Loading...
2015 06-18Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 18, 2015 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June18, 2015, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley. Present: Chairman Yearsley, Commissioner Gregory Wilson, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Absent: Commissioner Patrick Oliver. Others Present: Machelle Hilll, Ted Baird, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call X Gregory Wilson X Patrick Oliver X Rhonda McCarvel X Ryan Fitzgerald X Steven Yearsley - Chairman Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the hearing date of June 18th, 2015. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Yearsley: Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. I have no changes, so with that can I get a motion to approve -- or to adopt the agenda. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I would move we accept the agenda as written. Wilson: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as written. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of June 4, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 15- 010 Papa Murphy's by James Wylie Located 2723 S. Bartlett Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Restaurant in an L-O Zoning District Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have on there the approval of the minutes of June 4th, 2015, Planning and Zoning meeting and, then, the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for the CUP 15-010, Papa Murphy's. Is there any changes to the meeting minutes or -- at this point or -- if not, I would entertain a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I would move we adopt the Consent Agenda as submitted. Wilson: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Before we go onto the next, I want to kind of go through the process of the public hearing, how it will go tonight. We will open each item one by one and we will start off with the staff report. The staff will comment on the application and present their findings and how it regards to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations. After the staff has had a chance to make their presentation, the applicant will have an opportunity to come forward and present their case for approval and respond to any staff comment at that time. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to make their presentation. After that we will open it up to public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back, anybody wishing to testify can sign up and they will be given three minutes to comment on the application and -- and if they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA and there is a show of hands, they will be given up to ten minutes. After the public has had an opportunity to testify, the applicant will have an opportunity to come back and rebut the comments from the public and he will be given up to ten minutes to do so. After that we will the close the public hearing and discuss and deliberate and hopefully make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued from June 4, 2015: RZ 14-007 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone of 3.05 Acres from R-15 to TN- R; 1.67 Acres from R-4 to R-8; and 0.83 of an acre from R-8 to R-4 B. Public Hearing Continued from June 4, 2016: PP 14-017 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 167 Single -Family Residential Building Lots and 329 Common/Other Lots on 48.56 Acres of Land in the R-4, R-8 and TN-R Zoning Districts Yearsley: So, with that let's open the public -- the continued public hearing of June 4th, 2015, of RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017 and let's begin with the staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The applications before you tonight are a request for a rezone and preliminary plat. This project was heard by the Commission on December 4th of 2014. The Commission requested the applicant revise Block 3 -- and I will just get to that real quick here -- which is this -- this block right here -- along the southern boundary of the site to comply with the maximum block length standards listed in the UDC and to provide examples of the various architectural styles and types that are proposed for this project. The hearing was left open for discussion of these items. Since that time the project has been continued several times. It was renoticed by the clerk for the June 4th hearing, but was continued again to tonight's hearing. The applicant has submitted a revised plat as shown that complies with the maximum block length standards. Pictures demonstrating architectural styles and types of homes proposed to be constructed within this development and design guidelines as requested. I believe we have a couple new commissioners since this originally went through, so I'm just going to go ahead and go through and recap on the whole application again, so bear with me for those of you that already heard it. So, here is a zoning and aerial view of the property. This site consists of 48.56 acres of land. It's currently zoned R-4, R-8, R-15 and TN-R and is located south of West Overland Road on the west side of South Linder Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north are future single family residential properties in Southridge Subdivision No. 1, zoned R-8 and TN-R and vacant undeveloped property, zoned RUT in Ada County and TN-C. To the east is North Linder Road and future single family residential properties in Fall Creek Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the south is the Ridenbaugh Canal and rural residential properties in Aspen Cove and Ariel Estates Subdivision, zoned RUT in Ada County and to the west is the Ridenbaugh Canal and vacant, undeveloped land, zoned R-2, R-4 and R-15 that's also of the Southridge development. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this site is medium density residential over the majority of this site, 48 plus acres, and medium high density residential for approximately three acres of the site. The applicant requests a rezone of 3.05 acres of land from R-15 to TN-R, 1.67 acres from R-4 to R-8 and .83 of an acre from R-8 to R-4, which staff deems generally consistent with the medium density residential and medium high density residential future land use map designation for this site. Here is just a little rezone exhibit here that demonstrates the zoning. The proposed rezone to R-4 and R-8 will clean up the existing zoning boundaries in accord with the proposed preliminary plat and the proposed rezone to TN-R, will increase the area of the existing TN-R zoned area. Development of the northwest portion of the site proposed to be zoned TN-R is governed under the Southridge Apartments development agreement. Prior to Council action on the subject rezone plat the development agreement is required to be modified to include a concept plan for that area consistent with the proposed plat. A preliminary plat is proposed. It consists of 168 single family residential building lots, which is more -- one more than originally proposed on that plat to your left and 32 common lots on 48.56 acres of land. The overall gross density for the subdivision is 3.43 dwelling units per acre, with a range of densities between 2.22, 3.74, and 5.91 units per acre between the R-4, R-8, and TN-R zoned areas respectively. Access is proposed via existing streets to West Overland and South Linder Roads. Stub streets constructed with phase one are proposed to be extended with this development. Stub streets to adjacent undeveloped parcels to the north and west are also proposed for future extension in accord with the concept plan approved for this site. Common driveways are proposed for access to the lots along the southern boundary of the site and these are right here that you see. Landscaping is proposed along Linder Road, an arterial street, and South Spanish Sun Way, a collector street, in accord with UDC standards. I apologize, I had to kind of copy and paste here different sheets of the plan together, so it's a little disjointed. A segment of the city's multi -use pathway is proposed along the frontage of Block 3. So, that's across the front of this block right here where my arrow is. And along the west side of Linder Road consistent with the pathways master plan. Detached sidewalks with parkways are proposed throughout the development. Staff recommends the landscaping and pathway along Linder is installed with the first phase of development. 5.31 acres or 11 percent of the site is proposed to be qualified open space in accord with UDC standards. A minimum of two site amenities are required. Applicant proposes a ten foot wide multi -use pathway through the site and along Linder Road and a picnic area as amenities. The applicant is requesting a waiver from Council to allow the Ridenbaugh Canal to remain open and not be piped. Because this is a large facility staff is supportive of the request, provided fencing is constructed to preserve public safety. As previously noted, the applicant has submitted design guidelines and pictures of homes that represent the type of construction planned for this development, which includes one and two story homes, with a mix of three types of building materials, contrasting colors, varying roof lines and five different architectural styles in accord with the development agreement, which requires Council approval of architectural guidelines. A variety in structures within a block is also required. The design guidelines here just represent the -- the pictures for the most part here. Written testimony was received back in December from Jason Densmer, the applicant's representative, response to the staff report. I did revise the staff report at kind of the last minute today. I sent a memo out to the Commission last week, but after looking at the staff report a little bit more I thought it would be clearer just to go through and clean up the conditions that no longer applied since the plat's been revised, so you should also have a copy of that tonight. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed rezone and preliminary plat with conditions in Exhibit B of the revised staff report. Staff will stand for any questions Commission may have. Yearsley: Thank you. Before I go any further, I also want to acknowledge that we are opening this public hearing only for the block length and the condition of the home design guidelines. So, with that would the applicant like to come forward. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Densmer: Yes. Thank you. My name is Jason Densmer with The Land Group. 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. Thank you, first off, to the Commission for your patience as we worked through those design guidelines and the modifications to the preliminary plat that were asked for in December. We realize that coming forward tonight did require us to ask to have the application continued several times and we are certainly appreciative that that was acceptable to you. We are pleased with the modifications that have come together now and I think that the changes we have made have improved the project as you intended and helped clarify the intent of the architectural design and the homes that would be built there. That's really all I have to add, unless you had questions specific to the -- the new application materials. I would say that we have had a chance to review the revised staff report that was issued today and are in support of staff's recommended conditions as written. Yearsley: Okay. Are there any questions? No? Thank you. Densmer: Thank you. Yearsley: I have one person signed up. Steve Prizbos. Prizbos: Prizbos. Yearsley: Prizbos. Would you like to come forward? Well, we need you to -- to talk in the microphone. Prizbos: I'd to look it over, the whole map of the whole project, where everything is located. Yearsley: State your name and address for the record and, then, just -- Prizbos: Steve Prizbos. 4530 South Del Rey Lane. Yearsley: Thank you. And, then, if you would -- that's the overview of the whole site. And if you want to go to the next one, show him the -- Watters: Mr. Prizbos, did you want to see the aerial on the zoning or did you want to see the plat? Prizbos: The plat versus where I'm at and where this is at. Watters: Okay. So, this map shows the boundaries of the property that's proposed to be platted. I believe you're over in this area? Prizbos: Okay. I'm -- we are upside down. Okay. Yeah. Watters: The top is north. Prizbos: So, we are looking at the northeast corner -- Watters: Yes. Prizbos: -- is what you're talking about? Watters: Yes. Prizbos: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. I don't have anybody else signed up to testify. Would -- is there anybody else? With that I will assume no one else wants to testify. Mr. Densmer, do you want to -- I don't know if there is anything to rebut with that -- okay. He, basically, stated there was nothing else to add. So, with that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017. Wilson: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I move to close the public hearing on RZ 15-007 and PP 14-017. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Comments or thoughts? I know you guys haven't -- I guess if you would, at least with this, for the record state that you have had a chance to review the plat, all the conditions, and what was heard last time and actually -- so, you're -- I'll let -- Baird: Mr. Chair, I think what you're saying is you'd like each of the commissioners, Commissioner Wilson and Commissioner Fitzgerald, who weren't here in December, just to state that they have reviewed the record and they are comfortable with all the facts and they are comfortable deliberating and making a decision tonight. Yearsley: Yes. Baird: And we'd like to hear from them if that's correct. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I -- thank you to staff and for the review, but I feel comfortable having reviewed the package and the minutes from the previous meeting and feel comfortable making a decision going forward. Yearsley: Thank you. Wilson: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson. Wilson: I reviewed the minutes here. I have reviewed the facts of the case and I'm comfortable with deliberating -- Yearsley: Okay. Wilson: --on this. Yearsley: Any comments, I guess, with that going forward? I guess I will go. I -- I do like the changes. I think they did a good job meeting the intent of the code and the design' guidelines were nice and be able to see the pictures of how they would -- the homes and stuff. So, I -- I think they will look good and I think it will turn out well. So, if there is no -- are there any additional statements? Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I think the -- I think it looks good. I appreciate the efforts that's been put forward by the applicant and I think it was wise of the Council -- or the Commission to send it back before moving forward. So, I think it's -- it looks good. I think the -- bringing it forward with the density looks good, closer to the apartments. I think it's a good project. Yearsley: Okay. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I appreciate the photos and all the detail that's gone into displaying the housing that's going to be there and the work that they did on making it up to code with the block length. Yearsley: All right. Thank you. So, with that I would entertain a motion. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 18th, 2015. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: With no modifications? McCarvel: With staff's recommendation. Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: Second again. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve -- to approve file number RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing: CUP 15-011 CFT Retail Drive-Thru Building A by Charlie Shen Located Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of an Existing Drive- Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning District D. Public Hearing: CUP 15-013 CFT Retail Drive-Thru Building B by Charlie Shen Located Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of a Proposed Drive- Thru Establishment in a C-G Zoning District Yearsley: For the next item we are going to open both of these items at the same time, because they are in close proximity and the same site, but since they are two separate applications we will have to make motions individually for each one of these. So, with that I will open file numbers CUP 15-011 and CUP 15-013, CFT retail drive-thru and let's begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda this evening will be two conditional use permits for the CFT retail drive-thru Building Pad A and Pad B sites. You can see here on the aerial on your left here that the site is currently zoned C-G within the city and it's surrounded by properties that are zoned C-G as well. Currently there is a Walmart store that it is built northwest of this site and the only other commercial development, as you can see in the aerial, is the commercial development located on the southeast corner. The surrounding properties are currently vacant as well. The applicant is here this evening to discuss constructing two drive-thru uses on the same parcel of ground. Recently the subdivision, which you acted on several months ago, called the Coleman Subdivision, was recorded and this was a lot and block that was approved with that subdivision. Also later -- or in 2008 this property went through a rezone and a Comprehensive Plan map amendment for a concept plan for a retail development, which is consistent with the site plan before you this evening. As part of that approval the City Council did approve and record a development agreement, which is also subject to this piece of ground as well, so moving forward they will have to comply with the recorded development agreement as well. The graphics on the left-hand side depicts how this proposed development will interact with the adjacent Walmart store here, so this is the entire 26 acre site or a majority of it here. When the applicant came forward to staff we wanted to make sure how this development would interface with the adjacent property to the west and the Walmart store moving forward. We wanted to insure it was consistent with that concept plan as I mentioned to you with the -- that's required with the recorded development agreement. The applicant was -- also sought and approved -- received approval from the director for an alternative compliance application to allow a majority of the parking between the buildings and the adjacent streets and I will get into that more as I get into the landscaping plan. So, the site plan on the right-hand side is, basically, a zoomed in version of this proposed development. For purposes of the two applications this will -- the pad site -- the western pad site will be known as Pad A and the northern -- I guess the northeast corner will be Pad B. So, the pad site A will consist of an 8,600 square foot multi -tenant building. The end user for the drive-thru use will be a restaurant, which is a permitted use in the C-G zoning district. You can see here that the actual stacking lane comes along the western boundary with an exit lane on the south side of the building. The proposed drive-thru for this portion of the site is consistent with the UDC standards. The pad site B, again, will have a 2,500 square foot building -- at least that's what's depicted this evening. At this time this is merely speculative. The applicant does not have an end user for this building. They merely want to establish the drive-thru use in order to be able to market the pad site and get further interest in having someone locate in conjunction with the restaurant use and the other multi -tenant building. Access to this development was approved -- was approved with not only the Walmart store, but also the Coleman Subdivision. If you go back to the graphic on the west -hand -- or the left-hand side you can see here there is a right -in, right -out only access to Ten Mile along the north boundary of the proposed development and, then, the access road that you see here to McMillan is also a right -in, right -out, which during the review as a commercial subdivision, staff did require a cross -access agreement for this property to use those access points. So, no other access points are approved -- requested or approved with the application before you this evening. The landscape buffers around the perimeter along McMillan and North Ten Mile Road were approved -- reviewed and approved with the Walmart store and subsequently approved with the Coleman Subdivision as well. As I mentioned to you earlier in my presentation, the applicant has received alternative compliance in order to modify those buffers. Typically under our design review standards we don't like to have the parking area being the primary focal point along -- adjacent to streets, we want the building to be the primary focal point. The applicant has presented an alternative compliance to enhance the landscape buffer and provide a decorative feature at the entry corner -- or at the intersection, which staff feels does enhance the development and also provides screening from the adjacent Walmart store parking as well. So, I think the applicant's argument states that the building -- having the back of the building and the drive-thru being the predominant feature along the street, in this particular scenario staff feels is probably more prudent to have landscaping and a decorative feature, rather than having the back of a building and the drive-thru use. So, we did side with the applicant -- or the director did find -- make the findings to approve that alternative compliance. Staff has a condition in the staff report that requires that those improvements be put in prior to occupancy of the first drive-thru, the first structure on the site and we would be looking for consistency with those standards as well. As you see here in the upper right-hand corner that's what we envision looking at. As part of that alternative compliance the applicant has also provided additional landscaping within the parking lot to help break up the parking, get some more landscaping in there as well and, then, also they have received alternative compliance to convert two the internal parking items into patio areas for outdoor seating as well and, again, there is a detail of that and it will be brick pavers, which will be consistent not -- with the proposed building materials of the structures. So, here are the two elevations for you this evening. The larger building would be the color rendering and the smaller building was proposed for the speculative site. Proposed building materials consist of stucco, brick, stone, tile and glass, of course. Staff is supportive -- or staff finds that these elevations do comply with the UDC that -- the design guidelines and the Meridian design manual. Moving forward the applicant will have to go through the CZC and design review process with the city before they can get a building permit on the site. The only recommendation to the proposed elevations to you this evening would be along this west elevation or the rear elevation. If you look at the color rendering here you can -- you will note that the applicant has provided a -- a metal banding strip along those elevations and also on the proposed elevations for pad site B. Staff has a recommended condition that that design element be placed along this back building as well. Staff has not received any written testimony on this application. We are not sure if the applicant is in agreement with our staff report, but they are here this evening as well. Staff finds that this site does generally comply with the Comprehensive Plan of commercial designations for this site and complies with the -- as conditioned in the staff report does comply with the requirements of the UDC. I will conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you might have. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Lee: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Crystal Lee from Gary Wang and Associates, 1255 Corporate Center Drive in Monterrey Park, California, and we agree with the staff recommendations. We are in agreement with -- with the minor recommendation -- sorry. With the minor recommendations that they have put on site. We have been working closely with Bill on this site design to make a really nice project that we feel will benefit Meridian and the residents. Thank you. Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No. Thank you. Lee: Thank you. Yearsley: Since there is no one else in the audience to testify, we won't have her come back and -- I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on CUP 15-011 and CUP 15-13. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I move we close the public hearing on CUP 15-011 and CUP 15-013. McCarvel: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: Comments? You know, I look at it -- I think they have done a good job. I like alternative compliance with the entry feature. I think that will stand out and I think it will make it look really nice. I like how they have kind of -- with the drive-thrus that they have oriented away from the buildings and into the street side, so I think it will look nice and it looks like it flows well, so I think it looks -- looks really well. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I think -- I agree with you completely. I think it's -- I mean it's a commercial use already. The Walmart parking lot is kind of vast and large and I think the features that they have provided give a buffer -- exactly what Bill said. You have a feature that breaks that up. I mean it will kind of -- gives a little bit of a buffer between the giant parking lot that you see as you drive by right now. So, I think it -- I think it's good. It looks nice. Yearsley: Thank you. With that if there is no other comments, I would entertain a motion -- let's start with Item No. CUP 15-011 first. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 15-011 as presented in the staff report for hearing date on June 18th, 2015. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: So we can go onto the next one. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to approve file number CUP 15-013 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 18th, 2015. And I think we -- do we need this on the first one? Do we need to -- Fitzgerald: Alternative -- Yearsley: I think the alternative -- McCarvel: Staff needs to prepare findings document to be considered -- Yearsley: Yes. McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on July 2nd, 2015. Fitzgerald: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number CUP 15-013. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: With that we have one last motion to make. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Yearsley: Commissioner Yearsley. Fitzgerald: I move that we adjourn the meeting. Wilson: Second. Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. All in favor say aye. Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Yearsley: We stand adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:30 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED STEVEN YEARSLEY - CFWfRkAN ATTEST: JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK -7 I2-I,g06' DATE APPROVED `0QpRATEOgLCGr1 -�u ^y S 10 p,„N7 r! A •''�° ldFASu�Bv �