Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 18, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 20 of 47 be the southern five foot of the applicant's property on the north side of Everest Lane. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of RZ 06-003, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned changes. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Well, if we are not going to get to 9:00 o'clock, maybe we should take a 15 minute break now. Zaremba: We are going to miss our break. Rohm: We are going to miss our break. Newton-Huckabay: Give me a break. Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 06-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.49 acres in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 06-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 24 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: Rohm: Okay. And I'm just kidding. We are not going to take a break. Okay. With that being said, at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 06-004, PP 06-021, and CUP 06-014. All three items relating to Rushmore Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The Rushmore Subdivision is a rezone of 5.49 acres, approximately half -- the northern half of that property currently contains the Meridian Friends Church. They are proposing to zone that to L- 0, office designation, where churches are principally permitted. The southern half is proposed for -- and, I'm sorry, this is skewed a little bit, so the cul-de-sac -- actually, that's -- yeah. I can't really see it. Okay. That's right. There is the lateral, the Nine Mile is at the northern boundary there, which splits the R-15 and the L-O zone. So, there is an existing stub street to the property that the applicant is proposing to add a cul-de-sac and add seven -- or, excuse me, six four-plex buildings on and construct a drive aisle and parking around. So, the cul-de-sac is here. Their drive aisle and parking -- this is a real busy site plan. I'm sorry, I didn't look to see how busy it is. But there is parking adjacent to each one of these six four-plex units. They do have a manager's office on Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 21 of 47 the northern most unit. There are some other amenities. A monument sign. Community mailbox. They will have a bike storage area over in that general location. They do meet all the amenities. They did a pretty nice job of all the required amenities for 20 plus four-plexes. They seem to have complied with that requirement. The only question -- I think -- I'm pretty confident that they meet the calculation for the required open space -- common open space per unit, but I did ask them to calculate how much of this area is common open space in that common lot, just to confirm that there is enough per ordinance required common open space. These are all the same building. Let's see if I have -- there is the elevation. There are two two bedroom units and two three bedroom units in each four-plex. So, there is the front elevation. And with your private usable open space per unit. And a side elevation. So, I think the only other thing I wanted to just point out to you does relate to the church lot. Now, the church is a lot within the subdivision. The only question -- I don't have a very good slide of that either, I apologize. There is an existing parking lot for the church that about two-thirds of it comes right up to Pine and there is not the required landscape buffer there. The other -- approximately a third that's on the eastern boundary of the church was approved by the planning department for a parking lot improvement back in 2000. They did provide the required -- the church -- they being the church, did provide the required landscape buffer adjacent to that portion of Pine. There is a section in the staff report that I would propose to even modify at this point. I think the intent of the development agreement -- if you look at the development agreement starts on page ten. The one I'd like to talk about is the 11 th point in that development -- the development agreement provisions and that talks about alternative compliance. Now, the church is not proposing to do anything at this time. However, they are part of a subdivision. So, we do generally get all the subdivision required improvements when the subdivision comes in. To make the record clean and to just take care of this issue, I believe that the applicant, the church, or whoever -- an alternative compliance request should be submitted to our department so we can evaluate what's there now. If we can mitigate that somehow by planting maybe denser trees or -- or something when the church redevelops. Now, I'm okay with how it is now, they are not proposing to do anything now, but I would just ask the Commission to maybe chime in on that and I'll look for it -- while the applicant's giving their presentation I'll look for that site plan that kind of shows more detail what I'm talking about, how close the parking there on Pine does come to -- encroaches into that required landscape buffer. I really think it's a pretty clean application. I don't have a lot of comments. I would just ask, again, that the applicant clarify their common open space, just to make sure that we have a correct acreage there and percentage of the site. And, then, fencing, I didn't see any fencing on the plan and that's something that usually almost always comes back into question mark. So, we do not require the perimeter to be fenced, just would like some clarification on the intentions to fence the property or the four-plex area or whatever. So, I think with that -- Mike did pull that, so I may just finish off that thought about the landscape buffer at this time. So, here is the existing church building. This is the portion of the parking lot that I talked about that has the landscape buffer. Here is the portion that comes up, but the sidewalk is right approximately there. There is two or three feet, maybe, between the stalls and the back of walk, approximately, in the scale of this map. So, that's the question, I guess, and, again, I'd like some comments. There is not a lot, really, as far Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 22 of 47 as alternatives to a 20 buffer that you can really do in a few feet. So, the question is should this -- the parking go away. And it doesn't have to be answered now, it's just -- as far as staff is concerned, I don't know what a true alternative would be to meet the intent of that landscape buffer. So, it's more, I believe, an opportunity for the church to get some input from some appointed officials as to what they think is an appropriate land use buffer there, because it will go staff -- the alternative compliance is just approved at staff level. They can, of course, appeal that to the City Council if they don't like what Anna comes back with, but I -- that's the issues, I guess, at hand and it really doesn't have -- other than it's in the same subdivision, much to do with what's going on and what's proposed on the south side of the Nine Mile. So, with that I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: The property to west of this along Pine Street, have they done the -- they have the street buffer; right? Hood: Yeah. Rock Creek is currently under construction. I am not sure about their status at this point. I haven't driven that down far on Pine recently. Zaremba: But it was required? Hood: It was required for a full 25 foot buffer. Zaremba: And I realize the properties to the east are still currently residential -- existing residential. Hood: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Vance: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Michael Vance. My address is 4585 East Victory Road. Very close to the llama guy. So, I was interested to hear kind of what's going on down there. I want to thank staff for their presentation. I know that there are difficult circumstances there, people leaving, and I know Caleb has had to jump on board kind of at the last minute. What I would like to say as an opening statement here is that with the new ordinance that was adopted it changed a lot of things as far as multi-family developments go and we have tried to live with the spirit and the letter of the new ordinance. We have had three meetings with Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 23 of 47 Anna and a couple of other people who are no longer here and we feel like we have made an effort to live up to the new ordinance. This is an interesting project in that we don't always see a church as part of a conditional use application or a preliminary plat, but the church has been there for a long time and has decided to -- in order to facilitate perhaps additional buildings, is allowing some development in the southern portion of their property. So, with that, you are going to see a rezone application from R-4, which the church is today, to L-O, which more lends itself to what churches need to belong to. So, that's why the church is asking for this. At the same time, the rear portion or the southerly one-third, if you will, is being requested for similar zoning to what is happening to the east and to the west of that project. So, Rock Creek is not just the only project, it goes beyond that. In addition, there are a number of mixed uses within this whole community, if you will. There already is multi-family. There already is single family. So, it's kind of -- if you go to the east of this project, directly east, you will find single family. If you go right on the other side, easterly of that, you're going to find multi-family. So, we believe that we conform to the comp plan. We believe that the private open space that Caleb was alluding to, I am not going to get into tonight, except to say that we believe that we will conform to every single ordinance requirement that you have. We think we have done it now. If there is a concern, we still say we are not asking for any variances with this application. We would like to let the project stand on its own and whatever motion is made, as long as it's to live with whatever the ordinance is, that's what we want to do and that's what we think we have done. The amenities for multi- family projects, there is like 20 to -- I don't remember the top number, but it now requires amenities that really belong with a hundred units, but this project is going to provide those additional amenities, bike storage, maintenance facilities, and all this. It will provide all of that. The Pine Avenue buffer has been discussed with the planning director. No one has been able to find the agreement that was made with the church years ago. We are unable to find it. Anna can't find it. We can't find it. Caleb can't find it. And I think that if there was some compromise position here over a period of time, perhaps after, the church may come in for a conditional use or a building permit of their own to expand the church, perhaps that might be an appropriate time to talk about that. However, it is not a condition of ACHD that that be done. It's a condition of the City of Meridian and it may be the timing of that condition of approval very well may be after the church put the parking lot there. But as Caleb said, I think there is a compromise position here that can be made. The open space that Caleb mentioned in his opening statement, I, again, say we are not trying to obtain any variances from this body. We believe that we have the open space that is required of a multi-family project and I will just leave it at that. If you will just understand that all we are trying to do is do what is required of us under the new ordinance for multi-family. As far as the perimeter fencing, the Rutledge Canal is going to be covered. Tiled in. So, there is really no need for a fence there. And the developer agrees to fencing both sides of Nine Mile Creek. We believe that we have shown through several meetings in trying to get staff to understand the new ordinance and us to understand the new ordinance, because this project was submitted ten months ago under the old ordinance. The new ordinance had just been approved like a month before. So, we went through and tried to very carefully make sure that we were within the spirit of the new ordinance. We believe that the required findings from the UDC, Exhibit D, indicates a project in compliance and in agreement Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 24 of 47 with city codes and we would ask your recommendation for approval be forwarded to the City Council. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Any questions of this applicant? Zaremba: Maybe later. Mae: Just one real quick and it probably doesn't even apply to this application, I was just curious. You bring up the church and possible expansion. I was just kind of curious, I actually heard through the grapevine that they had -- that that church actually had purchased the Seventh-Day Adventist Church that moved on that property over there. Do you -- Vance: That very well could be. Moe: Okay. Vance: That very well could be. Moe: And I bring that up, because I'm trying to anticipate what that's going to look like, along with this project, to kind of -- Vance: Correct. What we are trying to do here is bring the zoning into something that the church can bring back to you under a separate application. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify at this time? Moe: What that means is when you signed in he can't read anything you have written there. You're up. Redford: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, my name is Ken Redford and I live at 4115 West Daily Lane in Meridian. I'm serving as the pastor of Meridian Friends and as you know that's at 1021 West Pine. We all face challenges when we come into an existing situation. Want to look ahead, but also are dealing with what's already there. Meridian Friends knows that better than anybody. Twelve years ago they brought in a 25 year old pastor and they had no idea of what they were getting into. We have experienced some growth in the church and we are excited about that. The community has expanded. When they first bought this property 38 years ago they were advised against it, because it was way too far out of town. Just nobody around. It's in farmland, so you don't want to do that. Now, of course, what we are trying to do is we are trying to develop a comprehensive plan and one that's affordable for the church, so we talked to Anna at the same time that we were selling these back two pieces when we learned it's not going to be possible to cover the ditch, so we lose that ground as far as we are able to use it. So, at that time we decided Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 25 of 47 to go ahead and sell that off and, then, try to figure out a way of maximizing the three acres that we still have. Anna suggested this would be a great time to go ahead and rezone. It's the kind of zoning that it should be anyway as a church and so we went ahead and piggy backed with this application to do that. The one concern that we do have is with the parking and we are requesting, if it's possible, to salvage the parking spots. Of course that's to our interest. We have contracted a master planner consultant that works exclusively with churches. They have rules of thumb for how many actual parking spaces are needed for a church versus city code, which is, actually, two to one, versus four to one, because we don't want to be in a position of having cars all over Pine Avenue to fill the building. So, what the plan that you have there, the site plan that is here that we are developing, reflects that desire to actually be usable as a church and a balanced campus for everything else. So, if it's possible for us to save some of those parking stalls, I mean we certainly appreciate it and we want to go to the extra cost and so forth, but we do want you to know, by presenting that site plan, that we have tried to think through a campus that would be attractive and it would be useful and so forth, that maximizes it, instead of doing it piecemeal. So, anyway, our request -- I don't know if it's appropriate at this level and appreciated Caleb or -- it was Caleb; right? Yeah. I see Craig right there and it's -- wait a minute. Sorry. Hood: It's a long story. Redford: Oh. Okay. I appreciated Caleb's help -- Zaremba: We can't afford a new sign, I guess. Redford: So, anyway, appreciated his help in helping me to understand some of that. But, obviously, part of our confusion was in 2000 we did apply to go ahead and pave as much as we could afford to do along that east side and when we did that, we weren't required to adjust what was already there and so, naturally, to find out when we -- you know, we want to modify the rest of it in a way that brings the campus together. We are hoping that because that part of it's not changed -- could you point to those parking stalls I'm referring to? When we did this piece in 2000 right there, we did honor the 20 foot landscape buffer, of course, and we did not modify the other piece in front of the church building that is east of the part that was changed in the year 2000. We don't have plans, as you notice in that master plan, to change that as far as doing something else with it. So, anyway, that's part of what our hope is. And, again, I don't know if at this level it's even okay to ask for that, but it is, as you mentioned, an opportunity for us to hear what your desire is for our planning. So, we appreciate that. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application? Seeing none. Caleb, was I -- did I understand you correctly that this applicant would just work with staff and Anna on the resolution to those parking stalls and any other adjustments that would be required to come into compliance? Hood: Yeah. I didn't finish that thought. I pointed you to the development agreement provisions and called out 11. I guess I'd like that to be changed slightly to really tie back Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 26 of 47 to when the church redevelops and so the first part of that -- let him have his four-plex development do its thing, but when Lot 1, Block 1 comes in for are-development -- and before, hopefully. I mean let's get this -- you know -- and that's why I was hoping to just get some guidance from the Commission on what you think would be appropriate for staff to approve here. There are certain conditions and findings we have to make in granting alternative compliance as well, but just what you think would be a reasonable compromise or if you think -- I really don't -- it's going to be one way or the other. Either you leave it out here and you have that three foot wide buffer or whatever it turns out to be, or you remove that bank of parking, which is, what, eight, nine stalls and you provide landscaping. I mean I don't really see any other alternative. You can't lose half the stalls and provide half of your buffer. So, that's why the alternative compliance, if you direct the applicant to go that way, I guess, or the church to go that way, it would probably be approving as is, because I just don't see any other way to do anything, so I guess you could save a couple of them by putting it the other way and having some -- some parallel stalls to the sidewalk. But that's why condition 11 should probably be amended to tie it back to the church and not put it on the four-plex in that first sentence there that says if the applicant agrees to submit alternative compliance for Lot 1, Block 1, prior to occupancy of the four-plexes, but -- Moe: Mr. Chairman, having listened to the applicant, I guess I would be okay with the simple fact that they are doing a study for their parking, you know, what they would have, if they did expand and it does sound like they are planning to expand. You know, once their consultants can figure that out, I -- number one, I do believe -- I'd like to see the 20 foot buffer when they do reconstruct, you know, some additional area of the church, but -- and so I think that notation should be left in here. I think the four-plex should go away and just leave it that when the church is ready to expand, that that buffer is going to be required. And at the same point with their consultants, they may be able to figure out that they, indeed, do have enough parking for -- at that time they can come in for, you know, compliance, if, in fact, they are finding that they really do need that parking. Rohm: Makes sense to me. Zaremba: The comment that I would make in support of eventually having the proper landscape buffer is that there is no connection between -- there is no either roadway or walkway connection, I think, between this and the residential property to the south of it. There is a canal across there. Which means that there is not going to be extra traffic beyond the people that are attending the church. I mean there is no place to go, except to the church. So, I'd be comfortable with putting that change off until they do redo the church, but I would agree that at that time I think it should be required. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: It gives a consistency along Pine, which will eventually be a major corridor. Rohm: Okay. Any other comments before we close this Public Hearing? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 27 of 47 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, so moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-004, PP 06-021, and CUP 06-014. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I just had one comment on the applicant's testimony and it has to do with the fencing that they are not proposing to provide along their south boundary. All other things required, I do -- I do see that as a potential hazard. I mean that is the railroad tracks right there. I -- it's not a requirement. It's a Conditional Use Permit, you can put any condition on you want to, but I think it makes some sense to put a fence along that southern boundary to keep people, you know, out of the -- playing on the right of way of the railroad tracks. So, just the comments that I appreciate the applicant clarifying what they are proposing to do, but -- or not do, but I think that's a consideration that should be made. Rohm: I think that's reasonable. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Yeah. My comment would be on most projects we require perimeter fencing all the way around, even when there is not a railroad there, and this has a very safety reason to -- Vance: No objection. Moe: Just make that in your motion and we are set to go. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just have one comment on this and when I got this -- when I got this application I wasn't -- I was really annoyed, not because of this application, but when Rock Creek came through we specifically asked for -- I specifically said we should have a stub behind this church, so that there be connectivity there and the developer of that development, so, oh, we don't need a stub, that's going to develop in multi-family. And here we are two years later with exactly the kind of development that needs a nice little stub street. So, I just wanted to take the opportunity to say I told you so. That's all. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 28 of 47 Rohm: And a comment well taken. Thank you. And a marvelous memory you have. With that said -- Zaremba: I remember all of that discussion and, actually, I was thinking that we had required them to make their pathway usable as a secondary access, but I -- in the notes I see that their pathway is only five feet wide. This applicant has offered to continue that pathway, but it's not the connection that I was remembering it was going to be. Because I do remember there being some serious discussion about that. Newton-Huckabay: I just didn't want to pass up that opportunity, so -- Rohm: That's-- Moe: So noted. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 06-004, FP 06-021, and CUP 06-014, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 18th, 2006, with the following modifications. This can be an amendment to what is noted as paragraph 4.1.11 on Exhibit B, page two, and that is that the required landscape buffer along Pine Street can be delayed and made a part of their expansion project. So, that does not have to be built right now. And, then, where was fencing? Somewhere there is a comment about fencing and -- Moe: At 1 .1.2. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: Possibly. Zaremba: Okay. Yeah. Add to 4.1.2 under general requirements that we need to include a fence along the railroad track itself, as well as those offered by the applicant. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 06-005, PP 06-021, and CUP 06-014, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned amendments -- or adjustments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.