Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 6, 2003 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 55 of 87 Zaremba: I suspect we have discussed things thoroughly enough that -- Rohm: But we do want Dave to be at the very end for sure. Zaremba: I move that he be the last item on the -- I'm pretty sure the issues are clear enough that we should go through it quickly. Borup: Actually, it may not be that bad. There is a lot of items, but four of them are on one project, you know, and the -- you know, it's multiple things on the same project, so - Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 03-025 Request for annexation and zoning of 57.84 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Blue Marlin by W. H. Moore Company - northwest comer of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road: Borup: All right. Item number nine. We have received -- somewhere we have received a written request to have this item continued to January. Zaremba: And open the Public Hearing to do that or -entertain it without -- Borup: Well, no, we - Zaremba: Otherwise, it becomes a notice issue. Borup: Right. So, I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-025, request for annexation and zoning of 57 -- Gabbert: Chairman Borup? Over here. Borup: Oh. Sorry, Chris. Gabbert: That's all right. If you want to table that, then, it would require new motions -- I'm sorry, new notices made -- Borup: Right. Gabbert: -- for January. If you open it, then, you will need to continue it. So, that's the technical difference. I realize you guys were discussing that at the last -- two weeks ago and whatnot. So, if you open it, you table it, and -- Borup: No. If we open it, we continue it. If we don't open it, we table it. Gabbert: Thank you. Borup: But tabling it would require new notification, is that what you're saying? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 56 of 87 Gabbert: Yeah. Correct. Borup: Yeah. I think we finally figured that out last Gabbert: I looked it up, so -- Zaremba: We have been through that a couple times. Borup: Yeah. We did have a question. Okay. 1 have opened the Public Hearing. I don't think staff has anything that you wanted to comment on. Commissioners, motion? Zaremba: Nobody here to testify on that item. Mr. Chairman, I move we continue AZ 03-025 to our meeting of January -- I believe it was the 15th, 2004. I'm seeing head nods confirming that date, so that's my motion. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? A question I have is what's supposed to happen by then? I mean the -- you know, I thought maybe they just wanted to work on their design, but from what was said earlier, they are not sure if they even want to go the direction that staff has been talking about? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, I did talk with Jonathan Seal, who is representing W.H. Moore Company just yesterday, he's the one that turned in the letter to the city on the company's behalf and after reading staffs recommendation to have this be a true mixed use project and potentially include some residential in there, they had grave concerns about that, to the degree that they wanted to have more in-depth discussions with staff about -- about particularly the residential component. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: As I think his letter said, it's a 60 million plus investment and they are not prepared to go into a public hearing setting until some more information is given to them about staffs perceptions and views of the mixed use regional designation of the Comp Plan. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: So -- Borup: So, we may not have anything in January, but at least a direction should be decided on, hopefully. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, ZOO3 Page 57 of 87 Rohm: And I would like to say, though, that if, in fact, we don't come to resolve in January, it would probably behoove us to table it at that point and they will renotice it to come before -- as in we wouldn't continue it once again and so -- Zaremba: I would agree with that. Rohm: That seems appropriate. Bonap: I think it probably is. I can remember back five years ago there was one project that was continued for like a year and a half almost or something. It just kept getting continued every couple months each time and that got a little ridiculous. Rohm: Well -- and I think that as a project changes, if it changes substantially it may be advantageous to renotice it and so -- I don't think there is anything wrong with continuing it this once, but beyond that I think it would be appropriate to just table it. Zaremba: While we are in discussion, there are actually two things I would ask. This -- this is a request only for annexation and I think we are having this discussion, because it i s n of a ccompanied with a ny k ind o f a concept d swing, which u p u ntil t he p roject across Ustick from this, has been a requirement and we kind of waived it for that one, because they didn't want to cooperate and provide one -- Borup: And I think as mentioned in the staff comments -- Zaremba: But how a slippery a slope are we going down by we will consider it without a concept drawing. Borup: Yeah, and part of the reason on the other one there was multiple property owners, where this one it's, really, all one developer -- I mean two properties, but he's in control of --of the whole project, which means it's a lot more appropriate to have a concept. Zaremba: Well -- and to me having the concept helps us decide whether the zone that they are asking for is the right thing or not. I meaning if we are going to zone something -- annex it and zone it, we need some idea whether -- or at least staff needs some idea whether the requested zoning has any validity. I mean not just because the Comprehensive Plan has something, but -- is staff -how comfortable are you with not having a concept plan? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I guess, first of all, since the applicant isn't here, I just am hesitant to talk too much about their project, but, in general, yeah, we -- you know, the' ordinance says you can apply for annexation and it doesn't say you have to submit a concept plan, so we don't have the ability at staff level to actually not accept an annexation application. Meridian Planning E Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 58 of 87 Zaremba: But the process has always included -- Hawkins-Clark: And we certainly have encouraged strongly at the pre-application meeting, that that occur. As Mr. Strite, who is in the audience, can testify on the Kissler property. But that being said, yeah, we have no ability to not accept the application if want to move ahead, particularly when there is a development agreement that's in the process. Zaremba: Okay. My second question is sort of unrelated to that, but my recollection is that the project just to the west of the project that we are talking about here, didn't they include some storage units that the intention was to be the buffer between residential and non-residential? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, they did. Zaremba: So, in approving that one, everybody's concept was there that would not be any residential in the one we are talking about today. Is that true? Borup: I think that's a logical conclusion from what went on before. Zaremba: Yeah. Because they were preparing the buffer for this not to have any residential. Just a thought. Borup: That was based on the -- Zaremba: On the old Comprehensive Plan, I guess, but -- Borup: No, the current Comprehensive Plan. Okay. We had a motion and second. That was a long discussion. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 03-049 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Emissions Testing Center in a C-C zone for Hark's Corner Emission Center by L&J Capital Ventures, LLC -1651 West Franklin Road: Borup: Okay. I guess we could go ahead. Next Item, Public Hearing CUP 03-049, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an emissions testing center in a C-C zone for Hark's Corner Emission Center by L&J Capital Ventures at 1651 West Franklin. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, this is an application for a Conditional Use Permit for an emissions testing center. This application is here tonight because it's been deemed to be quasi-public use, which requires a Conditional Use Permit. That's why Ithink this isone of the first times we are seeing an emissions testing center as a Conditional Use Permit. The subject property is located at the