Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 6, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 2 of 51 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes of June 15th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. Okay. Before we start the balance of our meeting, for those of you that don't attend at these meetings very often, the procedure that we generally go through is we will open up a project and we will ask the staff to give their staff report and that presentation, basically, presents the project in terms of the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance. They are neither for nor against projects, they just speak to a project based upon its adherence to the laws of the city. Once the staff has made their presentation, then, the applicant has an opportunity to come forward and speak and at that time they are basically trying to sell their project to the Commission based upon the merits as they see them. Once those two presentations have been completed, then, the podium will be open to the public. Each person that has something to say about any project is given an opportunity to come forward and speak at that time. If, in fact, there is an individual that is speaking for a larger group, like say a property owners association, that individual will be given additional time, with the assumption that he or she is speaking for a larger group as a whole. Once all these testimonies have been taken, the applicant, then, has an opportunity to come back and rebut anything that was given in testimony. And that's pretty much the procedure that we go through and, basically, the only way that we can take testimony is at this podium and it has to be as part of public record and you need to give your name and address before you start speaking. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of 1.004 acres from R-4 to L-O (Limited Office District) for Meridian Professional Office by John Homan - 2835 and 2825 North Meridian Road: ROhm: With that being said, we will start by opening up the Continued Public Hearing from June 15th, 2006, of RZ 06-005 for the Meridian Professional Office and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Meridian Professional Office rezone was on a previous agenda and the applicant did not post the site for that one and that's why it has been continued to this hearing date. So, I will give you the full blown staff report here. It is a -- not a very large project, but I will give you some of the details here. It is comprised of three lots within Salisbury Subdivision, which is a residential subdivision. These three lots are located on the west side of Meridian Road. One of the lots is a common lot in the subdivision. We did request that they actually include that common lot landscape buffer lot within the rezone request, so that we could get the zoning designation to go to the center of Meridian Road. It's kind of just a clean- up thing, if you will. Nothing will happen with that common lot, but it makes it so you don't have a strip of L-O surround by R-4 everywhere. So, there is a conceptual site plan that the applicant has submitted with the rezone request showing four office buildings. This is approximately a thousand feet south of Ustick Road. As you can see Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 3 of 51 from the map here, everything is pretty much yellow around them, which are residential zones. I'll go to an aerial here and you can see that there are homes surrounding the property. In fact, there are two existing homes there today that will be removed and replaced with those four -- potentially four office buildings. Here is that conceptual site plan that I was talking about. Currently there is an access to Meridian Road for those homes that are there today. They are going to be constructing a new access off of -- I forget the name of this street -- Sedgewick Drive for the office units to use. They will keep a portion of that existing driveway for emergency access only. Again, this is just a rezone and these are conceptual layouts, but it does look like this is a pretty feasible layout for the site. Staff has included in the staff report some development agreement provisions that limit things such as hours of operation, size of buildings, uses that can go in there. And I guess while I'm talking about uses, Commissioner Zaremba did contact me this afternoon and state that he did have one concern with this project and that would be in the development agreement -- and he thinks this is something -- generally when we see these applications that are using the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was done in 2004, I think it's 04-454, that allows these parcels that are less than three acres and on arterials to apply for office zoning. He'd like to see that we just flat out limit those to office uses and not allow any ancillary commercial uses, which is stated in that Comp Plan Amendment and I think that's what the intent is is to not have those be commercial uses, per se, or retail uses, but they are limited to office-type uses, because they are generally surrounded by residential and there are some site constraints with having them be used as residences and it makes sense in a lot of instances to have them have offices on those lots. So, anyways, just to pass those comments along from Commissioner, he had some concerns there. And there is a provision in the development agreement that staff is proposing, it's the fifth bullet point down that says the following shall be the only uses on this property. It says principally permitted uses within the L-O zone. So, they wouldn't be allowed to apply for conditionally allowed uses in the zone, but only principally permitted uses. And, again, he wanted to limit that even further and say no ancillary commercial uses. I think that that's an -- and I touched on it briefly, but the reason that they are able to ask for this rezone -- and I probably should have started with that -- is the Comprehensive Plan and it is designated medium density on the Comprehensive Plan. They are not asking for an office zone, but with that resolution that does allow parcels with frontage on arterials to ask for that office zone. Staff thinks this is a -- can be an appropriate place for some higher intense use if it fits in well with the neighborhood and the landscape buffers and those provisions that are in the development agreement are complied with by the applicant. So, with that I think I will stand for any questions that you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of Caleb at this time? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? VanOcker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission. Amber VanOcker, LKV Architects, representing the applicant. Caleb done a good job of outlining the Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 4 of 51 project and we agree with the development agreement and the requirements for that. It's the intent of the owner to completely focus upon office-type uses, medical uses. Their intent has -- has never been focused towards any sort of commercial use. The four buildings are relatively small in size, roughly around 3,000 square feet, so you're looking at a single office use, potentially two in one building, but a pretty small, low intense use. We have gone through the staff report and have looked at all the recommendations of landscaping and agree with those. We had our neighborhood meeting and the neighbors were concerned about our west property line and our south property line and we have agreed to go ahead and use a masonry fence, rather than just a standard cedar fence and we will work with them on the design of that to help screen even a little bit further beyond that 20 foot landscape buffer, which is required. So, we are here requesting approval and I will stand for any questions. Rohm: I guess my only question would be would you be agreeable to the masonry fence being in the development agreement? VanOcker: Sure. We have agreed to it, so it's on record and if you would like us to include that, we can do so. Rohm: Okay. Does anybody have any other questions? Moe: I have no questions. Borup: Just a quick one, just to make sure I understood. You were in agreement to limit it to strictly office use, rather than anything in an L-O zone? VanOcker: The recommendation of the development agreement. as far as the staff has recommended, we are fine with that. And if I understood him correctly, it was basically limiting to office-type uses, no commercial. Borup: But Commissioner Zaremba was wanting to go beyond that, wasn't he? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, I don't want to put too many words in his mouth, I guess. His concern was to limit uses on this site to what the resolution states and the resolution doesn't state uses, it just says -- Borup: L-O zone. Hood: -- you may apply for the L-O zone and no ancillary commercial uses shall be allowed. So, it doesn't list uses that you get with that, but there are use some uses that are principally permitted with the L-O zone -- Borup: And I assume those would be okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 5 of 51 Hood: The way it's written now, yes. I think what he has a concern with is that those shouldn't be allowed. So, the way staff's written it is a little bit more lenient and may allow some uses that are more intense, I guess, than just -- Borup: And I just reviewed those. I didn't see anything that concerned me on some of the other uses. Things like, you know, a church and a school -- you know, educational facilities and parks and -- I don't think you're going to put a park there. Hood: Yeah. It's not our most intense zoning designation, that's for sure_ There are some day cares and some things like that which may be -- Borup: Well, that may be one. The day care may be the one. I don't know. Rohm: Maybe to ask the question, would you be willing to also exclude day care? VanOcker: Mr. Chairman, I think we can -- that's fine. They have no intention of really going to that level with this. I think our parking -- we would probably get into a problem with day care use anyhow. So, we would be fine with that. We can put that in the development agreement. Borup: So, are you -- Commissioner -- or, Mr. Chairman, then, you're thinking everything that's allowed, except for day care? Mr. Rohm: That's kind of what my thought was. Borup: That does open up kind of some other stuff, but -- but, like you say, your site's probably not big enough, you're not going to have an educational faCility or some of those things. VanOcker: Right. Yeah. And if you want us to include those larger uses, we can. I think the site is going to determine that those uses aren't appropriate anyhow, but if it would make you feel more comfortable, we can throw, you know, the educational uses in there also. Borup: Well, that's already included. That's what I'm saying. VanOcker: Throw them out. Borup: That's -- oh, throw them out? VanOcker: With the development agreement saying we will not do those. Borup: Oh. I don't have any concern about that. We just think it's -- most of the time it's easier to keep things simpler and go with what the ordinance already says, rather than trying to get a lot of different rules that's hard to enforce. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 6 of 51 VanOcker: Right. Borup: That's alii had. VanOcker: Thank you. Rohm: At this time it's open to public testimony. There has been nobody that has signed up to testify in this hearing, but if anyone would like to come forward and speak, now is the time. Seeing none, thank you. Any discussion before we close this hearing? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'm inclined to disagree with Commissioner Zaremba. I think we should go straight ordinance on this. I don't think that limiting it really -- one, I agree, it's not big enough for a day care. Two, the next most intense use would be an education facility, which would be something like a Huntington Learning Center or something like that, and I can't -- even at that point I can't imagine it being large enough for that, but -- Rohm: Well, I tend to agree with you that when we wrote the ordinances that that was the intent is to come up with something that would work within -- as it's written. So, I'm not opposed to leaving it just as it was proposed. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, I -- Borup: I agree. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I would also agree. I think the staff report pretty well outlines it and I don't know that we really need to delve into changing it too much at all. I think this -- quite frankly, I think this project is a good one for the neighborhood. We've had a couple other things come before us in this area that weren't real agreeable. I think this does a real good job to start taking care of this area, so -- Newton-Huckabay: I agree. Rohm: I do think that we should add the fact that the applicant has agreed to the masonry fence. I think to add that to the development agreement would be in good order. Other than that. I think the staff report as written seems to cover all bases. Hood: And Mr. Chair, I was just going to say real quick, that is, actually, already included. It's the ninth bullet point in the proposed development agreement. Rohm: Got it. It's there. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just have one comment on that. Did -- the masonry fence is just on the north and south of the property, not in the rear of this property? Hood: No. The south and west. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 7 of 51 Newton-Huckabay: South and west. Hood: That's adjacent to the residential uses. You have Meridian Road to the east -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Hood: -- and to the north is the other street Sedgewick Drive. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Does that create any kind of blind and sight problems that way? I mean -- or for police or -- Rohm: We did have an agency comments meeting. It was brought up, I believe, that they are proposing to fence It and put pretty dense landscaping in there, because that's what the ordinance requires, and I don't remember -- the police department's usually the one that comments on that and I don't see any comments from them. So, I don't think it should. Borup: There would have been a fence there either way, so the visual aspect would be the same. It's just change -- Newton-Huckabay: I was just concerned about creating a pocket area where you can't really see down in where kids can gather and do the kind of things that -- Rohm: That kids do. Newton-Huckabay: -- that kids do that end up on the news. But I -- this isn't an extremely large -- an extremely large area to look at, so I'm okay, if everybody else is satisfied. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-005. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6. 2006 Page 8 of 51 Moe: I move we recommend approval to City Council of file number RZ 06-005, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 15th, 2006, continued to the July 6th, 2006, hearing, with no changes. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 06-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thanks very much. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: AZ 06-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development - northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: PP 06-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 residential lots and 13 common lots on 59.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Paramount South 60 Subdivision by Paramount Development - northeast corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from June 15th, 2006, of AZ 06-026 and PP 06-025. Both of these related to Paramount South 60 Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Veatch: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. We are discussing Paramount South 60 this evening, which is located north of McMillan Road and east of North Linder. Right here. The applicant is requesting both annexation and preliminary approval. This is currently a rural zone and they are asking for an R-8 zone for 200 single family lots and 11 common lots. Let's see here. As you can tell, around the surrounding area we do have currently other R-8 developments. We also have some down here. This here is a very large rural parcel, though, that stands alone. Another R- 8 here. And, then, we do have some other rural parcels here. This piece is also owned by Paramount, as well as some of these pieces here. So, they have a contiguous flow of land through this that is developing. And currently this right here -- excuse me for my shakiness. That has already developed. This is part future development from Paramount and, then, as well as this will also be developing under Paramount. Let's see here. Initially -- initially we had requested a variance and, then, it was determined that that is no longer necessary, so that has been refunded to the applicant. And here is your aerial view of the area. We have a number of stubs here. This will take us back up to Paramount Six and connect with that subdivision. This connects over to the eastern future phase of Paramount. I have one here and one here. Let's see. And as far as any major things, staff is generally opposed -- excuse me -- generally supportive