Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 5, 2003 P & ZMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 66 of 100 Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 13. Public Hearing: PFP 03-002 Request for Preliminary /Final Plat approval of 3 building lots on 1.55 acres in an L-O zone for Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision by Gordon N. Anderson -southeast corner of East Gala Street and South Millennium: Borup: Item Number 13, Public Hearing PFP 03-002, request for Preliminary/Final Plat of three building lots on 1.55 acres in an L-O zone for Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision by Gordon Anderson. This is at the southeast of East Gala and South Millennium, part of a project that we have seen several times. I'd like to open the Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is an existing lot in Resolution Business Park Subdivision and they are proposing to split the existing single lot into three lots. It is a preliminary Final Plat combination and is going through applying together, through this process to City Council. You can see the aerial photo with the vacant property. The property to the south has since been developed as Mountain View High School. This is Overland Road along the north. Locust Grove Road is to the west and Eagle Road is just off the photo to the right. This is a copy of the proposed Preliminary Plat. It's more difficult to see the lines on the Final Plat, so I'll just skip to that. You can see that they are proposing three lots, Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3. Each one does have frontage and meets the minimum lot sizes for the L-O zone. They did submit a proposed site layout, although that's not specifically up for discussion, but it was shown on the Landscape Plan and this is the Landscape Plan that was shown. You should have a staff report with a transmittal date of May 29th for today's P&Z hearing date. I don't know that there is any real outstanding issues that need to be discussed. We have submitted the site-specific comments; one through eight, as shown. I would like to add a ninth, which would be to submit ten copies of a revised plat and Landscape Plan in compliance with this staff report ten days prior to the hearing with Council. The only other issue I know of is related to item four in the staff report on page three, which talks about a copy of a recorded cross-access and cross-parking easement for the subdivision prior to signature on the Final Plat. As written it was intended to have that recorded specifically for this layout as shown. Then, approached by Becky Bowcutt, who represented the owner of the lot to the south and she's also concerned that they get a cross-access agreement to the south to allow for interconnectivity. I do believe that the original Site Plan submitted with the Resolution Park Conditional Use Permit had interconnectivity through all those parcels. With that, I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any Commissioners? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 67 of 100 Zaremba: I had only one. On, let's see, Paragraph 8, which has a number of numbered items underneath it, should we add another one -- I guess -- well, I guess the question is do we know if there is going to be a subdivision signage plan or whether each individual lot is going to have their own signs after this is split? Should there be a signage plan? Siddoway: Like a planned sign program? Zaremba: Yes. Siddoway: You could require a planned sign program be done. Certainly, if a development is done in conjunction with one another, you have that option, especially, for multi-tenant projects. I think these are going to be individual tenants, each one having frontage, so you could separate signage in conformance with the L-O signage standards without a planned signed program, as long as the individual buildings are on separate lots and single tenants, which I believe is their intent. We can have the applicant address that. Centers: Well, each lot has to come for a CUP, don't they? Siddoway: Each lot does require a separate CUP, so I would probably wait and put the conditions related to signage when you see it again at the Conditional Use Permit. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Anderson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Gordon Anderson with Anderson David Associates, 1401 Shoreline Drive in Boise, representing the owners Gaudry and Seegmiller on their subdivision. With respect to the staffs comments about submitting 10 copies, revised copies, 10 days prior to the final -- or the City Council hearing, that's fine. I notice also on site-specific conditions that I think there is a misprint. Bruce and I talked about it. Item Number 8. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. Borup: Go ahead. Siddoway: The -- Item Number 8 -- sub Item Number 8 is what it's referring to, with a -- where it says a 20 foot wide permanent landscape public utilities, drains, and irrigation easement. There is an existing 12-foot easement in that location along Gala Street. We were trying -- it's not in this print, we were trying to get the plat to show the 20-foot easement that is shown on the Landscape Plan. If you see the Landscape Plan that they submitted with their plat, this note calls it out, a 20 foot landscape easement and if we approve this tonight. I wanted to make sure that -- if this is the approved Landscape Plan, that they are helped in this and 20 feet is what the easement becomes, so that it's developed in this manner. If we approve this Landscape Plan tonight with the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 66 of 100 preliminary and Final Plats and, then, only record a 12-foot landscape easement over the top of it, it could get messy. Borup: Comments on that, Mr. Anderson? Anderson: Yes. I don't think we have a problem making that a full landscape actual easement adjacent to and coincident with the right-of-way line. My only concern is that when we -- along the east property line, generally that would be a boundary utility corridor and that would only be ten feet wide that we would have to be concerned with there and -- Borup: Ithink this is saying just on public right of ways. Oh and exterior subdivision boundaries. You're right. Anderson: Correct. You would want it clarified generally; it's a 10-foot easement along boundary lines. Borup: Okay. That was your intention, it would be just on a public right of way would be the 20 and -- Anderson: That's, really, all that I was talking about, yes. Borup: And a 10 foot on the other -- Anderson: That would be just fine. Borup: Ithink -- so, it sounds like everyone was in agreement, but it needs clarification. Anderson: Correct. I wasn't prepared to comment on other accesses between this lot and adjoining lots, other than the access that is on Millennium. Can you switch to the Preliminary Plat? Currently, this curb cut here is going to have to be shared and ACHD will require it to be shared with this lot adjacent and I know connectivity is important for the development, but that plan that you saw may not be the one that they come in with for the CU, so between these owners I think it's going to happen, maybe enforced through the CUs or some other method. Hadn't anticipated that being finalized between the owners at this point in my conversations a week ago with David Seegmiller, so -- Borup: Are you saying you have no problem with that being a condition, that there is interconnectivityand an access agreement? Anderson: I don't know if I'm prepared to answer that until I talk to my client. Borup: Okay. If this Commission required that, then, that would be worked out later? Anderson: I think it -- Borup: Or your client can decide how they want to react to that, then Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 69 of 100 Anderson: Well, I think it's premature to make that a condition of this Preliminary Plat until they -- they have a Site Plan as well and I can't anticipate what the development would be to the south that may be they need that connectivity. I mean -- I know Becky mentioned it, but does it really make it something that's been solidified between the owners? So -- Borup: Okay. Anything else? Anderson: That's all I -- Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? McKay: I'll take about one minute. Becky McKay, 150 East Aikens. I represent G.L. Voigt Development. They own the flag lot you see to the south. When I originally designed this and we got Resolution Park approved, we had, I believe, almost all lots interconnected. That's so that we, obviously, minimize the number of trips on Millennium Way and, secondly, for secondary access for fire. With that flag lot, if there is no interconnection between any of the parking facilities, then, that may cause some problems with the Fire Department as far as a second means of access to the rear of the building. We just want to make sure that that interconnectivity is preserved as these lots do develop and that there are some provisions made for that interconnection. Thank you. Borup: At this time there is not design or conceptual layout of that lot; is that correct? McKay: Of that lot? Okay. Borup: Is that correct? McKay: For that lot? It's my understanding -- yes. Borup: For your lot. McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Thank you. I, for one, feel very strongly about interconnectivity. Idon't think that's a lot of discussion that needs to take place there. Do we have anyone else? Thank you. Commissioners? Centers: Well, let's move to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor`? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 70 of 100 Centers: So, then, the way I understand it, Mr. Chairman, Item 4 on Page 3, the cross- access agreement, the way it's worded in the staff report it's really worded for just this subdivision. Borup: Right. Centers: But we want to assure cross-access with any adjoining lots. Borup: That's the way Iwould -- Centers: Period. Right? Borup: Yes. That's the way Iwould -- Centers: So, we should add to the signature for the cross-access and cross-parking easement for this subdivision and adjoining lots. Right? Borup: Yes. Siddoway: Yes and the adjoining lot to the south and the one to the east also Centers: Just adjoining lots would cover it. Borup: Cover it. Yes. Centers: Yes any adjoining lots. Okay. Because I'm with the Chairman, the connectivity is important, just like stub streets in a residential subdivision. Borup: I think the only other item was 8-8, page four. Centers: Yes but item -- sub item eight, that the 20 feet is referring to the right of ways only and ten feet would be applicable to subdivision boundaries. And ten copies of the Final Plat. While that's fresh, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend approval to City Council for Item Number 13 on our agenda. PFP 03-002, request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of three building lots on 1.55 acres in an L-O zone for Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision by Gordon N. Anderson, at the southwest corner of East Gala Street and South Millennium. Including all staff comments from their memo dated June 5fh, on Page 3, Item 4, amend the last sentence to read: B. Subdivision and any adjoining lots prior to signature on the Final Plat. Item 9 at the bottom would be applicant to submit ten copies of the Final Plat prior to the City Council hearing. Page 4, sub Item 8, to read. All lot lines common to public right of ways and the exterior subdivision and -- all lot lines common to the public right of way shall have a 20 foot wide boundary and 10 foot wide applicable to all exterior subdivisions boundary lines. All other items -- Borup: For the landscaping? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission June 5, 2003 Pg 71 of 100 Centers: Correct. For the permanent landscaping. End of motion. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: I probably need to back up a little bit here, back to Item 12. I don't believe I ever opened that hearing. Can we continue a hearing that hasn't been opened? Zaremba: I believe we tabled it. Borup: Did we defer it, table it, or continue it? Zaremba: I think we tabled it without opening it, so -- Borup: Well, we didn't open it. Does anybody remember? I thought we continued and that's why I brought that up again. Which would have, I believe, been incorrect. Powell: Chairman Borup, I'm not sure on the regulations for referrals -- or the code versus referrals on continuing it. The safest thing to do would be to open it up and just go ahead and continue it. Borup: Or make a new motion and table. Either one. Powell: Well, that would -- Borup: Usually, in the past I have opened and we have continued it, so let's back up and do that. Zaremba: Well, actually, because of the noticing requirements that probably would be true. Borup: Yes. Table it. Zaremba: That way we have to re-notice it. Borup: I'd like to open Public Hearing PP 03-007 at this time. Open for a motion from the Commission. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.