Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 17, 2008 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 9 of 39 Rohm: I'll second that motion. Moe: Thank you very much. It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-021 and PP 07-025. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: TALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I,~II go ahead and -- Moe: In discussion,whoever does make the motion, don't forget the other items within Public Works that were discussed.. Newton-Huckabay: May we strike those in the motion just by number, without reading them? Okay. Afterk~considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 07-021 and PP 07-025 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 17, 2008, with the following modifications: That the following -- the Public Works comments in Exhibit B, 2.3 and 2.6, be removed from~the staff report. End of motion. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve onto City Council RZ 07-021 and PP 07-025, with the modifications as noted. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign2~ That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: BALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Locust Grove is a popular street on this evening's agenda. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 07-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 15.49 acres from RUT to L-O zone for Stake House by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - 5555 N. Locust Grove Road: Moe: Okay. At this time I would like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 07-019 and start with staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you tonight is fan annexation and zoning of 15.49 acres from RUT, Ada County, to limited office. Thel` site is located on the west side of Locust Grove, approximately half a mile south of ~(Chinden Boulevard. The property is bordered on the north by Madelynn Estates Subdivision. On the south by Tustin Subdivision. On the west is the Cardigan Bay Subdivision. And the east is Vienna Woods Subdivision, zoned R-4. All Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 10 of 39 of the subdivisions remain as part of tl- an agreement whi annexed into the ci all four sides. Ste church would comb having the applicai the L-O zone is a subdivision on the staff is proposing a the DA are listed in is located. There i code, some of it do proposing any devE to bring that lands new development c for any questions ff Moe: Any questio Cluff: Ladd Cluff ~ 101, Nampa, Idaho 10, as was present is not in the busin concerns with the r be waived. That's t are zoned R-4. There is an existing church on the site that is to application. The applicant is requesting annexation to comply with h allowed the church to connect to city services without being ~ until it was contiguous. The city limits now border this property on f suggested the applicant zone the site L-O, so the existing LDS y with the underlining zoning district as a permitted use, rather than submit for a Conditional Use Permit. Furthermore, staff believes propriate for the church site and any future development and/or ite will require full compliance with the UDC standards. Therefore, ievelopment agreement be required for this property. Provisions of Section 10 of the staff report. So, here is where the existing church some existing landscaping on the site. Some of it complies with sn't, but right now the church is just coming in -- again, they are not opment on the site. So, staff hasn't put any requirements on them aping into compliance until they either expand the site or propose i the site. So, with that, that concludes my presentation and I stand :Commission may have. of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? I:h Elk Mountain Engineering. Address is 4286 East Amity, Suite The applicant -- the only concern that the applicant has is Section t by staff, regarding the development agreement. The LDS church ss of development and doesn't want to be and because of the ~nprofit status, the development agreement, they request that that only request we have at this time. Moe: Okay. Any questions? Rohm: I don't have'~any. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Well, there is no one signed up, other than the applicant that was already here, so is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this? Boy,~quiet crowd tonight. And I don't know that we need the applicant to come back up again, so we pretty much have everything we need there.. Mr. Rohm, you look like you have a question of staff. Rohm: I do. Could you respond to the applicant's request to have the development agreement waived?:i I'm -- I don't know if we have ever had a situation where we just waive a development agreement based upon the applicant's request. So, could you speak to that for us,~~please? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, staff feels that there should be a development agreement on the site just for the fact that -- to give you a little bit of Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 11 of 39 history or backgroui on the parcel, on th on the site to subd lower five acres to time staff was putti possibly sharing of requirements, so th we could live with tF the site that any ne to comply with our to do any other ads something in place development on the things comply witl agreement. Nary: Mr. Chairma Moe: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Chai d on it, we have been working with the applicant for several months site, and they had originally proposed to do a preliminary/final plat side that and have that lower five -- get the pointer out here. This ie sold off in future development -- as a development. And at that ig some provisions that additional landscaping be put in here and this access and the applicant didn't feel comfortable with those ~y just wanted to go forward with the annexation. So, we felt, okay, ~t, provided that any future development -- we hold open to a DA on i development or expansion of the site, that they would be required landards. And so, basically, we aren't really requiring the applicant itional requirements on the site, we are just -- we just want to put that says when this -- if they sell this portion off, that any future site will -- they will have to come back to the city and have those our standards. So, that's the intention of the development Moe: Mr. Rohm, did that give you the answer you were looking for? Rohm: Yes. But I Moe: Yes, sir. Nary: Mr. Chairm~ testimony they wen the development b The state statute situation. So, it do or may not occur. development agree property that was agreement on their allowed.. So, it doe; eve Mr. Nary has some comments. Members of the Commission, the applicant also stated in their ;oncerned about the status of the church or the fact that they are in iness. That has nothing to do with the development agreement. ply allows us to do it at this particular juncture or in a rezone n't really make any difference whether a future development may :condarily, I know of no case law in the state of Idaho that says a ent would impact their non-profit status. The school district, the ~ior to -- the applicant prior to you, they have a development ~operty. It's a fairly common practice. It is a statutory -- statutorily 't have an impact on their status as a church, so -- Moe: Thank you, M;~. Nary. Rohm.: Mr. Chai Moe: Mr. Rohm. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 17, 2008 Page T2 of 39 Rohm: I would just ask the -- like to have the applicant come back up and respond to the staffs comments and see if they have any alternative to offer up, because at this time it appears tli~at the development agreement is necessary and if he has an alternative that I would listen to it, but -- Moe: Would the a Cluff: The reason 1 they do not wish tc The other option is to sell this property developed, it's goin subdivision and at agreements on a pr Newton-Huckabay: Cluff: Or requireme Nary: No. Cluff: -- as conditio Nary: But the de condition when the in for annexation appropriate. Cluff: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move we licant like to come back up. r the request -- the church policy -- their legal has informed us that enter into development agreements and that's the reason for that. gat the city will have the opportunity that in the event that they want o the south, those areas staff had mentioned., that if that has to be to have -- or goes in to be sold, it will have to be -- go through a gat time the city will have every opportunity to place development liminary plat for that. o. for the development -- of approval. pment agreement can only be done at this time. And it is a iices were provided by the city that they would have -- they come that time and that is when the development agreement is the Public Hearing on AZ 07-019. Newton-Huckabay: Meridian Planning 8 Zoning January 17, 2008 Page 13 of 39 Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-019. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED,:` ALL AYES. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rofim. 1 Rohm: At this timei I'd like to make a motion to move onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-0:19, to include the staff report as written. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to approve moving on to City Council approving AZ 07-019. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED ~' ALL AYES. Item 8: Public) Hearing: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.81 acres prom RUT to R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC - NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road: Item 9: Public 3 resic Chalet Road Item 10: Public multi-f~ acres f Ustick Moe: At this time I'i CUP 07-023 and go to open the Public Hearings on AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and the staff report, please. Parsons.: Thank yo ~, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you tonight are an annexation and zoning of 21.8 acres from RUT, Ada County, to R-15, medium high density residential. A relimina p ry plat approval of three residential lots and one common lot, Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi-level developme; t consisting of 122 condo units and a clubhouse. A private street application for eight private streets within the proposed development and alternative Hearing: PP 07-027 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval with ;ntial building lots and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. Ustick id N. Locust Grove Road.: searing: CUP 07-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 122 Wily dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 21.8 r Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -NWC of E. oad and N. Locust Grove Road: