Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 4, 2007 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 10 of 61 Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 06-036 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 4th, 2007, with no modifications to the conditions of approval. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate Findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on January 18th, 2007. Borup: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-036 for Southern Springs Building B. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 06-063 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 14 building lots on 18.7 acres within the C-G zone for CentrePointe Subdivision No. 2 (North) by W.H. Moore Company - NWC of Ustick and Eagle Roads: Moe: Next item will be the Public Hearing for PP 06-063 for Centre Pointe Subdivision No. 2 North and we will hear the staff report, please. Hess: Thank you, Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Centre Pointe North Subdivision. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for 14 commercial lots on 18.7 acres within the C-G zone. The proposed subdivision does not include 8.33 acres previously approved for Kohl's Department Store and 31.37 acres approved under Centre Pointe Subdivision NO.1. The entire Centre Pointe marketplace development is zoned C-G and totals 59 acres. Centre Pointe North will be the final phase of the Centre Pointe marketplace development. Centre Pointe North is generally located at the northwest corner of Ustick and Eagle Road intersections. To the east we have the Smitzger commercial subdivision. To the south Centre Pointe Subdivision No. 1 right here. To the west a residential subdivision Champion Park, which is zoned R-8. Staff would like to provide the Commission with a little background information related to these applications. In November of 2005 the 59 acre Centre Point Marketplace development received approval for three access points onto Eagle Road. Two are right-in, right-out only accesses and one is a full driveway access. One of the approved right-in, right-out access points falls within the subject subdivision and that's the northernmost one right here. In October of 2006 the applicant was granted approval to modify the existing development agreement for the Centre Pointe Marketplace development to allow construction and commencement of principally permitted uses in that C-G zone without detailed CUP approval. The applicant Winston Moore submitted a master site plan, which is shown on the Powerpoint presentation right now, which defined building layout and pad locations for the development. As per the conditions of approval for said development agreement modification by City Council, the applicant was required to supply three public gathering areas with continuous internal walkways on the site and one of the gathering areas -- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 11 of61 one of these gathering areas is proposed within Centre Pointe North and I have here on one of the slides a gazebo that is proposed on this site. There are several issues to mention here. Staff has not approved the submitted landscaping plan. The primary reason for this is that the applicant proposes a 35 foot wide landscaping buffer along Eagle Road where 15 feet of the buffer is to be located within Eagle Road's right of way. City code requires landscaping buffers in entirety to be located outside of rights of way. However, in June of 2006 the applicant applied for and was granted a variance from these standards for Centre Pointe Subdivision No.1, which is just to the south of this subdivision. And this allowed the applicant to count adjacent ITD right of way towards the landscape street buffer width. The landscaping buffer was approved at 20 feet, with 15 feet constructed within the right of way. The Commission should note that the applicant has not yet, but is preparing to also submit a variance application, which proposes the same reduction in landscaping for Centre Pointe North and the staff has also received the applicant's response to our staff report. While the applicant would like to eliminate cross-access between several of the commercial lots, staff is still supportive of this interconnectivity and asks the Commission to uphold this condition. Staff is also aware that a family care center will be constructed on Lot 3, Block 1 and that's this large one here, due to the expectation of substantial traffic volumes this type of use may bring, staff believes that a small knuckle or a cul-de-sac or some other turnaround should be provided at the terminus of Centre Pointe Way, which is, essentially, stubbed at this point. Other than those issues, staff finds the preliminary plat application to conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and the UDC, as well as the development agreement in effect for the site and we recommend approval of the subject application. So, that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? Seeing none, would the applicant come forward, please. Seal: Good evening. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian. If we can put the -- Amanda, the other -- the concept plan up. Hess: Sure. Seal; Just very briefly again, just to give you a very -- little bit more information on it. As I mentioned, this is the platted areas that we are looking at right now. We have come to you for this already. This portion is complete. In fact, this road is complete up to this point. As Amanda said, we did receive approval for 20 feet of landscaping here and as I will mention, I will be coming back for a variance in this. I originally was thinking that the variance that applied to this would also apply to this portion up here, but have been advised otherwise. So, we will come back in for a variance so -- on that. I think as far as the landscaping plan not being approved, we -- I have instructed The Land Group to go ahead and resubmit a landscape plan that would reflect the conditions that were requested, so we will provide that prior to City Council, so that's not an issue in there. As I mentioned, this is -- this is generally a concept plan. And, again, when we -- when I had the previous hearing I have discussed about this is the intended I think layout of the buildings. They may vary somewhat in size or configurations, but, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 12 of 61 generally, this is going to be how the parking will be constructed. Again, we see probably office or some type of quasi-retail back here and possibly the same thing here, with probably banking or some type of retail up in this area. This happens to be The Family Fun Center up here, which we have talked about in the past presentations. In fact, they are getting ready to submit their certificate of zoning compliance. It's a family oriented facility and we think it's going to be a great addition to the community. One of the things -- and the reason that we asked for elimination of the cross-access along these particular lots -- we don't have any objection to it in this -- in this portion -- is because I think with the Family Center we would like to isolate the parking to here and not potentially have people down here that might have businesses and maybe have some of these up here and utilizing it. So, we simply ask that, essentially, we don't have cross-access, but we can restrict it to this particular area. Again, we don't see that as a major issue, but we also don't think it's a major issue not to have cross-access. If you look at these two particular lots right here, the way we have it designed -- and this will be an ACHD street at this end -- we will have an access here. So, these two will certainly share this already. So, we are, really, only talking about the Family Center. With respect to the turnaround up here, a couple things. There was a couple comments in the city -- in the staff report about wanting to do a turnaround up here, doing some type of easement. The distance from here to here is 140 feet. From here to here is 120 feet. The fire department -- in fact, I have the code and I can provide it to you, but the fire department has said anything under 150 feet is not required. The other thing is, too, it just -- it simply adds more expense to it, instead of finishing our curb and gutter, taking it to this point and barricade it, we have to do some type of turnaround that will, eventually, be torn up. Given the very short distance from here to here, I think, hopefully, if somebody pulls up here and they can see with the barricades here and everything that this is not a through street and, hopefully, they can figure out that they shouldn't be going down here. So, we'd simply ask that that be eliminated, that that street be brought up to here and, again, that street will be continued at some point when ACHD gets the rights through here to connect to an easement they have up here to Wainwright, which comes back out onto Eagle. The final one that we had -- and I don't know if Amanda talked about it -- is the fire department wanting to talk about radius turns in this particular area. Again, in my letter I mention these are our concept plans. These buildings may change in configuration and size. I don't think materially, but they will change and so we simply ask that that requirement be eliminated. So, we will address that as we design these specific buildings when we know, in fact, what the size and configuration will be. Other than that, I think those are mainly my comments and they are repeated a couple times of this public turnaround, because it was mentioned several times in there. So, again, it's, essentially, a cross-access easement. You're going to have it here. We ask that it be eliminated, so the Family Center can be -- I guess you could say segregated, eliminating the turnaround and, again, any type of concerns on the turning radius the fire department had we can address as we submit these buildings and as we know specifically how they are going to be. With that I would be glad to answer any questions. Moe: Okay. Any questions, Commissioners? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 13of61 Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. A question on the -- on the cross-access agreements. You're saying -- I mean I understand what you're saying, the one for the Family Center, but the rest of those from that point south would all have access agreements? Seal; Commissioner Borup, we can -- I mean I think it's already -- it's almost implied there, because you only have one drive lane there and this plat ends right there anyway. So, we are really only talking about these two particular lots. Borup: But how about on the previous plats? They all did, didn't they? Seal; You know, I don't -- to be honest with you, I don't recall off the top of my head. don't see it as a problem. Whatever it was, if it was in here we didn't have concern. I think it's mainly with concern with this. And, again, it's not a hill worth dying for, but I don't think it's a major issue either way. So, again, we are just simply asking with this. You know, we don't have the cross-access. We are providing cross-access to the rest. We already have cross-access to everything. We usually -- we provide it to all our tenants and I suspect here and whatever was approved, obviously, we didn't have a problem with it, but to be honest with you I don't recall. Borup: I'm assuming it was. Is that what staff recalls? Everything else has it, hasn't it? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, I don't recall the -- there being a specific requirement for shared access or cross-access on those lots on the west side of the plat. That Centre Pointe Way I think is what it's called now. I think it was called Sadie Creek the first time around, maybe. Whatever that public street is north-south, it is just a local commercial street, it's not a classified roadway, so, generally, staff -- at least this planner has in the past -- if it's not a classified roadway, hasn't required them on a regular basis anyways, cross-access. So, I do not remember that being a specific requirement of Centre Pointe South if you will. Borup: Well, I'm a real advocate of cross-access agreements, but, then, I guess if that's the case, it wasn't required previously, has staff changed their position? Why are we asking for it now? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the reason it's changing is because I wrote the first one and Ms. Hess has written the most recent one. I think it's -- you know, it's a legitimate concern and requirement. It's nothing in code per se, so there is some human aspect to that and it's purely up to the Commission. It does make some sense to me, too, and in retrospect maybe some cross-access would have been made sense there in the south, but I don't think it's -- either way, as Mr. Seal has stated, either way I don't think it's -- at least from my perspective -- and I'm going to back off after this comment, but either way I don't think it's worth spending too much time over it. We are not going to put up too much of a fight, so that's alii have. Borup: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 14 of 61 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Hucakbay: I was just wondering if there is any other access into this site if the main entrance were blocked for a fire truck or the driveway. Seal: For which particular building? I'm sorry. Newton-Huckabay: Where the Family Center is supposed to be. Seal: Oh, the family Center. Okay. Commissioner, the way this is designed -- and Cornel Larsen is working on it -- it's designed such that the fire department can pull out of this access. I guess that's a question if it's blocked -- no, I guess, quite honestly, they couldn't, but if it was a stand-alone type building and it only had access anyway and it was blocked, I guess you would be out of luck, you know, quite honestly, so, again, I don't personally think, either, it's something worth spending a lot of time on. I don't want to waste the Commission's time on this. I just simply think if it isn't critical we would simply ask that at least for that one it be removed. Moe: Mr. Seal, on that one there it looks like you actually have two entrances into that lot there. Is that incorrect? Seal: This is the plat -- we have one here and, then, this is the family center right there. Yeah. Well, this landscape plan is not accurate with the site plan. So, no. And it's going to be revised anyway, so-- Moe: So, it will just have one access point? Seal: If we can go back to the concept plan, please. Mr. Chairman, yeah, the way I think it's designed -- and, again, the Family Center I think has one access up here and, then, we have one down here. I don't recall -- they are working on the site plan right now and I haven't seen the most current. They may very well have one here, but I can't tell you for sure. Moe: Okay. So, as I'm looking at that right there, then, it kind of looks to me like you'd almost have to have a cross-access on the two southern lots. Seal: Uh-huh. I don't have an objection to that. I mean the most southerly lot may very well become just simply one lot anyway, so -- Moe: Commissioners, any other questions? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 15 of 61 Siddoway: One question that I have is does the roadway to the south -- okay. This is the area that we are talking about for the plat and this internal road will be built with development. One thing that I'm wondering, just on the plat below it -- has this been constructed up to it? Is this the -- was this likely the only way in to this -- to the area -- the lots within this plat initially? Seal: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, this road right now, which is called Centre Pointe Way, which is an ACHD road, is completed to this point. In fact, the only thing that I have left right now is some -- some punch list items on it and, then, it will be dedicated. In fact, it will be dedicated now if I could have paved my approaches, but it got too cold. So, it's done to this -- this is all -- this is complete and this is complete. All of this is complete already. And, then, as they say with this phase -- and we will go ahead and construct this access. These accesses off of Eagle Road are in place already. In fact, all the landscaping, everything else is in. I hope that answers your question. Siddoway: And the northern most access in from Eagle Road will be constructed to this point before this project is built. There is not -- this won't be its only access in? Seal: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, the plan, at least the way I have it envisioned is we will submit, because we have a legal lot over here and we have a legal lot over here and we are entitled to construct one. We will probably be constructing this building, quite honestly, at the same time we will be constructing this. I am doing the construction drawings right now and I would anticipate starting this in probably late winter and I would anticipate that this would start late winter. They hope to have this open in November of this year and we would certainly have this completed by that point, so I think one would coincide with the other. Siddoway: And, then, my final question would be -- I'm searching for the fire department comments. Does the fire department still have concerns about the turning radius? Cole: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, as Jonathan was mentioning the measurements I pulled out the site plan and scaled it off. It's pretty rough on this site plan whether it's 140, 150. I might issue a -- maybe just a change to that comment that upon final plat if the stub road exceeds 150 feet as measured by the fire department, then, a turnaround will be dedicated at that time. When the final plat comes in it's a much more precise surveying document and the length of that road could be very accurately determined at that time. Siddoway: And is that -- is that the turnaround at the northernmost point or is that the turning radius issue that was talked about earlier? Cole: That would be the turnaround point at the very northerly point that Mr. Seal's pointing at there. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 16 of 61 Siddoway: Okay. Cole: The radius issue would be him asking to -- to do that with each individual building. It's generally when that would be done anyway. This is a concept plan. To put radiuses around these conceptual buildings would be wasted engineering, because until you know the size of the buildings you're really not going to know the radiuses and the fire department looks at those -- Rich Green is our commercial fire reviewer. Siddoway: And those turning radiuses wouldn't normally be reviewed during a preliminary, that's a site development issue, is it not? Cole: On a commercial building, yes. They are looked at on residential subdivisions, because the road layout is pretty set in stone with a preliminary plat. Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions, Commissioners? Thank you very much. Seal: Thank you very much. Moe: Again, we have no one signed up, but if there is someone who would like to speak to this issue, please, come right up. Boy, no one wants to say anything. Thanks very much. Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, do we want to close the Public Hearing? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we close the Public Hearing PP 06-063. Borup: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 06-063. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Okay. Commissioners, I would assume you have all received Mr. Seal's response to the staff comments and we have gone through those as well. Anyone have any opinions on them? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for legal counsel, if I may. Moe: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 17 of 61 Siddoway: Ted, is there any problem with approving a plat that shows a 20-foot landscape buffer, assuming that they are going to get a future variance from City Council? Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioner Siddoway that is an item that has to be put off for Council. I think staff has made mention of the fact that it does require a variance and that those items bypass this Commission. So, as noted in the conditions of approval, I think that it's -- it's assuming that that will -- that will be handled at the Council level. So, your action, your recommendation, doesn't need to be concerned with that. Siddoway: Okay. Baird: And it looks like somebody is looking for that mike over there to add to that comment. Hood: I was just going to -- thank you. I was just going to add, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, 1.1.4 does not assume that the variance is going to be approved. In fact, it requires a full 35-foot wide landscape buffer outside of the right of way right now. So, if, in fact, the applicant wants to get something less than what the ordinance requires, they do need to obtain that variance approval, so __ Siddoway: Thank you. Moe: Is there any strong opinions one way or the other in regards to the -- both the cross-access situation, as well as the turnaround at the end of the street? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I would be in favor of leaving the cross-access to the south. The turnaround on where the road terminates, I don't -- I agree with the applicant on that. And, then, the radius of the fire department. Moe: Okay. On the cross-access, you mean just the two southern lots or all three of them have cross-access? Or Block 1, number 3 -- two and one are the three in question and what Mr. Seal is saying he doesn't have a problem with one and two having cross-access, but the one with the Family Center is he would rather not have cross-access to that down to the south. Newton-Huckabay: That was the one I was referring to was the Family Center cross- access to the south. Moe: To have cross-access to the south. Okay. Mr. Siddoway, would you have an opinion on those items? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 18 of 61 Siddoway: I would -- I would prefer to see the cross-access continue to the south. On the turnaround to the north I believe that could be held off to the final plat and that a turnaround would be required if the ordinance required it based on the length of that stub when the final plat comes through. Moe: Okay. Commissioner Borup, would you have any comments? Borup: I think one of the -- one of the important reasons for the 150 feet is for the fire department and that -- oftentimes that may assume there is homes or businesses or buildings on that 150 feet roadway. Here we don't have that. So, I -- I would think in this case it would not be necessary. I think that's why sometimes it's good to look at things on a case-by-case basis. There is no -- there is no buildings that would access that roadway, at least the way the design is indicating. So, I don't think that's an issue. I'm conflicted on the cross-access. I'm a strong proponent of that, but the main reason that it's usually necessary, I feel, is entering onto a busy roadway. This is not that case. I don't see where entering out on Centre Pointe is probably going to cause a delay for people, so I'm a little undecided, especially without knowing what we did to the south. It's -- I like to see things be consistent within the same project, too. And I'm not sure whether we are consistent here or not. I can see the comment on -- maybe not wanting to have overflow parking from the Family Center to the others, but, hopefully, that's not the case. If it is they don't have enough parking -- enough parking there anyway. So, that's an overall problem that needs to be looked at if there is -- if there is that problem. I guess I used a bunch of words to not say anything for sure, didn't I? Moe: Well, I think we are probably all kind of working that same angle a little ways. I guess myself I have no problem with cross-access to the two southern lots. I mean cross-access to all three wouldn't really hurt my feelings at all, but at the same point with the Family Center I don't know that there is really a need for the cross-access down into the other two southern lots. But, again, I'm not set either way on that. And in regards to the turnaround, I, too, don't -- I think that, basically, if people traveling to the north and they do have a turnout that they can make if they see the barricades up and whatnot, so I'm not so sure there is a real need for a turnaround at that point either, so -- and, then, Mr. Seal had the other point in 3.3 in regards to the turning radius down at those buildings and whatnot. I would agree until the -- the plan is developed and we won't know what size buildings are going to go there, I'm not so sure that there is a need to worry about that 3.3 either. Siddoway: I would agree with that. Moe: I would see that 3.6 is very similar to the 1.1.8. So, that would be addressed at that point. So, having said all that, then, would someone like to make a motion so we can go forward? Borup: Have we reached a consensus on what we feel each of those items need to say? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 19 of 61 Moe: Well, I think what I'm hearing, quite frankly, is that we'd probably pretty much like to keep the cross-access in place, but the turning radius could go away. Or do we want the turning radius to be determined after the final plat has been submitted? Newton-Huckabay: That's what I -- Borup: Isn't that -- I mean that's an item that's considered at that time anyway, isn't it? And if there is a problem it wouldn't be approved. Newton-Huckabay: So, we just strike 1.1.8? Siddoway: We'd just strike the second sentence of it. Borup: And then -- and, then, delete all of 3.3? Moe: I would at this time until the plan is developed, so you know what size building is going to go in that location. Borup: Or just add that provide an updated plan at the time of -- of final building design? Siddoway: Yeah. Moe: Yeah. That would be good. Borup: Oh, that's what the applicant said down at the bottom. Moe: He has noted it down there below, so -- well, do we have someone that would like to make a motion? Newton-Huckabay: Are we eliminating 3.6 altogether or -- Moe: Well, 3.6 is, basically, right in line with 1.1.8. They are both on the northern -- Borup: Yes. I just wrote down just delete 3.6. Moe: Right. Newton-Huckabay: That's what I just did. Moe: Pardon me? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: Are we waiting for-- Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 20 of 61 Siddoway: A motion? Moe: I'm waiting for someone to give me a motion. Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 06-063 as presented in the staff report with the following modifications: On 1.1.8, to delete the second sentence, so just leave the first sentence, construct a public stub street to the north and 3.3 add at the end of that first sentence to -- that the plan would be -- would be presented and addressed during the design of each building. And delete 3.6. End of motion. Siddoway: Second. Moe: Okay. It has been moved id seconded to approve PP 06-063 to include all staff comments and comments -- revi ed comments from Commissioner Borup for Centre Pointe Subdivision No.2. All thos in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. t MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Public Hearing: RZ 06-012 Request for a Rezone of 1.69 acres from an R-4 to a C-C zone for Cherry Linder Rezone by Darren Blaser - 1440, 1516and 1528W. Cherry Lane: Moe: Next item, as we mentioned earlier, we are going to move Item -- within the agenda Item No. 10 up above here and that will be opening RZ 06-012, request for a rezone of 1.69 acres from R-4 to C-C zone Cherry-Linder rezone and hear the staff report, please. Lucas: Thank you -- excuse me. Thank you, Chairman Moe, Commissioners. As was just stated, the applicant has applied for a rezone of 1.69 acres from R-4, which is the medium low density residential designation, to C-C, which is the community business district designation. The applicant intends to construct one retail building on this site and retail buildings are not allowed uses within the R-4 zone, thus the applicant has come in to consider this rezone. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Cherry Lane and Linder Road, as identified here on the PowerPoint presentation. There is three home sites currently at this location and this is the area that is proposed to be converted to C-C. Just a quick analysis of the surrounding area. To the north you have the Christ Lutheran Church, which is zoned L-O. There is, actually two churches near this property. The Christ Lutheran Church, actually, is to the north and east. The property that the church owns to the north is currently vacant and the church sits right on the eastern side of this site. And to the south you have the Cherry Lane commercial -- Cherry Lane commercial developments, which there is one existing right here and this large C~C portion is currently vacant, it sits right next to the school, the Meridian Middle School. And to the west you have the Linder Road and Cherry Crossing commercial development zoned C-N, which is this area right here, and there is also commercial