Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 15, 2007 P& Z Comm Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 42 of 49 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-002 and RZ 07-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. And thank you, folks. I hope you enjoy participating in our process. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 15: Public Hearing: RZ 07-004 Request for a Rezone of 7.23 acres from R-4 to L-Q zone for the property located at 1615 W. 2nd Street for LOS Church by Bob Niblett, Niblett & Associates Architects -1615 W. 2nd Street: Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 07-004, the LDS Church, and begin with the staff report. Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a rezone of 7.23 acres from R-4 to L-O, for the LDS church located at 1615 West 2nd Street, on the south side of Cherry Lane, approximately a quarter mile west of North Meridian Road. Office is zoned L-O and abut the site to the west and north across Cherry Lane. To the east, west, and south are single family residences, zoned R-4. Here is an aerial of the property. And the applicant is proposing to rezone the church property from R-4, medium low density residential, to L-O, limited office, because churches are a prohibited use in the R-4 zone, making the current use a nonconforming use in the zone. Rezoning the property to the L-O zone in which churches are permitted uses, will allow for future expansion of the existing use and will allow the applicant to obtain a sign permit. No landscaping improvements are required at this time, but may be required upon future expansion of the existing use on the site. Access to the site is currently provided from West Cherry Lane and West 2nd Street. No new access points are proposed or approved with this application. West 4th Street, which abuts the site on the west, has not been fully constructed or improved. Currently West 4th Street is improved with a single traffic lane, 18 feet of pavement with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk abutting the site. Staff is requesting that the applicant dedicate right of way and construct West 4th Street with curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the entire west boundary of the site. Further, staff is requesting that a development agreement be entered into to insure that these improvement are complete prior occupancy of any future expansion or change in use on the site. Staff is recommending approval of the requested rezone to L-O, with a development agreement per the conditions of the staff report. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you. I don't have any questions at this time. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? I Niblett: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, my name is Bob Niblett, I'm with Niblett & Associates Architects out of Boise, Idaho, 3629 North Cole. I, myself, have for Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 43 of 49 the passed 14 years done church work through a number of states in the Pacific Northwest. It's occupied approximately 70 percent of my workload for the past 14 years. The church builds good buildings, high quality, good standards. They have a good neighbor policy. They take good care of their buildings. They take good care of their lawns, shrubs, and are quiet neighbors. Could we get the aerial put back on, Planner Watters? We have recognized that this property is currently nonconforming, even under a conditional use process. We would -- we are proposing later to put an addition on it. In fact, we are in the planning stages. There would be an addition of about -- the current building is about 15,000 square feet. We'd add approximately 2,500 square feet in that corner of the property -- or the building right there. It's currently fenced, six foot chain link fence. There is no access anywhere along this side. There are currently four entrances into the property. One there, one there, one there and one there. We are not being required -- we have plenty of good access. We are not required to have anymore access. We -- I have been asked by the church to come before you today to talk about the development agreement requirement of developing 4th Street. We do not see a relationship between the impacts of an addition at this location and the improvements that would be required along 4th Street. We currently do not use this for access and we feel that there is no relationship. Any impact by the addition or project that we proposed here is contained over here and has no relationship to this. In fact, we do not see a rational nexus between what we are doing as a project and the need for the construction of the public road. We have vacant land over here that may at some day be developed. It would appear that at the time of this development there could be, then, a relationship between that development and the need to construct this public road. But currently we don't -- we do not see any relationship between what our project is doing and the need for that construction. There are -- there is a single home here and a single home here and -- let's see if I had any other comments. Well, ACHD has recognized in their report, as well as the staff has recognized in their report that there is no need for additional access. So, what we have is plenty for the property and we don't anticipate there would be any access over here at all. So, I come before you today to ask that that be stricken from the staff report and not be a part of what we are being required to do for this project. Rohm: Well, I guess what my question of you would be is why are you requesting the whole parcel to be rezoned if you're only dealing with this portion right here? Why don't you just request this portion be rezoned and leave the rest, so that once this portion of it is redeveloped, that there would be development to tie into the request of the city to have the roadway improved? Niblett: Chairman Rohm and staff, you might correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that this is one parcel now and if we come in with a division of that, we'd have to go through a preliminary plat and plat process and at that time they would also attach or try to attach the development of that. At least that's what I have been told from staff as a part of that process, because that was a question that I had as well as is if we separated this -- but it was my understanding that there is no longer one time splits and so we would have to go through a plat process and I was told that if we did, we would still be required by the city to see those developments come in. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 44 of 49 Rohm: Interesting. Commissioner Borup? Borup: Well, just to comment on your -- on your comment. I don't know if that applies here, but we have -- we have annexed other properties that's had dual zoning, so I'm not -- I mean this is not an annexation, but I don't know why that's any different. We have a lot of property with several different zones. Rohm: Does the zoning designation have anything to do with the requirement for the road development? If it was zoned R-8, would the road not need to be developed, then? It still would, would it not? Borup: If it was going to be developed it would. Rohm: Are you suggesting that they would have made application for a rezone for this portion to the R-4 and the balance of it -- Borup: Well, I'm just saying that would answer your question and it would be done without doing a lot split. I'm not sure if the applicant is interested in that, but staff may have a thought. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if you do a split zoning on one property - - I can't think of any that has a split zoning. Now, you get developments that come in with multiple zones, but those are following property lines. Here you would be having the same parcel that has the same parcel number, but two zoning designations on it. Sure makes it confusing. If you don't -- if you don't like the way the development agreement provision is worded, take it out. That does not help to make anything any cleaner by trying to split zone this property to try to go around the -- Rohm: Yeah. I really wasn't trying to get around it. Basically, what I was just saying to the applicant is -- is as part of this application it -- that property does affect it and from the city's perspective there is no better time than the time of a rezone to get those things in motion and if we were to approve this without making that 4th Street improvement, it would be more difficult for us to do it at a later time, so -- Nary: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I mean I think part of the problem here -- and I understand the applicant's concern, but I guess to follow up on your comment, if you don't do it at this point with a development agreement, what other trigger are we going to have. And part of the reason is in this application there is no plat, there is no -- there is no development that's being brought forth, it's simply the zone. The applicant's indicated they are working on a plan for expanding the building, but, again, you don't have the benefit of that tonight to know that there isn't a nexus, all you have is the applicant's statement that there may not -- there is no need for access and no nexus and that's the problem. That's why many times on -- either rezones are fairly narrow or they are for specific purposes that no other alternative, like the Hartz Music site that was before you tonight, there isn't a lot of alternatives for that site, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 45 of 49 because of the size and the location and those types of considerations. This one you have a fairly large site and, again, no other -- no other plat or application in front of you for what developments may occur. So, it's not unreasonable for this Commission to want to place either some restrictions on that or have the applicant wait until they can bring the entire project back. Rohm: I think that's the -- well, from my perspective that's the answer that I would see as well is the -- short of your application includes your expansion to the church facilities, so that we can see exactly what the total project is going to look like, this is the best time to address the issue of 4th Street and that -- that would be my position as well. Commissioner Moe, do you have comments or -- Moe: I concur, quite frankly. Niblett: Chairman Rohm, may I make a comment? Rohm: Pardon? Niblett: May I make a comment? Rohm: Absolutely. Niblett: As part of our application we submitted both a site plan showing the addition and a floor plan showing the addition as part of this rezone. So, that was submitted as a part of this application, so that we showed exactly what the intent was. In fact, we were caught off guard that it was zoned R-4. We had -- you can't even have a church in an R-4. And so we thought -- we were under the understanding it was L-O. That's my mistake. When we went to submit for our CZC, that's when I found out that we were zoned incorrectly and that's what prompted this. So, we -- we have the package ready and, in fact, I submitted both that site plan and floor plan with this application to show what our intent was. Rohm: Thank you. Any additional questions of this applicant? Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to testify to this application? Borton: My name is AI Borton. I live at 1612 West 2nd, right across from the church. This gentleman is right, they are very good neighbors and it's been a pleasure to have them there. However, they have expanded the amount of people going to that church in the last ten years enormously. So, second carries a lot more traffic and I and most of my neighbors there would like to see 4th Street expanded, but a lot of them people in that subdivision in your lower left of your corner come across and up 2nd, as well as the church people. So, if you had 4th Street open, it would take a lot of traffic off of 2nd. Rohm: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 46 of 49 Borton: We walk a lot down over in that area for exercise and we noticed there is a lot of people in that one street right down there on your left that comes across below where the church is, has a pretty good dip in it, and a lot of them people come right through that dip and down to 2nd and head out, because they can get out that way. And it would be awful nice, since their church has expanded so much and there is so many -- so much traffic there, it would be awful nice to have 4th Street so we could eliminate some of it at least. Rohm: I'm pretty sure that that was the thoughts of the city as well. Borton: Thank you very much, Rohm: Thank you. Ma'am, did you want to testify as well? And from the audience she said, no, thank you. Does the applicant have any final comments before we close this Public Hearing? Niblett: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, is it my understanding, then -- the only question I have is that perhaps the route we are taking right now you see as a problem. Is it my understanding that if we was to subdivide -- or divide the lots into two lots -- the parcel into two lots that we would have a better approach from your view? Rohm: Probably have to defer to our legal counsel and if they were to split this into two parcels, could they make an application for a rezone on just a portion of it and leave the rest of it as undeveloped property? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't know if it completely solves your problem. I guess one of the things I was understanding from staff is right now they want to rezone this entire parcel. There is expansion on that northern eastern portion of the property, but there is not a way, other than through the development agreement, to trigger some other improvement along the 4th Street section of the property. You know, there is not a way in the development agreement for us to put in, you know, once you decide to develop something that accesses this area -- I mean it's problematic to try to create that. If you create two parcels, I don't know that you're still not going to have a problem -- I mean I don't know the Commission's view on the testimony on where the access is going to be and how large the expansion is going to be, how many more people that's going to serve. Is 2nd Street adequate. Are they going to still need access through the other part? I don't know. I mean staff may have a different perspective. I guess I don't know that that's a fix for everything. I mean it splits the zoning and that may -- that may solve one problem, it may not solve the issue of the access point. I think that's still problematic and I don't know -- if the parcel they split it off from, if they go through the platting process, and they are only asking to do the other one, I guess maybe Mr. Hood might have a different perspective. I still think -- I don't know that it solves the problem completely. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, I just may add, I don't think it's solves any question. What it will do is force the Ada County Highway District and the city to require that a street be built Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 47 of 49 with the subdivision and not through a development agreement. So, you really -- ACHD's comments were only comments, because you weren't proposing any development. Once you do a subdivision, they will make them conditions. Same with the city. A standard condition of approval for doing a subdivision or creating separate parcels is the construction of roads, so -- now if that's something that the Commission wanted to waive through the process, but that would be something that we would be looking at as putting into a conditional approval for the split. So, you really -- it really doesn't help to do a subdivision, a short plat, a split, create two parcels, doesn't do you any good, to be quite frank. Niblett: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Moe: So moved. Borup: I have got a question for staff and it can either come before or after the closing, Rohm: Okay. Go ahead and ask staff before I -- I guess that's appropriate, because the answer may -- Borup: Okay. Probably for maybe Mr. Cole. If this road is developed, I think the applicant testified that there could possibly be some development of the property, but along with that, then, there would need to be -- how do you determine where these driveway -- accesses would be and do we have sewer or water lines down East 4th. Fortunately, now, we just approved a subdivision adjoining this -- this property right here was -- was -- at least -- I guess it made it through City Council. I don't know. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, I don't believe Deklin has gone to Council yet, but -- Borup: Okay. Cole: There is sewer and water mains where 4th Street would be constructed already. That cost would not be borne by this applicant. The main's already in. Any sewer and expense would go through his property to whichever number of lots he created. As far as the access goes, it would just be determined with the plat when the plat came in, looking at the uses. Borup: But the street's going to already be developed and so without sewer stubs and without -- I guess it depends on what type of curbing is there, but -- Cole: Yes. If they went through and built the road ahead of the subdivision, without any stub outs, they would have to go back through and apply to ACHD through their no cut board to cut the road and it would be a larger patch back at that point. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 15, 2007 Page 48 of 49 Borup: I just point that out. I mean that's one problem I can see with developing the road right now, when there is no -- I mean building the road right now when there is no development design for that area. And it sounds like sewer and water would be the only real problem. If they had rolled curb, that would take care of the access points, as long as they allow cuts in the road for sewer and water, Even though it's not five years. Cole: They do allow -- they call it a no cut, the five year no cut. There is an allowance - - you have to go in front of ACHD's board and ask for that to be waived and, essentially, is just means there is a larger patch back at that point. So, a no cut is not a no cut -- well, eventually, it's just a larger patch back. Borup: Okay. I guess I brought that out. We hadn't -- that part of it hadn't really been discussed earlier. Were you waiting for a second to your motion? Moe: Yes, I was. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Any other discussion by you? Frankly, I don't have a problem with the way it's been noted in the staff report. Rohm: I think that the staff has tried to take the future of our city into consideration and this is the best way and the only way we are going to be able to move forward and get that developed as it should be. So, I'm in support of staff's report myself. That being said, could I get a motion? Moe: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number RZ 07-004 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 15th, 2007. End of motion. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 07-004 to include the staff report as written. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 07-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a public/quasi-public use in an I-L zone for Joint School District No 2. Jabil Subdivision by Joint School District No 2 - 1303 E. Central Drive: