, I think consistency is important and I think that it would be better from our perspective if we were to suggest that a separate application be made for that down the road. That would be my take on that and I would be interested in -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Is this it on the board? Zaremba: I would support that and, actually, the point is not that we would deny a drive- thru, but that as part of the required notice to the neighbors it needs to include that that is a subject and if I understand correctly from staff, the notice did not include that. And, therefore, I don't think we would approve that with this, but that doesn't mean we'd say no to a separate application. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, they did, in fact, ask for it with this application. There was no detail provided at the time. The notices were sent out with -- I don't have the exact language here, did it talk about a potential, I believe, was the language, potential drive-thru use on the site. So, they did -- they did ask for it, but the details -- it was a little later in the game and, to tell you the truth, I didn't, excuse me, spend a lot of time on it, just -- evaluating the drive-thru, because I didn't think that it was fair to have a -- it could be built this way or that way. That's just my take on it. And it being that close to residential, I thought that there should be a separate hearing to solely discuss that. Now, there may be some people in the audience here tonight that saw that notice, that got notice of that, and have issues with the Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru specifically, but they did ask for it in their application and we did notice the neighbors, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Is this the design that you're looking at, then? Mokwa: That's the concept, anyway, at this point, yes. Borup: On those -- on those two lots? Mokwa: Yeah. In all likelihood -- you know, and that brings up another point. On our preliminary plat, which is our third application, we are specifically not calling out easements common to lot lines, which is what we have seen on a lot of other commercial subdivisions in the past. We are going to specifically request -- or plat the easements where they need to be for the utilities for this purpose, you know, that this particular developer-builder likes to have flexibility built in, so we have got small lots that Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 8 of 84 -- you know, two small lots could combine one building, so in this case in all likelihood, just because of room constraints, you would -- or space constraints, you would have one building that spread over Lot 7 and 8 with the drive-thru. So, this is just showing how we would modify our parking access aisles to accommodate that and it doesn't affect the main drive-thru, there is still the main drive-thru and the emergency services access through it. Rohm: And I think that to kind of carry this though to conclusion, drive-thru applications are very specific and if it's a concept at this point, which it may well, in fact, end up being exactly what is installed, if we were to approve a conceptual drive-thru, it's almost -- it would be the same as saying if you make changes that, too, would be approved and I think that in -- to be safe, I think we should just remove that from this application and hear it separately. That would be my thought on that. Zaremba: With a specific design the way the final is going to be. Rohm: Right. With the way it would be final and that way we could act on it as a specific design criteria. Mokwa: Mr. Chair, We can live with that. I mean it's not a huge issue for us. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, he did bring up one other thing that makes me question something and, again, for staff. Do we allow buildings to be built across lot lines? Wouldn't they have to re-plat to do that? Hood: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we do allow buildings to be built across lot lines as the applicant indicated, if there are no easements or other encumbrances that are being built across. Ideally, they would do a reduction in platting or a record of survey and remove the lot lines -- or you can't remove a lot line, but, basically, make the two lots one just with a simple record of survey. It's a pretty easy administerial process, but you can build across platted lot lines. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. We do not have anybOdy signed up to speak to this application, but that, certainly, does not preclude anybOdy from testifying. So, at this point in time I'd like to open it up for public testimony. Anybody that would like to come forward, please do so. Seeing none, discussion? Commissioner Moe, do you have any thoughts on this? Moe: Mr. Chairman, as far as I'm concerned I'm leaning towards approvals in accordance with staff comments. As far as the drive-thru, I definitely am of the same opinion, I do not want to see that go through tonight, because I'd like to see a little bit more information on that. So, therefore, that's the end of my comments. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 9 of 84 Rohm: Good. Thank you. Any other comments before we move forward? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Borup: The only question I had is on the Ustick Road access. Question for staff. Mr. Hood, what -- does it really make any difference what the city recommends as far as how ACHD would act in the future? I mean if they deem it's necessary, they are going to do it anyway, aren't they, whether we mention that in our staff report -- or in the approval or not? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, that is true. I mean ACHD has the same charge we do of police powers to protect the safety of the citizens of the county. I specifically made a plat note in this one to give the heads up to buyers within this subdivision that, in fact, they can close that if they want to and it shouldn't be a huge surprise. Now, ACHD is not just going to go out there and willy-nilly close their -- you know, they aren't making any friends that way. But, again, it was more of a heads up for future lot owners in here that, in fact, if it is a problem it may be closed. But it does ring true for any access that ACHD has, as long as they still have access to the public street system. So, it could be removed and it would -- they could still enforce it later, yes. Borup: Well, that kind of makes sense. Zaremba: Well, I kind of agree with having the extra warning there. I just -- this particular location -- and we have talked about Ustick Road a lot. This particular location, of all the places that ACHD may want to reconsider in the next 15 years, maybe, I think staff is absolutely right, this is a spot that they would be concerned about and in this case I support the idea of putting buyers on notice that this is maybe more likely than other places. The other piece of it is to also enforce the reason for having the roadway connection to Santiago Court, so that if ACHD does make that choice, there is an alternative. I kind of support leaving it the way the staff asked for it. Borup: Makes sense, Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: I would ask staff one other question, though. On Exhibit B, conditions of approval 1.1.3, the bullet that's the fourth one down says construct a pedestrian pathway. Should we change that to roadway or driveway or do you want both? Hood: Yes, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, there is a condition in there somewhere that talks about the roadway. That would just be the pathway. So, there should be a driveway -- Zaremba: 1.1.14 does say construct -- Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 1 0 of 84 Hood: Yeah. So, that covers the driveway. The other one would just be the pedestrian path adjacent to that driveway that's 1.1 .4. Zaremba: So, there should be both? Hood: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Typically, we offer the applicant an opportunity to rebut public testimony, but having none, and it's only comments from the Commission, if you would like to come up and say anything final, you're welcome to or -- and from the audience he's saying he doesn't need to. So, thank you very much. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I'd make a motion to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-001, PP 06-014, and CUP 06-011. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on RZ 06-001, PP 06-014, and CUP 06-011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Moe appears to be ready to make the motion, but I would, in looking it over, ask to discuss one other change. This is in Exhibit B, site specific requirements for the Conditional Use Permit. Paragraph 1.3.2 does say any future drive-thru use on this site shall require a Conditional Use Permit. I would precede that with -- since it's been discussed, I would precede with that the statement that says no drive-thru is approved with this application and, then, make the sentence that is at 1.3.2, the second sentence of that. No drive-thru is approved with this CUP application. Rohm: Seems to be in order. Borup: Or just eliminate future. You could just cross out future. Moe: Yeah. I think that would be -- Newton-Huckabay: There you go. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 11 of 84 Zaremba: Works for me. There is always a simpler way to do it. Moe: Always. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I would move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 06-001 and PP 06-014, and CUP 06-011, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20th, 2006, and May 4th, 2006. And the preliminary plat labeled sheet one of one, dated January of 2006, revised 3/1 of '06 and the site landscape plans labeled sheet one of one, dated January 2006, revised 3/1/06 with the following modifications: To conditions of approval, which would be under site specific requirements, and for the Conditional Use Permit, item 1.3.2 where it's stated that any future drive-thru, I would like to strike the word future under that. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto the City Council recommending approval of RZ 06-001, PP 06-014, and CUP 06-011, to include all staff comments with modifications as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. I thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.01 acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) for Incline Village Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC - north side of Cherry Lane west of Black Cat Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 64 single-family residential lots and 8 common lots on 20.01 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Incline Village Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC - north side of Cherry Lane west of Black Cat Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from April 20th, 2006, for AZ 06-018 and PP 06-016, both related to Incline Village Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This is the second item on your agenda tonight that we didn't make it through on the 20th of April. There was no hearing before. It is a continued item, but I'll give you a brief description of the project. It is an annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat request for a 20 acre subdivision located on the north side of Cherry Lane just west of Black Cat Road. There are 64 lots