Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 21, 2006 PZ Comm Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 7 of 65 Moe: So moved. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Public Hearing PP 06-058 to the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of February, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: RZ 06-011 Request for a Rezone of 10.57 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Development - south of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road: Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 06-060 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 single-family building lots, 3 common lots and 1 other lot on 10.57 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Development - south of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 06-011 and PP 06-060. Both of these items related to Sundial Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. I think before I begin on an official presentation I should describe a little bit of what happened today. After doing some research -- further search into the project it became clear that maybe some documents that should have been looked at early on in the process were not looked at and these documents -- usually staff will do a search of documents that relate to previously approved annexations, development agreements, and things like that, but early on in my search for those documents they weren't available and I wasn't able to find them, but today after doing a deeper search a couple things came up, including a development agreement that relates to the original Turtle Creek annexation that was back from 1994. One of the reasons I didn't find it was it was from 1994 and that's an older document that's, actually, in the basement of this building, but I did find it today. It contains some information that would affect staffs recommendation on this project. It talks about some things that relate to the project. I don't want to go into too much detail. One of the reasons is that the applicant has informed me after I told him about this today, they just found out tonight at the hearing. I gave them a copy of these documents and they would like some time to look at them, obviously, and process that information and staff would also like some time to process that information and include it in a more detailed staff report, so that all of the information in the staff report is clear and that any previous approvals or conditions that were placed upon that property are included in the staff report. I don't know how much -- basically, what I'm saying is the applicant is going to get up and request continuance, so I kind of want to let them have a chance to explain the situation also and make that request without doing a detailed presentation on the project. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 8 of 65 Rohm: That's fair enough to me. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Wildwood: Good evening, Members of the Commission. My name is Susan Wildwood. Business address is Post Office Box 6502 in Boise and I'm here on behalf of the applicant Gem Star. I really appreciate Justin digging those out. I tried when we first were looking at this property, went upstairs, they are not available, came over here, couldn't be found and Justin, because he's a real digger arounder found the file today. But the long and the short of it is we have not had a chance, other than Justin handed these off to us to look at them, digest if at all how it would affect our application and proposal, so we would really appreciate a continuance, so that everybody has a crack at looking at it and making whatever appropriate decisions need to be made on this. And with that I -- I don't think there is any questions, but I would be happy to stand for any. Rohm: I guess, number one, my first question would be do you have a date specific that you would like to be continued to? Wildwood: I think Justin was indicating that he was looking at the middle of February or the first part of February, either one of those, and they work fine for us. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Do we have a lot -- we have a lot of letters from the public on this one, so maybe, if there is going to be substantive change to the development, another neighborhood meeting might need to be held before another meeting. Rohm: That's where I was going. Wildwood: Yes. And Members of the Commission, if there are extensive changes made to the proposal, I think that that is probably appropriate. So, if it's far enough out it gives us a crack at evaluating what it is, finding out what changes, if any, are appropriate and, then, going ahead and scheduling another meeting for the neighbors. We are good to go. Rohm: Okay. Justin: Mr. Chair, if I could, I do have a date in mind. After looking at our schedule -- I do have them in front of me here. Because the Jayker Subdivision was just continued to the 1 st, that hearing date is looking -- February 1 st, that hearing date is looking pretty full. I think it would be more appropriate to put this item on February 15th, which would be the second hearing in February. Wildwood: That works for us. Thank you, Members of the Commission. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 9 of 65 Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Wildwood: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: I think that Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's comment about the neighborhood meeting, if you could -- once you have digested this additional information, if you could schedule another neighborhood meeting I think it would be appropriate. And with that, Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I guess this is a question both for the applicant and the staff or something. At the time, if I remember correctly, that the surrounding subdivision came in, that the reason that this parcel was not include was because of the cell tower and the issue was the fall zone of the cell tower. We had just at that time written a new cell tower ordinance, which now I believe has been incorporated into the UDC and is not a separate ordinance anymore, but what needs to be looked at is do we still need to have no residential development -- I think it was no buildings within the fall zone and are you inside of it or outside of it. Wildwood: Right. Mr. Chairman, if I can just briefly address that, because that's an important point. We spent a lot of time digging around on this application and the -- currently the proposal is only to develop those lots that are outside the fall zone, including your recent changes. So, we are actually farther out than originally and that, actually, is one of the problems. This piece of ground was not included in the final plat and so it's been very difficult to disentangle what set of rules actually applies to this particular piece of ground. Was it in the development -- looking at this tonight, was it in the development agreement, because it was not within the subdivision approvals, which file is upstairs, and so because it was not within that set of approvals, we had a hard time, as Justin has just outlined for you, finding out just what we were supposed to be doing. But I can assure you that what we have proposed has everything outside of that fall line, including the recent changes. Zaremba: Cool. Wildwood: Okay. Zaremba: And Commissioner Newton-Huckabay just reminded me that that cell tower is now about half what it was when the original subdivision was done, so -- Wildwood: Correct. Zaremba: -- that changes the fall zone as well. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 10 of 65 Wildwood: Yes, it has changed the fall zone, but we still have seven years to wait until they are ready to go. So, we were trying to see if we couldn't move forward on this thing. But I appreciate the Commission's time. Thank you very much. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: You bet you. Thank you very much. Could I get a motion to continue these items, please? Lucas: Excuse me, Members of the Commission. I just did want to make clear that if changes are made to the plat staff would need those changes by January -- by January 19th would probably be a good date -- a good date just to give me enough time to process those changes and include all changes in an updated staff report, so that you would have all the information that's correct at the time of the Commission hearing. Rohm: Okay. That's good to know and the applicant, I'm sure, is aware of that January 19th date and will have any necessary information to staff for you to write an appropriate staff report. Commissioner Moe, would you care to -- Moe: Sure. I'd love to. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I make a motion that we move to continue the public hearings RZ 06-011 and PP 06-060, preliminary plat, to the regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of February 15th, 2007. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items RZ 06-011 and PP 06-060, both items related to Sundial Subdivision, to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposeq same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: And thank you folks for coming in and we will see you back on the 15th of February. Any of that paperwork will be made available. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: RZ 06-008 Request for a Rezone of 8.96 acres (Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12) from R-4 to C-N zone for Lochsa Falls Office I Commercial Addition by Farwest, LLC - south of Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Linder Road: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: MCU 06-002 Request for Modification of the approved Conditional Use Permit I