Loading...
2010 01-21Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 21, 2010 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 21, 2010, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Chairman Michael Rohm, Commissioner Joe Marshall, Commissioner Tom O'Brien, Commissioner Scott Freeman. Members absent: Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Ted Baird, Anna Canning, Bill Parsons, Scott Steckline and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Tom O'Brien X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall X Michael Rohm -Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd to call the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin with the roll call of the Commissioners. Rohm: Okay. Before we start tonight's meeting I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome Scott Freeman to the Commission and if you have got a few words you'd like to say, this is probably the opportunity. Freeman: Oh, impromptu speech. No. I'm just happy to be here and to be able to serve on this Commission, looking forward to working with all of you in the community. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Okay. With that being said, at this time I'd like to open the Consent Agenda and there are two Items on this - Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Hill: Mr. Chair, we need to adopt the agenda. Rohm: Oh. I guess we should do that. The adoption of the agenda. There will be one change. On Item 4, it will be continued, but we will continue that at the time that it comes up on the agenda. But other than that, everything else remains as is. So, could I get a motion to accept the agenda? Marshall: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 21, 2010 Page 2 of 12 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed the same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of January 7, 2010 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 09-012 Request for Conditional Use Permit for aSelf-Service Storage Facility consisting of 10 buildings on approximately 3.49 acres in an existing C-G zoning district for Linder Self-Service Storage Facility by Chip Gallagher -east side of Linder Road, approximately'/4 mile north of McMillan Road: Rohm: All right. At this time the Consent Agenda has two items on it. Item A is the approval of the minutes from the January 7, 2010, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the second item is the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 09-012. Are there any changes to the minutes? Marshall: I have none. Rohm: Okay. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda? O'Brien: So moved. Marshall: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from December 3, 2009: MCU 09-002 Request to modify the building elevations approved with the Conditional Use Permit for Avendale (fka Silver Oaks) by Engineering Solutions - north side of W. Franklin Road, approximately'/4 mile west of N. Ten Mile Road: Rohm: Okay. The next item on the agenda is a continued public hearing from December 3rd, 2009, of MCU 09-002 for Avendale fka Silver Oaks. And there has been a request to continue that to February 11th and at this time I am looking for a motion from the Commission to either continue it to that date or another date. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 21, 2010 Page 3 of 12 Marshall: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we continue MCU 09-002, to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 11th. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue public hearing from December 3rd, 2009, MCU 09-002 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 11th, 2010. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 09-013 Request for a Coinditional Use Permit for a Church on approximately 4.65 acres (proposed Lot 1, Block 1 of the Five Twelve Subdivision) in an existing R-8 zoning diistrict for Five Twelve LDS Church by Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -west side of Stoddard, midway between Overland Road and Victory Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CUP 09-013 and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Before you this evening is a conditional use permit for a church use in an R-.g zoning district. If you will recall at your last meeting you -- the Commission acted on the preliminary plat on this lot where the church is proposed to be located on was a lot that was in the process of being created through the platting process. The property is situated between Overland Road and Victory Road on the west side of Stoddard. Again, it's currently zoned R-8. To the north is RUT property in Ada County. To the south is single family residential property, zoned R-4. To the east -- excuse me -- to the west is also R-8 zoned property and that was the previous platted property known as Bear Creek West. That plat has expired. And, then, to the south you have Ada County residential -- or Ada County property zoned RUT as well. The application before you tolnight, again, is a CUP and also design review for the site improvements. This is pretty much what you saw with the preliminary plat. You can see the church site, the improvements, the access points. I believe at the last hearing Commissioner Newton-Huckabay made some reference to the access to Stoddard. At the time you looked at that plat we did not have comments from ACHD. When I was doing the staff report for this project I contacted ACHD and asked them to submit comment to us. They did that in the form of draft comments. They aren't official yet, but for the record their draft comments made mention to this application and it was their recommendation that that accE:ss on Stoddard Road be shifted and shared along the southern boundary. So, if you could see the arrow here, ACRD is asking that that move to the south to provide Future connectivity for the remaining parcel that will probably plat as single family residential. One thing -- I think staff laid it out pretty well in the staff report, but one thing to just point out from our -- from our analysis and when we were looking at this, a couple things are in conflict with what ACHD is proposing or recommending with that change. First requirement is if it's Meridian Planning & Zoning January 21, 2010 Page 4 of 12 shared -- typically when we require cross-access it's for property to share between nonresidential uses. The church site is going to be nonresidential. However, the property to the south is planned for residential. On the Corrrp Plan it's medium density residential and the current zoning district is R-8. So, staff in our code would prohibit access being shared for a commercial driveway for a residenltial subdivision. So, really, in order to facilitate that access as ACHD has recommended, it would require the applicant to submit a new preliminary plat and dedicate a public street or public right of way to create a local street, so that those homes and the church could take access from that. If that was the case I don't believe the UDC would allow that street to happen at that location. We would want it to happen off of Kodia4c and we would want the residential to take access from an internal street networN;. So, that's a couple of complex -- like I said, so one would be the fact that the property to the south won't be nonresidential uses, based on what we have in place. ACHD made some assumptions that that could happen and at this date nothing's been planned for that. As I speak tonight it is planned for residential. I also put in the concept plan that the applicant submit it with the preliminary plat, just to kind of refresh your memory as well and you can see how they have -- show the church site and show how at least that seven acres could potentially develop. I mean staff, basically wanted -- with this concept plan staff really wanted to see how it would lay out with residential lots adjacent to the church use to see if it would be compatible. That was the basis for this concept plan. So, you can see here that they aren't proposing access to Stoddard or a shared access with the church and they are providing internal street network wii:h streets stubbing to the western boundary and a possible street connection to Kodiak with phase two. So, in this scenario there -- it could work without having a shared access to Stoddard. Here is the landscape plan that staff evaluated. Again, the landscape buffers along streets were evaluated with the plat. This site plan is still consistent with those street buffers. All the internal landscaping is consistent with the UDC. The applicants also provided 20 buffers along the western boundary and southern boundaryry of their site. They are currently zoned R-8. It doesn't require a 20 foot buffer, but the applicant anticipates residential around them, so they have done a nice job of providing that additional buffering, realizing that they are a nonresidential use next to future residential properties. Here are the elevations, at least aconcept -- a colored elevation rendering of what they are proposing. One thing speaking with the applicant tonight, I noticed in looking at the elevations, this elevation doesn't show an attached seminary and that's what they are proposing with the elevations that they submitted with this application. Typically, when an LDS church develops on a site if they are close to a high school, they will develop -- they will also add a seminary to their facility for those high school students. The RUT property to the north will, eventually -- imay be planned for a high school in the future, so I wanted to go on record to let you know that this is also a church, plus a seminary addition to it, and that will be attached to the building. So, this rendering doesn't quite show that, but it will be constructed of a similar material, the brick, the stucco, and the architectural shingles. So, staff is supportive of those elevations as I have noted in the staff report. I did receive comments from the applicant. They are in agreement with the staff report. No issues. And the only outstanding issue is what I mentioned is the access to Stoddard. With that I'll stand for any questions Commission may have. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 21, 2010 Page 5 of 12 Rohm: Thank very much. Any questions of staff? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. Bill, quick question. Just refresh my memory. The additional phase two area is still zoned R-8 and all that Bear Creek I believe it's called to the left there is still also R-8 there to the left? Parsons: Commissioner Marshall -- Marshall: It's Bear Wood, but is that Bear Creek? Parsons: Commissioner Marshall, that is correct. The R-8 zoning that you see west of this property, that's what was annexed and zoned with the Bear Creek West property. What has happened is plans have changed, the economy has changed, and so the applicant has someone that wants to develop the site. Marshall: Right. Parsons: Now, the applicant selling the property to the church and at this time they don't have any plans of moving forward with the residential plat. So, it's really the intention to get the church lot platted and at some point that seven acres would remain under the current ownership that it is today and blend in back to the Bear Wood West Subdivision that you see laid out with this R-8 zoning district. So, that will -- more than likely that remaining parcel with phase two will go back to the original R-8 property that was annexed and zoned back in 2005. Marshall: Okay. Continuing along that line, looking at the future land use map -- this is the zoning map; correct? Parsons: That is correct. Marshall: And so the future land use map shows this entire area to be typically residential. Is there one of the community center areas anywhere close by? Is that -- it should be about a mile away or somewhere? You know what I'm referring to is at every half mile point we had those recommended community center areas that would be C-C or something like that. Parsons: I don't have -- I think Anna is going to go check the map for you, Commissioner Marshall. I believe there is a lot of provisions along Overland that would -- more along the lines of commercial, industrial uses along there. Even farther down, if you look up in the left-hand corner you will see some property zoned TN-R and there is also some TN-C up there along Linder and I think it's the southwest corner of Linder, but I don't know if there is a node south of this property or not, but I will let Anna look at her map over there and I'll get back to you on that. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 21, 2010 Page 6 of 12 Canning: Commissioner Marshall, there is a small neighborhood center -- or neighborhood -- mixed use neighborhood designation where the Venga Works facility is, but that's, really, the closest one along Stoddard, but as you go over to Meridian Road there is one -- the one at Meridian and Victory. Marshall: All right. I appreciate that. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions? Freeman: Yeah. Mr. Chair, I have a question. Bill, you mentioned when you showed the rendering that there was a seminary not indicated in the -- in the rendering. I just want a clarification. Is that a future seminary and is it indicated in the site plan in the elevations as part of the building -- part of the project. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Freeman, that is correct. The renderings that I have in the file, the elevations do show the attached seminary to the building. So, although this color rendering doesn't depict that, the elevations that I evaluated in the staff report does reflect the seminary and I based my analysis on that. Freeman: Okay. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? O'Brien: Mr. Chair, I just have one quick question. Rohm: Yeah. Go ahead. O'Brien: Bill, regards to the access to Stoddard Road from the parking area that's the church, so that's moved down and it's going to change the landscaping, of course, and probably parking stalls. That's still designated as a full access; is that correct? To Stoddard? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner O'Brien, that is correct. That would be a full access to Stoddard. O'Brien: I guess I still have a concern like I had before, that to have a full access, it still seems like it's pretty close to the intersection just north of that. I just have a concern about the traffic trying to get in and out of that access, especially if it's going to be shared with residential and as well as the church and to make alert-hand turn going out onto Stoddard is a concern of mine and I read some of the information from ACHD and they didn't seem to have any concern with that, but I just wanted to voice my opinion that I -- I'm not really for a full access. I think it would be better served with aright-in, right-out and people who want to get into that facility could go down to the next intersection where it's --alight is there and they can make a safe left-hand turn or people coming from the north to the south can usually access the church parking lot and Meridian Planning & Zoning January 21, 2010 Page 7 of 12 also the residential area of the future of that. So, I just wanted to get my comments to that effect. Parsons: And if I could elaborate a little bit more on that for you as well. Certainly when we evaluated this, if you recall with the preliminary plat, the way that our access provision in our ordinance reads, it says they should take access from a local street if it's provided and I think I said they don't have that at this time. This is the first development that's coming in. Both the streets adjacent to the site are collector streets. Certainly the applicant could have designed the site and had two accesses off of Kodiak, but it's still collector to collector. So, when I -- I guess when staff did their analysis they looked at this and said, okay, it's a church use, one where most of their trips happen and that would happen primarily on Sunday. Off peak hours. So, we looked at it, saying, okay, we have two collector streets. At this point we didn't really see where -- whether you had two off of one or one and one and split the difference would affect the access at this point. Certainly if ACHD wants this to be a shared access, then, it becomes a concern for staff as well and the city, because we certainly don't want -- our analysis was based on the church use, not added residential homes and the other thing I'd want to point out is when this was planned for residential back in 2005, those homes would probably generate more trips than this church use and so that's why access wasn't evaluated, except for Kodiak, like they are showing here or at least when that plat was evaluated the only access point they had to start it was Kodiak, because the future homes or the future subdivision was laid out with an internal local street network and that's what we think works best for this property and that's why we wanted to make it clear to you that although we don't want you to think we don't appreciate ACHD's comments, it's just the fact that in order for the applicant to get this access point -- and I do want to point this out to the Commission -- one, either the plat may have to change to get right of way or they are going to have to go before ACHD's commission and get approval for that access point. So, I did write a condition in the staff report with the CUP that if that access point isn't granted where it's proposed and it does change the layout of this site, more than likely they may to come back to you with a revised concept -- revised site plan for your approval, because it may change a lot of things. If access doesn't happen to Stoddard, that influences fire department approval as well, because now they don't -- they only have one access to the site, so they are going to have to develop the site to have a second means of access or at least meet fire department's turning radius requirements to provide that access to that church site. So, there is a lot of things that could happen with this -- with this Stoddard Road access changing or even being eliminated. O'Brien: Thank you. I appreciate that -- those comments. I have one further question. What is the speed limit right now on Stoddard and will it change; do you know? Parsons: Commissioner O'Brien, I don't know. O'Brien: Okay. Just curious. I haven't been out there in quite some time, so I don't know. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 21, 2010 Page 8 of 12 Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. And, please, state your name and address for the record. Larsen: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jill Larsen, I'm with Lowland Johanson & Zimmerman Architecture. We are at 400 South Main Street, Payette. 83661. I hope I get that right. I am pleased to be representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the new construction of a church building and attached seminary. Right now as we are showing it that is with the assumption that there will be a high school. So, there isn't really a concept plan that shows that and they do it two different ways. We can do it all as one building or we can do it in two different submittals where you do the building and, then, do the second permit for the attached seminary. This building would be used primarily on Sundays to accommodate up to 300 occupants. It is the heritage classic style and it is seen throughout the Treasure Valley. We have tried to contact ACHD based on their comments and have not received a response back. As it was a draft letter, I still see it as perhaps something we can work with them on. If that does not occur, we plan on going before the commission. They are willing to allow a shared access to Stoddard, which we believe would incur much more traffic than just having access as shown and we also have a letter from the current property owner, Tuscany Development, stating that they have no plans in the future to access Stoddard in any way. I believe that the concept is to take the remainder of the seven acres and melt it back into the residential and redevelop or I guess have a -- reapply for that. So, we don't see the need or the use for the shared access. I have tried moving it down as well to see how that would work. Right now we have some turn radiuses specifically for the fire department and they were happy with the way that we had the two access points, so that they would have the ease of going in and out on both sides. So, that would kind of restrict us and safety and I believe it's 35 miles per hour, but I can't put any money on that. And as far as if we do have to change the site plan, if they absolutely will not work with us, we probably would be trying to access Kodiak as close to the corner as we could get and, again, that -- that wouldn't serve us as well. Thanks. Do you have any questions? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do have a couple questions. I was a little confused. So, if the high school -- you're basing the seminar on the fact that the high school will be built. Larsen: Correct. Marshall: But if the high school's not built, you're not going to build the seminary? Larsen: Correct. So, then, the western portion of the building basically would not be there. Marshall: So, you're putting everything on hold until the high school is built, you're not building anything until after the high school is built? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 21, 2010 Page 9 of 12 Larsen: We have another building in the Middleton right now that is right next to the new high school and when we started the project it was just the building itself and they decided in a little bit into the process that they did want to do a seminary, so it was kind of the same situation where the site had been developed and it was ready to accommodate it, but they hadn't made the decision whether or not to actually put it with the building. So, it's kind of a separate set of drawings altogether. So, in addition, in a sense. So, it's kind of planned for it, but if they don't use it, we just would -- we would end the building in the typical style. Marshall: So, I'm a little curious here. I was led to believe that the seminary is actually a part of this building. Larsen: It is. Marshall: And that the plans actually have to be changed to remove it and, then, if later the high school was say delayed and it's not built, you build the church, later the high school is built and you want to go back in and put the seminary, is the seminary going to go in the same location or is it going to become separate elsewhere on the property? Larsen: I believe it would be in the same location, because we have nothing allocated for a separate building. Marshall: Okay. Larsen: But it's -- the way that the plans are, they are designed to be a separate entity, so that if you don't have a seminary building you can come in later and add it to the building. Marshall: Okay. Larsen: But we are trying to propose it all as one, so if in the case that they do want to do it all together -- some of the issues we have ran into are a separate building permit or a separate bidding process and having two different contractors wanting to build on the same building. So, we are trying to do it a different way this time. Marshall: I appreciate that. Thank you. Larsen: Sure. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Freeman: Mr. Chair, yes. Ms. Larsen, I -- it's the first time I have seen these draft comments from ACHD and it's the first time I realized that they were requiring you to build a portion of Kodiak, I believe, so that you can have that northern access. Is that something that's been part of your talks with ACHD all along? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 21, 2010 Page 10 of 12 Larsen: Yes. Freeman: So, it's not a surprise? Larsen: The only change was we originally were showing 12 feet north of the landscape island and now they are requiring 24. Freeman: Twenty-one. Okay. Larsen: Or 21. Freeman: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Anything else? Okay. Thank you very much. Larsen: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. At this time it's open to other testimony and there is nobody else that has signed up to offer testimony, but if anyone would like to come forward now is that time. Okay. Good. Marshall: Well, it appears no one else wants to offer testimony, so I would like to make a few comments, sir. Mr. Chair. Rohm: Yes. Please do. Marshall: First off, I think this is of no surprise to us. It is pretty much what we saw a couple weeks ago. Familiar plat coming through. It's exactly what we anticipated. I think the only difference is the ACRD draft comments here. Again, I was for it last time. I think it's very appropriate to have the two accesses -- two full accesses, even to Stoddard, especially considering the vast majority of the traffic will be in the evenings and on the weekends. I think that a church typically -- people come and go from a church kind of all at once and one access is going to really back up and if you force both accesses to that north road, you put one way too close to the intersection and too close together. I do have a little bit of a concern in that I sure would not want to see phase two area develop commercially and, then, require access to the Stoddard, because that puts two accesses to Stoddard very close together and I think that's the basis of ACHD's comments there, is that if it went commercial that does offer two accesses to Stoddard very close together and that does concern me a bit. But also given the fact that on the land use map we do not have that marked down to ever go -- we don't want to see it go. As a city we have even made the recommendation we'd like to see that stay residential. It's zoned residential and I think it will remain residential, and based on that, seeing the conceptual plan, how it would feed into that Bear Creek on the west, I think you get multiple accesses to that area without having to access Stoddard again and so I'm in favor of it as it stands. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 21, 2010 Page 11 of 12 Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Marshall. Other comments? Commissioner O'Brien? O'Brien: Nothing further. I think all of my questions have been answered. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. All right. At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on CUP 09-013 and DES 09-034. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: Okay. We have a motion to close the public hearing on CUP 09-013. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: Mr. Chair? After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 09-013 and DES 09-034 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21st, 2010, with no modifications. I will further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on February 11th, 2010. Freeman: I second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 09-013 and -- is that DES 09-034? Is that what you said? All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we adjourn. Freeman: I'll second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: We are done. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:29 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) Meridian Planning & Zoning January 21, 2010 Page 12 of 12 APPROVED MICHAEL E. ROHM -CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: GL2~ ~YG :~~~\\\C~~~ ~ o~o'~"~'L~~~`~~ JAYCEE L. HOLMAN, CITY CLE ~'~' TFO 6; s _ SEAL "9 7~GST ~ ~~~ ~ c~U~;~~rY ,~P