Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 6, 2006 P&Z Minutes 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 Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 9 of 51 of the proposed development. There are some conditions with ACHD and with different agencies regarding some of the cul-de-sacs. We have condition that there be no parking around the inside of the cul-de-sacs there, so that there is a proper turning radius for emergency vehicles. All of this -- it's hard to tell, but there is detached sidewalks, so there will be a lot of landscaping in the area around the development, as well as a park here where they have proposed a tot lot. It's pretty straight forward, like I said. It does fit into the area with the R-8 development. This is an area that's transitioning rapidly from rural to R-8. And I will stand for any further questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Walker: Chairman, Commissioners, Jay Walker, representing Brighton Corporation. I think this is a completion of a mile-by-mile square and allows for further development of that -- of that area. I did have one item to address with the Planning and Zoning Department and I thought -- I didn't catch your name. Veatch: Jenny. Walker: Jenny. I thought Jenny did a wonderful job. There was a correction. The stub out of Lafton Drive to the east is, actually, to Cedar Creek Subdivision, I think being developed by Corey Barton. So, that is one change. And we did -- you can't tell from this landscape plan. There are some changes since this landscape plan and I do have that revised where -- if you go back one screen. You can see that we have made some modifications, including a stub road to the west to the commercial area. Now, as stated in the staff report, there were some concerns about cut-throughs. Very limited visibility of the new high school, the Rocky Mountain High School that's going in directly to the north of this development, and we were concerned with cut-throughs, thus, we staggered that stub street to the east, not allowing a straight cut through to bypass the McMillan-linder intersection. That was our major concern and part of a traffic calming effort. We also eliminated, through staff input, the elongated -- what do you want to call that, Mike? Cole: Cul-de-park? Walker: Cul-de-park. Yeah. Maybe that's what we should call it. And did some other things that would make this a better little subdivision for people to live in. Now, I did have one change to that staff report, Mike, that -- on page six of the staff report -- or page eight, actually, under fencing, it says that we are proposing to construct six foot solid fencing along the entire perimeter of the site. Actually, up where the high school is developing, they will be placing a chain link fence, we will not be putting a cedar privacy fence parallel to that chain link fence. The high school will install that fence. And you can see it at the -- at the extent of phase six previously developed and that will be the termination point of the chain link fence. Anything to the east of the phase six, that stub street that connects to Fox Run Way to the north, then, we will continue the cedar fence around the rest of the subdivision and, then, at the northwest corner we will continue Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 10 of 51 south with the cedar fence, privacy fence, as well. If that makes sense. So, if we could make that change, both in the condition of approval, as well as on that fencing paragraph. Veatch: Jay, we had discussed that earlier today in one of our meetings and that had been noted that that needed to be modified, that usually adjacent to a school we prefer the open fencing. Thank you. Walker: Okay. That was the only -- otherwise, I think we have addressed previously with staff comments and our wanting to be compliant with everything stated in the staff report. And I would open it up to any questions that you have. Rohm: Thank you, Jay. Any questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: Not right now. Rohm: Okay. Walker: Thank you. Rohm: And, again, we do not have anybody signed up to speak to this application, but at this time the floor is open. Anybody that would like to come forward and speak may do so at this time. Okay. Thank you. I think this is a pretty straight forward addition to - - a very well thought out subdivision and it appears as if they are just moving forward with what's been developing and it looks like have done a good job. Newton-Huckabay: I have a couple of comments. First, what is a cul-de-park? Borup: Michael just invited a new word. Newton-Huckabay: So, I don't need to remember that? Hood: If I may, they are showing up more and more. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That would be great. Hood: So, it's the park in the middle of a cul-de-sac. So, they had a big park -- this is actually forty by about 200. So, it's a pretty good size open space. Sometimes they also -- developers will also design in some parking within those, so it's a -- it really is a -- parking in the cul-de-sac. Newton-Huckabay: It sounds like an oversized island type thing. Hood: It is. Yeah. It's an island. There is some smaller ones here. This is one of the larger ones that I have ever seen with this layout. Meridielll Plellllling & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 11 of 51 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Hood: But it looks like they have changed that design now to make it more look like a standard cul-de-sac. Newton-Huckabay: Great. Okay. Can you go back that shows the -- the one that has Cedar Creek next -- Cedar Creek. One more. Anybody got a -- I was concerned when Cedar Creek came through we had this little outparcel right here and one of the statements that was made by the city at the time is that when this comes through, if we stub here, then, developing this outparcel to look like everything around it would be fairly simple. So, I was kind of disappointed not to see a stub here to connect up with this street, because that is not a very large piece of land, if I remember correctly, but staff at the time, of course, thought that two parcels could go there and two could go there and It would flow fairly seamlessly, so I was kind of hoping to see that and I wanted the other Commissioners' opinion on that. Borup: From a traffic standpoint I think there is a concern on the raceway through that. I mean, you know. the through traffic with that long of a -- that long of a road. Newton-Huckabay: I would concur that that has potential to -- Cole: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Mr. Cole. Cole: Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I was here at the meeting for Cedar Creek as well. I think what the final analysis was that to develop that small piece they could have -- they can do it in a small cul-de-sac or T-type alley -- not alley, but hammerhead block, but if you -- if you were to stub to that parcel from Paramount South 60 as well, you have created -- they are having to build a street clear through that and they wouldn't have enough land above the street to actually get any build-able lots and I think it would, actually, be an encumbrance upon that property to have to -- Newton-Huckabay: So, there wasn't -- it was determined there wasn't enough land north of where it would go? Cole: That's -- as I remember the conversation that's how it went. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Fair enough. Borup: The only other question I had was -- and I missed that at the beginning of Mr. Walker's presentation, but I thought he said there was a -- was there a mistake on the staff report on one of the stub streets and which direction it was? Rohm: Just where it went to, not into another -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 12 of 51 Borup: I mean is the staff report correct or do we need to correct that? Veatch: Yes, it is. Borup: It is correct? Veatch: It is. Yes. Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you. That was alii had. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 06-026 and PP 06- 025. Newton-Huckabay: Second Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 06-026 and PP 06-025. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: I did not write down the-- Borup: I did. Moe: -- fencing and such, so I assume you have -- you can make the motion or whatever or -- as per -- Veatch: That would be -- that was the site specific condition of 1.1.5. Borup: Yeah. I have got that down. Moe: Do you? Borup: You want me to do it? Moe: Please. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-026 and PP 06-025 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 6th, with the following modification: Under Exhibit B, 1.1.5, to add after the phrase -- after the wording: To provide a six foot tall Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 13 of 51 solid fence around the perimeter of the development, except adjacent to the future high school property. Would that cover that? Rohm: I think it does. Borup: Okay. And just insert that except adjacent to the future high school property in that sentence. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-026 and PP 06-025, with inclusion of the staff report with a minor modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from June 15, 2006: CUP 06R015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for retail use as determined by Development Agreement for Meridian Gateway - Walgreens by White- Leasure Development - 1601 S. Meridian Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open -- or reopen the continued Public Hearing from June 15th, 2006, of CUP 06-015 for Meridian Gateway - Walgreens and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Before I begin the staff report for this project, I failed to, before the last one, I wanted to introduce you to a couple of staff members that we have. You may have seen Justin Lucas here a couple meetings ago -- or last meeting, I guess, a couple weeks ago. I didn't introduce him, then, but this is Justin, he's coming to us from California, and he started about three weeks ago now I think, something like that. About three weeks ago. And, then, this is Amanda Hess and she was working up in Latah County and she's been here about a couple weeks now, too. So, I just wanted to introduce you real quick to them and you will be seeing some staff reports from them here real quick, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Welcome. Rohm: Yes. Welcome. Moe: Good to have you. Rohm: And I'm sure Caleb was very glad to have the help. Hood: And the Public Hearing that we are having now is for a Conditional Use Permit for a 14,820 square foot retail pharmacy with a drive-thru. The site is located on the southwest corner of Overland and Meridian Road and it's currently zoned C-G. Now,