Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 2, 2009 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Meeting March 5, 2009 Page 22 of 33 Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from February 19, 2009: AZ 08-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning consisting of 15.05 acres from Ada County RUT to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and I-L (Light Industrial) zones for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from February 19, 2009: RZ 08-009 Request for Rezone of 1.69 acres from C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) to I-L (Light Industrial) zone for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker - west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I- 84: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from February 19, 2009: PP 08-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 6non-residential building lots and 1 other lot in a proposed C-G and I-L zoning districts for Fignut by Ronald Van Auker -west side of S. Locust Grove, north of E. Overland Road and south of I-84: Moe: Well, we will now continue and I would like to open the continued public hearings for AZ 08-015, RZ 08-009, and PP 08-012 for Fignut and start with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The project before you tonight is for an annexation of 15.8 acres -- or 15.05 acres, a rezone of 1.69 acres, and preliminary plat approval for six nonresidential lots and one common lot on 16.7 acres. The subject site is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road, north of East Overland Road, and south of Interstate I-84, as highlighted on the zoning map and the aerial. As you can see on the aerial, the site is primarily vacant. There are some existing structures on the site. A single family home and some outbuildings and a kennel, currently being used as a rental property. Surrounding the property -- to the north is Interstate I-84. South of the site- is single family residential known as the Sportsman Point Subdivision. A Maverick C store, zoned R-4 and C-C. To the west is Pack It Up Subdivision, a child care center, and a church zoned C-G and L-O. And to the east is vacant land, zoned I-L and C-G. Here is the annexation boundary. As you can see, as I mentioned, it is for 15.05 acres and, then, the plat itself is -- encompasses 16.78 acres. The rezoned portion that the applicant is proposing to change from C-G to I-L is that narrow strip right along the interstate, if you can follow my arrow there. A portion of this site right here where my arrow is located here along Locust Grove Road, was annexed and zoned with the Northwest Pipeline Company, the office building that was annexed here, a portion of that was zoned at that time. I wasn't able to track down how this portion here got C-G zoned. It's kind of -- I'm not sure what the history is for that parcel. Maybe the applicant knows more than -- on that than I do. Again, here is the plat. The applicant is proposing six lots, nonresidential lots. Four of them are proposed to be zoned I-L and two of them are proposed to be zoned C-G. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as a mixed use community and these zoning designations are in compliance with that land use. The applicant is proposing to Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting March 5, 2009 Page 23 of 33 construct a private street for access to these lots. So, basically, you have East Bird Dog Drive that runs east and west and, then, South Fignut Way, which is north and south and, then, the applicant has also depicted on the plat that they are going to provide cross-access from the cul-de-sac to the Pack It Up Subdivision to the west. And, further, staff has also requested that the applicant provide cross-access to the Maverick C store to use their site to go through and access East Bird Dog Drive, so that they can make a safe left tum out onto Locust Grove Road. Right now they share an access with the C store at the southern boundary, which is currently aright-in and right-out and if any of you have ever been at that intersection you will see a lot of folks making lefts there that shouldn't be making left turns. So, we thought at least as a safety precaution let's get that cross-access for that -- between those two lots, that folks do have that opportunity to make that connection to turn out onto Locust Grove. Here is the landscape plan that they are proposing. Again, the applicant is required to have a 25 foot landscape buffer along Overland Road and Locust Grove and ten foot -- ten feet of landscaping along the local streets. The applicant also has gone through altemative compliance for the common lot there along the western boundary of South Fignut Way. Right now there is the Nine Mile Creek that's tiled in that area and there is a hundred foot irrigation easement there and so they don't particularly like trees within that easement, so through the altemative compliance they have requested to add boulders and shrubs and lawn within that area. And, again, they are only required to provide ten feet of landscaping, but they have in excess provided at least 25 to 30 feet there and staff has approved that already. It doesn't require any action from the Commission for altemative compliance. The one other thing that I would point out, too, is the UDC requires that where you have I-L property adjoined to C-G property or nonresidential -- nonindustrial uses, there should be a 25 foot land use buffer. The applicant showed that on the plan here in the -- the proper location, but they do depict that and have tried to comply with that. The only issue is our code doesn't require that buffering at final platting, so, basically, what we have, we condition them in the staff report to do upon submittal of a CUP application or CZC to commence building on the site, we would review that buffering at that time. The applicant did prepare some building elevations for you. I have attached them into the staff report. I have not -- I did not -- staff did not recommend approval of those elevations at this time. Some of the building materials that they were proposing on those buildings did not comply with the UDC or the design manual, so staff felt it appropriate with the annexation, since we are requiring a DA for the site, that the applicant comply with design review standards at the time that they submit their application and the applicant is in agreement with that. Staff did receive written comments from the applicant. I have attached those to your outline notes today with some staff responses to those. I will just touch on them real briefly for you and let the applicant kind of talk to you and discuss that with you further and, then, if you have some questions of me I will be happy to answer those. The first one that they want to talk about -- get my notes right here. Is removal of the existing structures on the site. Currently we have it in there prior to signature from city engineer that they would have to remove those buildings. Staff is okay with those buildings remaining, provided that they are removed prior to issuance of a CZC on the site. Also, the applicant wants to discuss the reduction to the landscape buffer adjoining the C-G zone properly. Cross- access. The applicant wants to discuss the cross-access that I mentioned to you earlier Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting March 5, 2009 Page 24 of 33 regarding the C store and that commercial -- that C-G zoned lot adjacent to Locust Grove. And, fourth, the applicant has stated that there isn't enough pressurized irrigation in the area to sufficiently provide water to these landscape buffers, so they, basically, want some clarification on what process they need to go through as far as getting city water to use for landscaping, rather than having pressurized irrigation. Staff is recommending approval of the project with conditions of approval and DA provisions as stated in the staff report. With that I would be happy to answer any questions Commission may have. Moe: Okay. Any questions of staff? O'Brien: I have one question, Mr. Chairman. Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: Bill, on the cross-access between Block 1 and 2 to the Maverick store, are you saying that you -- there will be or will not be cross-access -- in other words, if you're coming south on Fignut Drive towards Overland Road, would you have to access Overland Road to go out on the street and, then, come back into Maverick or is that -- is there going to be a drive that will connect Lot 1, I think it is, right on Overland Road to the Maverick store? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, if I understood you correctly, I don't know if you got your streets mixed up, but East Bird Dog is the west-east boundary. Can you see my arrow moving? That's where they. would have -- Lot 1 is the lot that the Maverick store would have to go through to provide the cross-access and access that to get onto Locust Grove. O'Brien: You could tum left onto South Locust Grove from Bird Dog Way? Parsons: Yes. That would be full access. O'Brien: And what about the Fignut Way entering onto Overland Road, is that a full access? Parsons: That is full access, yes. It's a public street. O'Brien: All right. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Van Auker: My name is Ron Van Auker, Junior. 3084 East Lanark in Meridian. And I want to apologize first -- the only responsibility my dad has left at the office is naming subdivisions. It's better than Porky Park, though. Like Bill said, we have pretty much agreed with everything in the staff report, with the exception to a few -- a few items. I don't think it would be a Van Auker subdivision without some points of contention. So, Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Meeting March 5, 2009 Page 25 of 33 the first one -- we are okay with the structures being removed prior to any building permits issued or a CZC considered. Right now we have a renter there, she's been there for -- or her and her husband have been there for -- oh, geez, ten years, probably, since we purchased the property. And I don't think she wants to move anytime before improvements begin and our theory -- or our thoughts are what we would want to do on that subdivision is get it platted, just so we have lots ready for when the market comes back, because I don't know -- I think the market's going to come back sometime, hopefully, sooner than most people think. But we want to have sites ready for the -- for the people that are going to want to move to Meridian. We were talking to a few before we had the financial trouble that we are in now and I think when -- when it comes back we will have two or three users right off the bat that want to be located on the freeway. And industrial users that will provide jobs for the city. The second item -- oh, where I was going with that. So, what we are going to do is get -- get the plat done or -- we can't bond. Post cash surety for the improvements and, then, just wait until we have someone come and say they want to be there and, then, we will build it out and get it done. The second item, the landscape buffer issue. I understand there is a rule in the UDC that requires a 25 foot buffer between I-L and C-G zones. We have four places that I-L touches a C-G zone, the two interior lots in Block 2 of the subdivision and two lots on the freeway. I will speak to those first. I put an aerial on the a-mail that I sent to Bill and I apologize I sent it so late. I was trying to do it all afternoon and kept getting phone calls and interruptions and it took me longer than I thought, so I should have had that -- oh, you got it? Friedman: We can project it up there, if you like. Van Auker: Do you have a bigger one? Can you -- do you have a document projector? Give it to you. So, the first one, I think, is pretty straight forward. That's the Williams or Northwest Pipeline site there on the right where the office building is located and the big yard. Although it is zoned C-G, it's kind of aquasi-industrial use and we just don't see the need to put 25 feet of landscaping -- our Lot 4 of Block 1 touches the west boundary of that site and we just don't see why we should put 25 extra feet of landscaping in there when our yard is probably -- if we have a yard there it's probably going to be screened anyway and, you know, we are going to do the 50 feet on the freeway, but just don't see why we need 25 feet in between those two uses. On the lot -- can you go to the plat, please? On Lot 2, Block 1, which is right there, it borders the Pack It Up Subdivision, which is right to the south of that. We have a 100 foot canal easement there separating those two uses and, again, don't see the need to put another 25 feet of landscaping in when we are going to have a buffer there of the canal easement anyway. And, then, on the two interior lots, we have no idea -- or three interior lots, we have no idea how that's going to develop. We recognize that there is a zoning difference there and, quite frankly, we will put something together that will interact well. So, again, breaking up the interior lots and with 25 foot landscaping buffers. We'd like to propose that we cut it down to 15, maybe, and center it on the lot line. I don't know if -- if that's something we do here or if it's something that Council takes care of, but I just wanted to say it, so we are on the record. The third one, the cross-access in the conditions of approval, we don't -- the lot that Maverick is on is owned separately, we don't own it a hundred Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting March 5, 2009 Page 26 of 33 percent, and we can't really grant them cross-access to that site without consideration from Maverick. Maverick was located there a few years ago. There was considerable discussion with ACHD about the right-in, right-out access that they had and they went in there fully knowing that they were only going to be able to tum right-in, and right-out from both streets. Now, I know rules -- if there is not concrete in the way, then, people will turn left anyway, but we don't think we should be responsible to provide the alternative access for the Maverick store. And, then, the last one, pressurized imgation. I spoke with Nampa-Meridian. They have no facilities in that area and so we were thinking, you know, we could use the city services to provide irrigation. It's going to be expensive, but I was talking to Bill earlier today and maybe we can come to some kind of agreement on a -- a less maintenance landscape type -- I don't know what. If it's hardscape or something that looks nice, but doesn't require as much water as, you know, turf and tree and shrubs. So, that's the four items that I had to say tonight and would request that you approve our annexation, zoning and preliminary plat. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Van Auker: Any questions? Moe: Any questions as of yet? Van Auker: Thank you. Moe: Stand by. Comments, Commissioners? Rohm: I suppose the only comment that I would have is I would tend to agree with the applicant about some of the buffers, but the bottom line is we have got a UDC that specifies certain buffers and Idon't -- I don't think that we as a Commission can waive off a UDC. Friedman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, that's entirely correct. The code does build in the altemative compliance provision, which is a staff action. So, while you cannot correctly as indicated just reduce the requirements of the UDC, actually, there are -- there is a remedy or there is an ability to seek remedy from those requirements. In fact, without having to go through a public hearing process or before another body. So, that's what we would be -- we have recommended approval of the application subject to the UDC standards and, then, the applicant can certainly avail themselves of the alternative compliance application process and, then, we can sit down and take a look at the specifics of their request in accordance with the criteria of that process. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Works forme. Parsons: One other clarification, too. Also, for the applicant. When we -- we processed the altemative compliance application -- or with this plat, there are -- the Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting March 5, 2009 Page 27 of 33 landscape architect had proposed a 25 foot landscape buffer adjacent to -- I don't know if you can see my arrow, Ron, but he's proposed alternative compliance for that portion of the lot, too, with the 25 feet and the boulders and the shrubs. So, it's something to keep in mind that we -- we have conditioned that in the staff report that upon development of that lot that that 25 feet would be constructed as showing with this plan through this -- through that alternative compliance process. So, it's something to put out there. If you want that reduced, then, we will have to handle that -- pull the request out or do something different there, so that you're not tied to that, because right now you have been approved with that 25 foot landscape buffer. Moe: Okay. Thank you. In regard to, you know, the item three in regards to cross- access, I'm -- whether or not it was right-in, right-out only in Maverick and whatnot, you know, it's been kind of the -- the intent of this Commission that if, in fact, we can get a cross-access and get to a public street, you know, for safety purposes, that we have always tried to get across-access and, therefore, you know, I definitely do not want to see us not get the cross-access. I think it's -- it's warranted for safety purposes entirely. As far as the number four in regard to the irrigation, I think if the applicant can get a letter from the district explaining that they are -- they don't have, you know, the ability and, therefore, then, work with staff, then, on whether or not we go to, you know, city water or just what to do from there. Any other comments? Mr. Marshall? Mr. O'Brien? O'Brien: So, I take it there is, basically, no modifications other than what he mentioned for the -- that's on the staff report, so as is; is that correct? Parsons: There is one clarification, if I may interject. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. O'Brien: Go right ahead. Parsons: Right now the way we have it written in DA No. 8, I have it written that with future development of the I-L zone lots, the applicant shall construct a 25 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the boundaries of C-G zone -- C-G zone lots in accordance with UDC 11-3-B-9 and alternative compliance dash -- 08-027. Now, based on what I just heard from the applicant, they don't want that 25 foot along Lot 2, Block 1, at this time. We might want to strike that and, then, also add what I proposed on your cheat sheet is just add the language -- to add unless reviewed and approved to alternative compliance. And that way it gives them that flexibility. O'Brien: Want to close the public hearing? Mr. Chair -- Moe: I need to get somebody to close the public hearing. Parsons: I'm sorry, just one other -- one other change also before we close the public hearing. Since we are in agreement with leaving the -- these structures in place until issuance of CZC, we should probably clear up that condition as well. I think the applicant stated it -- let me find that really quick. Too many papers in front of me here. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting March 5, 2009 Page 28 of 33 No, I don't have that condition. Let me pull up the staff report here and get that condition of approval for you. Moe: Page two six and six A. Parsons: Yeah. It's just part of that analysis section. Or it's just part of the land use. I wanted to see if we had a specific condition in here that told them to remove the structures. Moe: Is that that page two, section 6-A? Steckline: 2.6. Parsons: Is that yours, Scotty? Steckline Yeah. Parsons: Yeah. We have it on 2.6 of the Public Works. We might want to add that language as part of -- prior to issuance of a CZC the structures shall be removed. If that's okay with Mr. Steckline. O'Brien: Where do I find language on that specifically? Parsons: Condition 2.1. Page Exhibit B, page number five. O'Brien: On the staff report? Parsons: Yes. Condition 2.6. O'Brien: You said page five; is that correct? Parsons: Exhibit B, page five. So, you will have to scroll down to conditions of approval. Moe: 2.6 right here. O'Brien: Oh. Okay. Are we done? Marshall: So, are we ready to close the public hearing? O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: I recommend closing the public hearing AZ 08-015, RZ 08-009, and PP 08- 012. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Meeting March 5, 2009 Page 29 of 33 Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing AZ 08-015, RZ 08-009, and PP 08-012 for Fignut. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. O'Brien: Are we ready already? Moe: Yeah. O'Brien: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 08-015, RZ 08-009, and PP 08-012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 5th, 2009, with the following modifications: That staff is recommending the Commission to modify DA provision number eight to add: Unless reviewed and approved through alternative compliance. The second one would be Exhibit B, 2.6, all existing structures shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the city engineer. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval to City Council of AZ 08- 015, RZ 08-009, and PP 08-012. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: CPA 09-001 Request fora Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the text of the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the Pathways Master Plan for Pathways Master Plan Text Amendment by City of Meridian Planning Department: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPA 09-001 for Pathways Master Plan text amendment and start with staff and end with staff. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This -- this is a Comprehensive Plan text amendment before you tonight. It was -- this request was initiated by the Parks and Rec's Commission. They initiated this and, basically, what they wanted to do is -- is proposing to, basically, incorporate by reference the Meridian Pathways Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. With the adoption of the Masters Pathways Plan, request revision to the city's Comprehensive Plan to maintain