Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 3, 2003Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 28 of 81 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE. Centers: Moving on. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend denial of Item Number 5 on our agenda, CUP 03-006, request for a CUP for a child care facility for approximately 30 children, which was amended to 38, in a proposed O-T zone Sunshine Academy by Sharon OToole and Debbie and James Sheridan at 230 West Pine. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Borup: Okay. That concludes these items. That's the motion that will be sent to City Council. Thank you. Item 6. Public Hearing: AZ 03-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 2.223 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Comfort Suites by Kanti Patel -west of South Eagle Road, south of East Magic View Drive on South Wells Street: Borup: The next item is Public Hearing AZ 03-007, request for annexation and zoning of 2.223 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Comfort Suites by Kanti Patel, west of Eagle Road and south of Magic View. I will open this Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Still trying to get organized, but I do have up on the overhead right now a map that shows the area that we are looking at annexing tonight for this hotel. This property is contiguous to the City of Meridian via I-84 and the land adjacent to I-84 is zoned I-L and that's how it's contiguous to the City of Meridian. The requested zoning for this piece of property is a C-G zone, which is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The reason for the requested use on -- I'm trying to go back. It's thinking. There it is. The reason for the requested rezone and annexation to the City of Meridian with a C-G zone is so that the applicant can apply as a permitted use for a hotel facility at this location. You should have all received a submitted Site Plan. I'm sorry I don't have it on the overhead for you tonight. I can get a copy of that for those in the audience to place on our overhead and I will do that in just one moment. This piece of property, because the use itself, the hotel use that will be proposed for this Comfort Suites Hotel, is a permitted use, it would hot come back to you. This would be something that would be handled at a staff level, unless you make, as a condition of approval for this project tonight, a requirement for a Development Agreement that they have to submit for a Conditional Use Permit for your further review. If you do not do this and it is not in the staff report, or requested by the staff for you to do that, the hotel could be approved as a staff level approval through the certificate of zoning compliance. This submitted site plan -- thanks, Bruce. The submitted Site Plan -- I will go to it really quick -- currently does not meet all requirements of the Meridian City Code. The buffer between land uses along the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 29 of 81 northern portion of the property is not in compliance with the City of Meridian's Code. In addition to that, some of the parking, as you will note, is not i n compliance with the landscape ordinance, there is more than 12 parking spaces linearly arranged without a break or a landscape break between those, so there are some revisions that will have to come forward with this, but unless -- like I said before, unless you guys want to see it again, you don't have to. It will be handled at staff level. It's fairly straightforward. I don't have anything else to add to that. If you have any questions for myself or Bruce, we will accept those at this time and turn the time back over to you. Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I might ask a question of staff. Mr. McKinnon, did you say the only connection to the City of Meridian is across I-84? McKinnon: That's -- well, it's -- the I-84 -- the map behind me would help out a whole lot, Mr. Wollen, but that is the only connection with the City of Meridian would be via the freeway, which is zoned I-L. Wollen: What concerns me, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- and I did speak with Mr. McKinnon today about this and I didn't have this in front of me and I kind of gave him a different opinion, but through reading Title 50-5222 of the Idaho Code, deals with annexation by cities. Subsection 2 of that states: Provided, further, that said city council shall not have the power to annex such land, lots, or block or part of said city if they will be connected to such city only by a shoe string or strip of land which comprises a railroad or highway right of way. In this, I believe, there is a danger that this could be declared a shoestring annexation. Borup: Didn't you just say the property directly to the south of the freeway is city? It would be the whole length of the property. Wollen: Okay. Borup: Is my understanding. Okay. I know that was the same annexation path that St. Luke's came in on is across the freeway. We have discussed the shoestring before and they are looking about going along the highway itself for a distance. Wollen: Thank you. Borup: Rather than directly across from it and, that is correct, that all the land bordering this is city? To the south. Yes. Zaremba: And I think we have had previous discussion where an intervening canal or an intervening road perhaps -- as long as there was a property line, the property line, except for the canal or the road, which I think this means -- Borup: Yes. I think what your concern was if it came clear down the freeway for a distance and then -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 2003 Page 30 of 81 Wollen: Yes. Borup: Yes. We have turned down at least one that was the --that was method to -- Zaremba: And I understand that. The way I see this, we are not using the freeway to make this comply. The freeway is an interruption to what would comply if the freeway weren't there. Borup: Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman -- Dave, would you go back to your initial map, general location map? The parking and the buffering and planning would take care of that when it comes back to you. McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: Right. Didn't we approve a Hampton Inn right here? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the Hampton Inn is right here. Centers: Where? McKinnon: Right there where I'm highlighting right now. Centers: Okay and this is the city property you're talking about? McKinnon: That's correct. That's the property south - Centers: That's contiguous. Borup: -- that would bring it up through I-84. Centers: This is county right now? McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: If it complies, I don't have any problem with it. Let you take care of it later. Zaremba: Well, if it comes back to staff, does staff have the ability to do the design review that they are asking for? McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: And to make sure that it -- even though it is a motel or hotel, that it would comply with other requirements? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting April 3, 20D3 Page 31 of 81 McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: Staff could do that without us? McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: But if they change their mind -- Zaremba: Happily so. Centers: If they change their mind to some other project, then, it has to come back anything other than a hotel? Borup: No. McKinnon: Without a Development Agreement, any permitted use is -- Centers: You said -- right. Permitted use. Okay. McKinnon: -- would be handled at a staff level as a Conditional Use. Centers: That's fine. McKinnon: It would go to you. Borup: Especially on property bordering the freeway. I don't think there is lot of -- okay. Does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? The applicant is not even here. Okay. Commissioners -- oh. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing AZ 03-007 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? Borup: Do we have a motion? Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 03-007, request for annexation and zoning of 2.223 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Comfort Suites by Kanti Patel, located west of South Eagle Road, south of East Magic View Drive, on South Wells Street, to include all staff comments. Mathes: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting .April 3, 2003 Page 32 of 81 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 03-005 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for Meadow Lake Village by Hummel Architects, P.A. -east of South Eagle Road on East Franklin Road Borup: The next item is Public Hearing C UP 03-005, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development by Meadow Lake Village by Hummel Architects. I'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, on the overhead I have outlined the area that we are talking about tonight, that we are really not talking about the entire area, we will basically be focusing our conversation tonight on the property just south of Franklin Road. This Conditional Use Permit is amending the original concept Development Plan, as you can see on the overhead right now. As you may remember -- as you may remember, this is a large senior retirement community that's being developed right now with a small golf course centrally located. When this originally came through there was a lot of residential uses bordering on Franklin Road, commercial properties coming in off of Franklin, off of several collector streets, for medical use, retail, and office types of uses. The applicant has since acquired an additional piece of land that makes it possible to go to this type of project now, where they can bring all of the commercial development out onto the Franklin frontage and connect the two access points together with a new public road that would be located running somewhat parallel to Franklin Road. We have asked in the staff report that road be a public road, rather than a private road, which would require, again, a Preliminary Plat and a Final Plat for the subdivision of that. That's the major reason this has been brought before you tonight, is just basically the shift of the residential to the south and the commercial to the north to be adjacent to the commercial street frontage. The second reason that this is brought in front of you is that the applicant has requested additional reduced setbacks. As you may know, those of you that were here when this project was approved, all of the houses and buildings within this subdivision are going to be owned by the developer. There are no lot lines within this development and so all the setbacks, as you will note in the staff report, are based between buildings, rather than for property line. Instead of measuring from property line, we would be looking at what one house is being constructed or the type of construction based on what's going next to it and that will determine what the setbacks are. This is a planned development. Staff does not have objections to the requested reductions of those setbacks. Finally, just one additional point of clarification for you. In the planned development ordinance it says that every time a phase of this project is approved, they have to come back with a detailed Conditional Use Permit. What is sometimes forgotten in that is that anytime they come back in with a phase that is exclusively residential, it does not have to come back in front of you as a Conditional Use Permit, it's only those uses that have non-residential use, so you won't be spending a great deal of time in the future with Conditional Use Permits for all the residential properties. The