Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSept. 5, 2002 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeNng September 5, 2002 Page 2 of 47 noticed, we're - well, let me ask is there anybody here in the audience that's here to testify on any of those three? Okay. I think that makes that easy then. Our intention at this time is probably just table those three things. I think one thing the Commission needs to decide is a date. I don't know if you want to do that now as part of the adoption of agenda or do it when we come to those items. Do we have a preference? Shreeve: Just do it when we come to them. Zaremba: Do them individually when we get to them. Item 4: Public Hearing: RZ 02-002 Request for a rezone of 1.52 acres from R- 4 the Holy Nativity Episcopal Church by the Holy Nativity Episcopal Church -1021 West 8th Street: Borup: Right now we have -- we have six items on the 19th already. Some of them maybe not real lengthy, but I don't know if we are going to be able to do all three of them if we postpone them all to that date. Okay. Our first Public Hearing is RZ 02-002, request of a rezone of 1.52 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for the Holy Nativity Episcopal Church at 1021 West 8th Street. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. With that new light bulb our overhead works now, so I'd like to direct your attention to the overhead. The site property is the bolded area and this is a small church, a single story church located on West 8th Street. The large yellow parcel that you see up on the north side of the property is actually the middle school, Meridian Middle School, just to give you some orientation, and Pine Street is the large collector street that's running east west. The property is, as I said, a single-story church building. Approximately half of the property is vacant right now. The southern half of the property is vacant. The parking lot for the church is partially in front and partially to the south of the project. The applicant has requested the rezone for a couple of reasons. As stated in the staff report, one that the zoning currently resides in the R-4 zone, does not allow the church use, so they said let's rezone it to use the - rezone it to a zone that would allow a church use and so in order to make it conform, they decided the L-O zone would be the most appropriate zone. Secondary to that, the church would like to have the opportunity in the future, if they would -- if possible, to sell the building and putting it into an L-Q use would allow different types of uses to take place other than residential uses, so those are the reasons that they have asked for this rezone tonight. In the staff report there is just a couple of things I'd like to highlight. If you could turn to Page 5 on the staff report. Item Number 2 I believe deserves some clarification. It's under the site specific comments. Steven has written in the report that if there is a secondary -- or secondary principal building that is proposed on the undeveloped portion of the property, it shall be developed as a Planned Development. I think that it would be appropriate to add to that that the applicant may subdivide the property and build separately, rather than be required to do a planned development on the property in order to build a second building. Item Number 1 under standard conditions, if you could remove that and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 3 of 47 renumber the remaining three. The reason I'm asking you to move that one is because there is no existing domestic wells or septic systems that service this site. One more note of special attention before I turn the time back over to you for questions would be the site right now is well signed. There are a lot of signs for the property. There are three of them on site and there is one off premise sign that's located on the comer of Pine and 8th Street, a very small sign. You may have noticed it in the past, but it's a small sign that's hanging off of a pole. The existing Sign Ordinance that we have does not allow for off-premise signs and thafs part of the staff's site specific comments on the Page 5, Item Number 3, and there is some discussion about how the signs need to be removed and brought into compliance with the Sign Ordinance. The applicant has provided for you a piece of paper tonight with some alternative language to that and she's here to talk about some of the sign issues and so she is here tonight and she would like to address you. With that I would ask if there is any questions of staff? Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I do have one. I fully support the sign ordinance provision that says no off- premise signs. However, I guess in my thinking that refers to commercial enterprises. We typically around the city have signs that indicate that the church is half a block or two blocks up some street. We have signage for the golf course, we have signage for two, or three other things that I remember seeing around that are off-premise signs that, in my way of thinking, I would like to preserve. Is there a way to exempt those? McKinnon: Well, Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, Mr. Chairman, Steve and I actually discussed this a little bit today with the applicant, some alternatives to that. One of the concerns that we have as a staff is that if the use of the property changes, let's say it goes to an office use, typically what happens when there is a different type of use in there, they take the signage over, rather than replacing it with new signs, they just replace copy. We don't want to leave the impression that they could replace the copy of that sign to say, you know, Jim's Accounting, just to name something. As an alternative, we discussed that it might be possible to state that as long as the church remains the use, that they be able to retain the sign until such time as the church use ceases at that location. We talked about that with the applicant and, like I said, she's here tonight, she can address it in more detail, but we would be amenable to something to that effect, saying as long as the church use remains, that the freestanding sign on the corner of 81h and Pine could remain. That's something that we have thought about. Zaremba: Okay. Is that a change that needs to be made to the sign ordinance, though, to - and I would be very specific, but a sign indicating a church or a public park is exempt. McKinnon: That's probably a really good idea. As the applicant is speaking, I will double-check in our ordinance to make sure there is nothing that Steve hasn't overlooked in the report. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 4 of 47 Zaremba: And I agree, I would not just make it general any sign or - but I think churches and parks, in particular, should be - Borup: And there may be other non-business type signs that could be appropriate. Zaremba: City Hall. McKinnon: As I said, I will look through it as we have some questions for the applicant and maybe I will have something by then. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Would the applicant like to come forward? Avera: Good evening, Members of the Commission, I'm Janice Avera, representing Holy Nativity Episcopal Church. Borup: You need to state your address, too, for the record. Avera: You mean the church address? Borup: Either one. Avera: 1021 West 8th Street, Meridian, Idaho. Borup: And that's where your office is, I assume, then? You have an office there? Avera: That's where the church is. Borup: Okay. I think you have heard the discussion. You have read the staff report. It sounds like the only thing you have any question or concern on was the signage issue? Avera: That's correct. Borup: Is there some more things you'd like to add to what - Avera: No, actually, I don't know that I have anything terribly important to say at this point. I had prepared a document and I'm hoping you do have it in front you. Borup: Yes, we do. Avera: Simply stating that we would like to grandfather in the sign and if it is of assistance to you, the sign in question off premises is relatively small, it's only two feet wide and two and a half feet high and - Borup: That's what I was going to ask. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 5 of 47 Avera: And almost 10 feet of the ground, so it is no traffic hazard. More of a hazard for me being on the ladder and measuring it but it is - and the people who live there have no problem with it. In fact, they even trim their trees so it's visible. It is helpful to us, because we are not a big church sitting on Cherry Lane, which is part of our interest in asking for it to be grandfathered. Unfortunately, we just bought two signs of those three that are on our property. However, we appreciate the importance of the Sign Ordinance and we are willing to comply with that and take down two of those three. Perhaps I can answer questions, since Steve's done the talking. Borup: Okay. Any questions from the Commission? Zaremba: You requested six months to combine the three signs into one. Does that make it easier for your planning and absorbing the cost, I'm sure? Avera: Yes and it gets us beyond the Christmas holidays and we get pretty busy at the Church of the Nativity around Christmas. That's why I asked if we could extend it to be six months, versus three. Zaremba: Okay. Are you comfortable with the statement on Page 5 that staff was pointing out to us that if at some time you propose a second building, that you have the choice of either doing it as a Planned Development - under the Planned Development Ordinance or subdividing the property? Avera: Yes. I am very much in favor of that language. Zaremba: Okay. Avera: Thank you for asking. Borup: And it sounds like in your discussion with staff earlier, no problem with restricting the off-premise sign to - just to the church usage? Avera: Oh. Borup: If the usage changed, then, of course, it would need to come in compliance with the Sign Ordinance at that time. Avera: No. I have no problem with that. That seems appropriate and reasonable. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, while the applicant is still up front, I have found in the Sign Ordinance where it talks about grandfathering the signs, the legal nonconforming language. It's found on Page 21 of the Sign Ordinance and it says that the sign can be legally nonconforming until there is a change in the use of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 6 of 47 property that the sign is located on, rather than a change in the zoning. As long as the church use is there, it would be appropriate to allow the - Borup: So that way we wouldn't even really have to do anything, then, would we? McKinnon: We need to change Item Number 3. Borup: Right. Just in the staff report. McKinnon: Right. Borup: But they are not requiring a Variance or any other application or anything? McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: Were you going to say something? Shreeve: Well, I think the request sounds like the off-site, off-premise has resolved itself and I have no problem with the six months. Mathes: I don't either. Zaremba: Likewise. Borup: So Item Number 3 would be - Zaremba: The off-premise sign should be grandfathered and the three freestanding signs shall be consolidated within six months. Borup: Okay. Yes. Mathes: Do we have to say anything even about the off-premise sign if it's in the ordinance? Wollen: I believe that it would be advisable to do it, just so there is a record put on there that we recognize that the use may change and it's not going to be allowed for a changed use. Borup: Thank you. Did you have anything else? Avera: No. Borup: Okay. Avera: Thank you very much. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 7 of 47 Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Okay. Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the hearing on Item 4, Public Hearing, be closed. Mathes: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Do we need discussion further? Zaremba: I think we have had it. Borup: I think we have. Shreeve: I'll go ahead with a motion. Borup: Okay. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve Item Number 4, RZ 02-002, request for a rezone of 1.52 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for the Holy Nativity Episcopal Church, by the Holy Nativity Episcopal Church at 1021 West 8th Street. Taking all staff comments dated August 28, 2002, with the change on site specific requirement Number 2 that it shall be developed under a Planned Development or the applicant may subdivide the land and proceed in either case. Site specific Item Number 3, that the off- premise sign be grandfathered and if the use is changed, then the sign becomes nonconforming and that they are given six months to make the change for those signs on site, to reduce from three to one. Then under the standard conditions, to eliminate Item Number 1, and to simply renumber the remaining three items there. Zaremba: I will second it. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Anyopposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ItemS: Public Hearing: AZ 02-017 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.41 acres from M-1 to I-L zones for Ronald Yanke property by Ronald Yanke and Walter T. Sigmont Jr. - northwest corner of East Franklin Road and North Eagle Road on East Lanark Street: Borup: The next item is Public Hearing AZ 02-017, a request for annexation and zoning of 5.41 acres from MI to I-L zones for Ronald Yanke property by Ronald Yanke and