Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 4, 2007 P&Z Minutes 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, 50 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 and seconded to approve PP 06-063 to include all staff comments and comments -- revised comments from Commissioner Borup for Centre Pointe Subdivision NO.2. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. 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, 1516 and 1528 W. 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 __J Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 21 of 61 development on the comer. As you can see, the entire area is, basically, commercial or L-O and on the Comprehensive Plan this ~- these parcels are designated also commercial. Let's move on to the aerial photograph. This just shows those three home sites. There is one existing home here and one here and one here. And various trees and outbuildings on the site. A lot of these trees are pretty large and will mostly like need to be mitigated for if, indeed, the building is constructed on this site as proposed. Here is the site plan as -- a conceptual site plan as proposed by the applicant. As you can see, there is one access point proposed to Cherry Lane and also two cross-access points, one to the church property to the east and one to the church property to the north. Staff is supportive of this single access. It's, actually, a positive thing. It's going from three accesses for those home sites into just one access at this busy intersection. The exact location of this access has - will be determined at the time of submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance for this proposed building and ACHD, obviously, will have - will be able to identify to the applicant exactly where that access needs to go. They have their offset requirements from the intersections. The street buffers required, as shown here, are 25 feet on both Linder Road and Cherry Lane and the street buffers as discussed in the staff report must be as required by the UDC, exclusive of any right of way, whether that be existing or future right of way that ACHD may require at the time of certificate of zoning compliance for the construction of the proposed building. I think I did mention that this area is commercial on the Comprehensive Plan. I just wanted to clarify that. And I wanted to go back to that zoning map and discuss a little bit about why staff is supportive of the C-C designation. The other three corners, as discussed in the staff report, are C-N. It would be this corner -- this corner here and this corner. And there was -- staff, as they looked at this, considered that, well, this corner should also be C~N. But after doing a little bit deeper analysis, three reasons were identified why this corner would be -- really would be okay as C-C, rather than C~N. The first of those factors was that unlike the other three corners this proposed development is not directly adjacent to residential uses. The other three corners all have residences directly adjacent to those developments, which is one of the factors that can lead to the C-N zoning. Second, there is a significant amount of property already zoned C-C in this area, so it wasn't like this - like zoning this area C-C would be completely out of character with the surrounding zoning districts. And the third is that when describing the C-C district, both the Comprehensive Plan and UDC specifically discuss that C-C district should have direct access to arterial streets and in this case this - it's safe to say that this does have direct access - it will have direct access to Cherry, which is an arterial and also has - it doesn't have an access point, but it fronts Linder, which is another arterial. And based on that, staff was supportive of their requested to go to C-C. And just as a clarification, the difference between C~N and C-C is not all that significant when it comes to the actual regulation. The landscape buffer requirements and a lot of the other standard requirements are very similar, if not the same. Along with that staff has included in the staff report various development agreement provisions that we felt were necessary to insure that this was developed once approved for this zoning designation in an orderly fashion and also in a way that it would benefit the city. I'll just highlight some of those development agreement provisions. The first is that -- just insuring that the applicant will only be allowed to construct one driveway access to Cherry Lane. Staff felt that that's imperative, that if this was rezoned to commercial we Meridian Planning & ZOning January 4, 2007 Page 22 of 61 really only want to see one access point into this property. It's not very large, most likely only one building is going to fit there, and so that one access point is viewed as sufficient and imperative that only one access point be allowed into the site. The second is that the applicant shall submit a recorded copy of a cross-access agreement granting cross-access to the church site to the east and to that vacant church area to the north, as is shown on the conceptual plan here and also right here. And at this time maybe the church wouldn't like to take access or doesn't - wouldn't want to construct that or extend it, but we feel that in the future that may be something that the church would want to do and staff would be supportive of making sure that that is left open as a possibility if the church were to ever redevelop or if someone were to buy that land and create a commercial development there it would be nice to have that availability for cross-access, especially on this busy arterial. And the same with to the north. Most likely there will be an access off of Linder when this area develops and we'd like to see the ability to move through these commercial or office developments without having to get back onto the arterial and, then, go back into the other development. The other thing that staff points out in the staff report in those development agreement provisions is that the building be generally consistent with the elevations as proposed and staff, actually, added quite a few - kind of design requirements that we -- that we felt would be important, especially on this busy intersection. A lot of it comes straight out of the UDC administrative design review guidelines, just talking about type of materials being allowed to - on this site. And other things such as texture and making sure that there is enough windows not only on the front, but on these - on these elevations that face to the - to the east and to the west. Other than that, staff is recommending approval of this rezone application as presented in the staff report and I stand for any questions. Moe: Commissioners, any questions at this time? Siddoway: I have none. Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Caparelli: Bill Caparelli representing Darren Blaser, the owner of the property. Basically, we agree with the- Moe: Would you, please, put your address -- Caparelli: Yes. We, basically, agree with the -- all the conditions that the Planning and Zoning and what we have talked to the Ada County Highway District also, so -- Moe: Okay. Would you give me your address, please. Caparelli: My address? Moe: Yeah. Caparelli: 2309 West Mountain View, Boise, Idaho. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 4, 2007 Page 23 of 61 Moe: Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Thank you very much. Well, there is no one signed up. If there is anyone else that would like to speak to this? Seeing none, Commissioners, can I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-012 for Cherry-Linder rezone. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, sir. Siddoway: After considering all testimony I move to recommend approval of -- to the City Council of file number RZ 06-012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 4th, 2007, with no modifications. Borup: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve to send onto City Council approval of RZ 06.012 for Cherry-Linder rezone. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 06..Q61 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-15 and R-40 zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin Road and 280 South Black Cat Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 06..()62 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 320 single family lots, 15 common lots and one school lot on 82.15 acres in the proposed R~15 zone plus 2 multi.family lots and 2 common lots on 13.42 acres in the proposed R-40 zone for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin road and 280 South Black Cat Road: Moe: I now would like to open the Public Hearing on AZ. 06-061 and PP 06-062 for the Baraya Subdivision and stand for the staff report.