Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 4, 2003 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 75 of 83 Zaremba: Okay. And they have stated their intention to provide a fire rated base on the subdivision. Okay. I think those are all the issues.- In that case -- we did already close the Public Hearing? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 9 on our agenda, AZ 03-030, request for annexation and zoning of 2. 8 acres from R-6 to L-O and C-G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by the Land Group, Incorporated, south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of December 4, 2003, received by the clerk November 26, 2003. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, PP 03-036, request for preliminary plat approval of five commercial building lots on 2.8 acres in proposed L-O and C-G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by the Land Group, Incorporated, south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date December 4, 2003, received by the clerk November 26; 2003, and adding on page 12, at paragraph 11 that says there will be across-access agreement between Lots 2 and 3. Does that need to be shown on the face of the plat? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. And, also, if I could add the two commercial lots show a shared access as well. So, that's Lots 4 and 5. Zaremba: Okay. And that there be cross-access -- also be across-access agreement between Lots 4 and 5, both to be shown on the plat. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 03-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5. 11 acres from RT to C-G and I-L zones for Cortabitarte Annexation by Jack Cortabitarte - south of East Fairview Avenue, and west of North E agle Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 76 of 63 - Borup: Thank you. Are we ready to go home or shall we do one more? Okay. The next and last item is Public Hearing AZ 03-026, request for annexation and zoning of 5. 11 acres from R-T to C-G and I-L zones and open the Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: So moved. Siddoway: Okay. You should have our staff report with December 4th hearing date and transmitted November 25th. This is a proposed annexation for the Cortabitarte parcel. Actually, a lot, which, I guess; is an important designation in this case. It's an existing five-acre lot on the south side of Fairview. The proposal is to annex it to the city. It's currently contiguous with the Treasure Valley Business Center along its eastern boundary. The front lots along Fairview are currently vacant in Treasure Valley Business Center. These rear two are occupied by the Food Services of America project, which is proposing to expand its parking lot onto the rear portion, although that proposal is not specifically involved in this application, it does factor into the reason why we are recommending approval, even though there are not currently water and sewer services -- particularly sewer services to this property today. But the expansion of the parking lot for Food Services of America would not require sewer services. They are proposing a split zone on the property. The rear 3.4 acres is proposed to be I-L, which would match the I-L zone of the Food Services of America lot. The remaining portion in the front is proposed to be zoned C-G. There are three special considerations that I want to point out on page six. The first is that there is an existing residence on the front portion of this property where the C-G zone is proposed. A little difficult to see in this aerial photo, but it sits up in the front portion right up in here. When writing the staff report I was under the impression from the applicant that it was -- the house was currently vacant. Based on a phone call today, apparently, it's not and that's going to be the main issue that we need to discuss tonight. Upon annexation and zoning of the property to C-G, the residence will become a nonconforming use, if it's continued to be used for a residence. So, the staff recommendation was that the residential use should be abandoned upon annexation, so that we are not creating new nonconforming uses in the city. I know the applicant, based on the phone call today, does desire to continue residential use of that property for a time and I'll just ask the applicant to address that to the Commission. The second issue is the sewer service. There is no sewer service currently available to the property. We may have Bruce point out where the sewer is and how it will be sewered here in a moment, but the -- that commercial frontage that they are proposing will not be developable until that sewer service is extended to the property. Therefore, we are recommending a development agreement as part of this annexation. That allows f or t he p arking a xpansion t hat's p roposed o n the r ear, but makes the commercial frontage undevelopable until the sewer service is available. The third item is the split zoning. We usually don't recommend a split zone on a single piece of property. To rectify that situation, the applicant has submitted and is in process, a lot line adjustment that shifts the lot line for the Food Services of America project over to the proposed zoning designation boundary. That would make all of the Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 77 of 83 rear portion of the proposed lot a portion of this Lot 4 in Treasure Valley Business Center. In talking with the city engineer, he's never done a lot line adjustment between two different subdivisions. Both of these are platted subdivisions, so it is, technically, eligible for a lot line adjustment. He's looking into any issues related to the lot line adjustment and has agreed to put in writing a memo prior to the Council meeting. If, for some reason, the lot line adjustment cannot be approved, the development agreement should be require a plat o n t he property i n o rder t o s plit i t a t t he I ocation w here t he different zones meet. I have four site-specific comments. All of the things that would be conditions of approval appear in number three under the development agreement that we recommend. Those would be the conditional use process being required on any use on this property. That's required through the Comprehensive Plan, if you read through the findings, this is a mixed use community designation and, as such, requires a conditional use for any use on the property. The applicant will address the second one about the existing residence being abandoned or not. The third point, that the C-G remain undevelopable and, then, any other conditions deemed necessary by this Commission. With that, I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Yeah. I do have one and it's, actually, whether or not you might agree to combine two of those thoughts. If the C-G portion of it is not going to be developable until there is sewer available, could we say, instead, that the existing residence shall be abandoned when sewer is available, so that it could be rented as a residence until it can be used otherwise? It currently can't be used otherwise. Can we say something like that, that the -- Siddoway: I know that's what the applicant would hope for. I don't know that it's hurting anything. It does create a nonconforming use situation. Zaremba: Until such time as there is sewer available and, then -- it's not going to be an ongoing nonconforming use, because at some point there will be sewer available and, then, we say it must be abandoned as a residence. Siddoway: As soon as -- as soon as the sewer is available to the property; is that what you're saying? Zaremba: Yeah. Whether or not they hook into it, as soon as it is available it must be abandoned as a residence. But until it's available it can't be used for anything else, so it seems a little unfair to say it's got to be abandoned tomorrow, but there won't be sewer for six months or two years. Siddoway: I would be fine with that Zaremba: Is that acceptable? Siddoway: Sure. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 78 of 83 Zaremba: Then, I guess this has to do with a decision about whether lots in separate subdivisions can be adjoined, but the I-L portion of this would be landlocked unless there is some easement or access agreement, which I assume we want to attach to Lot 4 of the other subdivision. But can we put that as part of the development agreement, that there would be an easement or access from Lot 4 of -- Siddoway: I don't know if we can require an easement on Lot 4, since it's not part of the application. I do see what you're saying. If the lot line adjustment becomes not feasible for some reason and has to be platted, we are creating a landlocked lot, so -- Zaremba: With no access anyway. Borup: But that may not be so bad, because there is no sewer to it. The only part that could access it would be the owner that owns the other two lots. So, someone else couldn't develop it, which is probably what we are trying to accomplish anyway, isn't it? Not having other development back there? Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Does that make sense? But maybe having that restriction would be prohibit anybody else from doing anything on it, except for what's proposed. Zaremba: J ust n of p rovide a ccess, u nless i t w orks o ut w ith Lot 4 s eparately, b ut w e didn't require it. Okay. I can go with that. Borup: I was just thinking out loud. Mr. Brown, anything you'd like to add to that? Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- Steve, do you have a -- kind of an overall -- just -- the question from Mr. Brown was to try and find out where we currently have sewer. Currently, of course, this development is served. We don't have anything that extends over -- I have gat sewer to this point right here in Fairview. It flows back to the west. And then we have sewer, of course, down on what would be the Pine Street extension we have a main trunk line. We also have sewer at this point right here that flows back this direction. I did not look at my -- my facility plan map before I came, but I believe that the line that this would sewer to would be either the line in Fairview or this one if it comes across, you know, future development of those parcels in there, so it could be some time. Borup: Mr. Brown. Brown: Thank you. Kent Brown. 1800 West Overland, Boise, Idaho, is my business address. Grateful to be the last one and enjoy all that goes on and learn about that luckily we are a legal land division, so we don't have to worry about that, but we don't want to do a subdivision. We want to do a lot line adjustment. Other jurisdictions that Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 79 of 83 we deal with do allow other subdivisions and I know that that's new ground for Meridian, but other jurisdictions allow us, if we are doing a lot line adjustment, to go from subdivision to subdivision, so we are hoping that that's the case. The issue -- and I think you have pretty much resolved them -- is that we want to continue to use the residence while we can, at the same time offering it for sale and hoping that someone wants to extend the sewer down Fairview. That's been our anticipation is what they'd have to do and I believe it's on the north side of Fairview. I know that the other properties on the south side and some of the ones that are even annexed are not connected to sewer, but we don't plan on anticipating or changing the use until such time as we have sewer and we are agreeable with that. Zaremba: Would it be acceptable to say that the residence had to be abandoned as soon as sewer is available, whether you're ready to hook up to it or not? Brown: Mr. Cortabitarte is here and he would like to speak to you about the residence, so I will let him speak to that. If I was to make a recommendation is that we eliminate special condition one on page six, that we modify the sewer service to the last sentence, but make the new commercial frontage undevelopable until sewer is available and, then, on site specific comments eliminate the second item, the existing sewer, and go along with your suggestion of how to word that for the development agreement. And I think that that takes care of our concerns. Zaremba: I would ask one other thing and maybe staff would chime in on it, too. The front portion of this being C-G and a fairly narrow property -- first, I guess, would you be willing and, second, can we ask that whatever design you have for the C-G property include access to the neighboring properties without off-street access, in other words, so that we have a continuous way for people to travel from property to property without going back onto Fairview? Brown: I guess I would hope that we would do that at the conditional use time and not at the annexation. That would be my hope. Zaremba: That may be the more appropriate place to put it, as a matter of fact. Brown: We'd know what the site plan is and we will be working with the neighbor at that point. To me, that's a more appropriate time. Borup: And I hope that they'd understand that that's what we would expect, you know, at that time. Zaremba: I saw a nod. I think staff may be agreeing with the way you put it. Brown: Okay. Zaremba: As opposed to the way I put it. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 80 of 83 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I recommend addressing the access issue at the conditional use stage. If there was not a conditional use required, we would probably need to address it now, but the fact that a conditional use would be required for any use in the future, that gives us the opportunity to address the stubbing of access to other properties at that time. We can also deal with the idea of -- if the lot line adjustment for some reason is not allowed and we end up needing to plat this property, which may not be necessary, we can -- we just checked and there is no frontage requirement for I-L, so we could create this as an I-L -- the lower portion as an I-L lot with across-access easement over the front portion, if it comes to that. But I recommend just leaving that out of this motion at this time and we can deal with it at City Council, if necessary. Borup: Assuming that we will get the lot line adjustment approved. Siddoway: Yeah. Because the lot line adjustment is submitted and I did verify that the city engineer has it, but seeing as how this -- the boundary adjustment is between city property and county property, they can't do a lot line adjustment until both properties are in the city, so he's holding it until -- you know, pending the outcome of this application. Borup: Okay. Okay. Does that answer it? Except for the question on the residence and -- sir, you were going to address that? Cortabitarte: Mr. Chairman and Commission Members, my name is Jack Cortabitarte. I live at 3115 Crescent Rim Drive, Boise, Idaho. The residence was owned by my uncle, who passed away three years ago and three years prior to that I took care of him and put him in a nursing home, so the home has, actually, been vacant for six years and our intention is, if we get this zoning that we are asking of C-G, that we will put the property up for sale and when I saw the staff's most recent considerations on the existing residence, to say that it should be abandoned immediately, it is now. But we have a problem and why I'm asking and requesting your consideration to remove that contingency that it be abandoned. It recently was burglarized, vandalized, and I'm working with the Ada County sheriffs department on the property. We are doing two things as a family. We are improving the landscaping around the property, so it doesn't appear to be abandoned and vacant, which it currently does. And, second of all, our family would like the option that if the vandalism continues on this property, that we can put a family member or someone in the residence to watch the property until such time the property is sold. And by having this consideration that the property immediately has to be abandoned and the reality that we may not sell this property tomorrow, we are asking for reconsideration of that on the residence. We would be more than willing to have a time zone or if you say until we sell it or until sewer comes, if I understand that correctly, we are open to all of that. Our intent is not to do anything other than have the leeway to put someone in that property if we have to keep it safe. Borup: Questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 81 of 83 ,Zaremba: Well, yeah, it sounds like you're reasonably comfortable with my off-the-wall suggestion that it be abandoned when the sewer is available and not before. It's not really usable --even if it's rezoned C-G right now, it's not usable as a C-G u ntil the sewer is there. Cortabitarte: Yes. Zaremba: And I agree with you being able to continue to use it as a residence, but would that timing be acceptable to you, say that when the sewer is there, then, it needs to be abandoned as a residence? Cortabitarte: Yes. Zaremba: At that point it's salable and -- Cortabitarte: Yes. Zaremba: -- developable as a C-G, whether you sell it or develop it yourself, it can really be a C-G as soon as the sewer is available. So, that would be an acceptable -- Cortabitarte: Yes. Zaremba: -- compromise? Cortabitarte: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: I'm surprised you never had someone in it before now. That's a -- Cortabitarte: So are we after what we have -- but it's pretty bad. It's kind of brutal. Tore up a lot of things and -- Borup: Yeah. It makes sense to at least have a little bit of -- Cortabitarte: And it's exposed, you know. It's right on Fairview and very bold and -- so, anyway, any other questions? Thank you. Borup: That answered it, I think, didn't it? Okay. It sounds like your idea would work there. If not, are we ready to move on? Zaremba: Yeah. I just -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yeah. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 82 of 83 Siddoway: When you're making the motion about abandonment upon sewer coming to the property, we would like to make sure that that is clear; that it doesn't necessarily mean that the structure has to be demolished and that we are just talking about a residential use because the building could be adaptively reused as an office or some other use. Borup: That was my assumption, too. Zaremba: I will phrase it that the residential use of it must be -- Siddoway: Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. That sounds good. And in that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on Item 11 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 11 on our agenda, AZ 03-026, request for annexation and zoning of 5.11 acres from R-T to C-G and I-L zones for Cortabitarte -- I should have practiced that before I got there. I'm sorry if I did it wrong. -- annexation by Jack Cortabitarte, south of East Fairview Avenue and west of North Eagle Road, to include all staff comments of their memo dated for the hearing December 4, 2003, received by the clerk November 25, 2003. With the following change: On page six, under site specific comments, paragraph three, the second bullet, the existing residence may continue as a legal nonconforming use until such time as sanitary sewer service is available to the property and at that time the residential use of the building shall be abandoned or should I say it shall cease. No other changes. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Well, we got through Item No. 11. Our agenda had 17. Zaremba: Well, we pushed off a couple of the others. Borup: So -- and the Commission did a good job, again, of taking a shortened agenda and expending it out to fill the time.