Loading...
June 3, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 20 of 65 Moe: After Item 9. Zaremba: Okay. Let me amend my motion. Since I moved to move it to the end of the meeting, I will amend my motion to continue the Public Hearing for ZOA 04-001 until after we have done the disposition of Item 9. Moe: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 04-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.10 acres from RUT to L-O zone for proposed Brockton Subdivision by Confluence Management, L.L.C. - 3665 North Locust Grove Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 04-013 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 10 commercial building lots on 4.10 acres for proposed Brockton Subdivision by Confluence Management, L.L.C. - 3665 North Locust Grove Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 04-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for proposed Brockton Subdivision with request for reduction to the required landscape buffer along the north, south and west boundaries and reduced or no lot frontage by Confluence Management, L.L.C. - 3665 North Locust Grove Road: Borup: Okay. Next item. It's for the Brockton Subdivision project. We have three public hearings and we'd like to open all three of these at the same time. Public Hearing AZ 04-010, request for annexation and zoning, 4.10 acres from RUT to L-O zones for the proposed Brockton Subdivision. And Public Hearing PP 04-013, request for preliminary plat approval of ten commercial building lots. And Public Hearing CUP 04-012, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for proposed Brockton Subdivision, with request to reduce -- or a reduction in landscaping buffers and et cetera. Again, all three public hearings are open at this time and we'd like to start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you just stated, there are three applications regarding this Public Hearing. The annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and a Conditional Use Permit for the planned development on the subject 4.1 acres located on the west side of Locust Grove Road approximately a quarter mile north of Ustick Road. The site is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. There is a single family home and some outbuildings on the site that the applicant will be removing. The property is designated as mixed-use neighborhood with the neighborhood center on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan future land use map. The Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 27 of 65 purpose of a neighbor center, as defined in the Comp Plan, is to provide a blend of high density residential, small scale commercial, entertainment, office, and open space uses that are geared to serve all residents within a one to two square mile area. The center should offer an internal circulation system that connects with adjacent neighborhoods and regional pathways. They will also serve as public transit locations for future park and ride lots, bus stops, shuttle bus stops, or other alternative modes of transportation. I give you that as just background information for some more .detailed analysis of that Comp Plan designation. To the north of this site -- and this will kind of help, hopefully, too, with that designation. To the north there is asingle-family home on 1.2 acres that is also currently zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south is the new fire station and also there is a single family home southwest of this property. To the east is a new charter school and single family homes in the Summerfield Subdivision. To the west is Heritage Commons Subdivision with a zoning of R-8. The annexation application does propose to zone the entire site L-O. All lots within the plat share a common ingress-egress to Locust Grove Road, which is in alignment with the main access to Summerfield in this approximate location here. The submitted CUP planned development application proposes ten office buildings consisting of 29,742 square feet of office space, with each building being on the individual lot. For the required planned development amenities, the applicant is proposing to construct two gazebo areas with picnic tables. The first gazebo area is located up here on Lot 10 and the second gazebo is on the south side on Lot 7, proposed Lot 7 in this area. Looks like a tree. Maybe it's not on this plan, but it's in this area here. In the report staff did make a recommendation that the amenities and the area around the amenities be removed from the buildable lot area and incorporated into common lots. The applicant has proposed a recreational easement for those amenities. I'll touch on that just briefly at the end of this presentation. The Comprehensive Plan does state that all development proposed in these areas, meaning the neighborhood centers, will require approval as plan developments under the CUP application process. In these locations the developer has the option to develop either, one, under a neighborhood center in conformance with the city's neighborhood center design ordinance, which the city does not currently have, or, two, to develop as a conventional mixed use project. So, because the city doesn't have a neighborhood center design ordinance, staff evaluated this proposal using the established design standards for the conventional mixed-use project. Again, using the Comp Plan for guidance, it states if developing a conventional mixed-use project, four specific design elements must be incorporated into the development. Street connectivity, open space, pathways, and density not below eight dwelling unit per acre. The applicant, again, is only proposing office use. There is no mix of uses and even though the city has not adopted an ordinance for neighborhood centers, there are several established standards by resolution that are established in the Comp Plan for areas lying in these mixed use neighborhood designations. For example, some of these design standards are maximum acreage in square footage. they are defined in the Comp Plan and these proposals do exceed what the Comp Plan envisions for the neighborhood center as far as acreage and square footage of non-residential buildings. So, that's why staff in the report said that a residential component may be an acceptable -- or make sense -- may make sense in the site, some type of residential component to kind of keep within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. And, again, they are just guidelines. It does say Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 22 of 65 up to ten acres and up to 100,000 square feet of non-residential uses within this area. It is a guide, but kind of -- again, that recommendation, taking into account that there are approximately 34 acres also within this neighborhood center, if this application is approved, all the non-residential area and building area has already been approved, so when the next application comes in can staff make the findings for those to also have non-residential type uses. So, just kind of some history on some of the recommendations and comments in the staff report. A couple of changes, I guess, that have been requested in the staff report and things I just want to briefly touch on are the land use buffers between the office -- there is residential to the west, residential to the north currently, and about half of the site has residential over here. Again, this is the new fire station. So, the applicant's proposing a 20 foot land use buffer around the entire perimeter, excepting the northern portion and excepting about five feet here where this -the drive aisle and turnaround encroach, so staff recommended this one parking stall be removed and the drive aisle be pulled back to maintain a full 20 foot wide width along this entire west boundary. They are requesting a reduced land use buffer to ten feet abutting the single-family home to the north. Staff is supportive of that. The other change that was -- that was requested of staff is a pedestrian connection in addition to the vehicular connection. They are proposing cross-access to the 1.2 acres that's, again, the single-family home right now. They are proposing vehicular access, no pedestrian access. The staff was just hoping that the sidewalk could be extended, as well as the drive aisle in this approximate location to get that pedestrian connectivity and also a pedestrian connection in this neighborhood, anorth-south connection basically somewhere in this area. So, when the future -- when this parcel also develops in the future, there is at least pedestrian access, which the neighborhood center -- and that's kind of the idea, is get people to non-residential uses without having to get on the arterial streets, so they can walk to their -- to their dentist office or whatever. That seems to be a component. So, a couple of changes in the staff report. I just want to make sure you do have a letter from the applicant dated today. There were a couple of things that were brought up and I wanted to talk about a couple of the site specifics. Site specific number five, preliminary plat, page 13. The intent of this was future right of way and quotes the future part of that is future from today, so the applicant in their letter states that they will be dedicating 28 feet from center line, so an additional three feet, that three feet being the future right of way. So, that three feet should not be counted in the land -- in the buffer width. So, if you can just amend that site-specific condition to delete future, I think that will work for everyone, so -- Zaremba: Excuse me. You're talking about number five on page 13? Hood: Site specific number five on page 13. Correct. And, then, site-specific condition number two for the Conditional Use Permit, which is on page 19, staff, also would agree with the applicant's comments in the letter. The intent, again, was not that all buildings must Icok exactly like the elevations and pictures submitted by Mrs. McKay, but that they substantially comply with the materials, elevations, and the list of construction materials that the application did submit. So, would also ask that that condition be modified to include in the first sentence after shall and before comply substantially, so -- and, then, in the second sentence after shall and before comply again, insert Meddlan Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 23 of 65 substantially. And, then, in the -- is it the fourth or fifth sentence? Let's see. The third sentence would be -- after the and/or materials list, comma, insert as determined by the planning director, comma, and, then, continue on with the rest of that sentence. This just would allow -- it gives staff some flexibility. Again, if they change a color or if they change, you know, a little bit of -- they add an architectural amenity to this and staff believes that it is an improvement, that that doesn't have to come back before the Council for a CUP modification. Staff does not want that. I don't think the City Council wants to see those either. So, this kind of just gives a little more flexibility to staff. And the final site specific, I believe, that the application had addressed was the recreational easement versus common lots, again, that I touched on earlier for the amenities. I'll let the applicant kind of state their case for that. The intent, again, was just so all of the future tenants and owners -- property owners within this development do have access to those amenities. The fear was if they are on a private lot and not in a common area, you know, this tied more to the building and not the entire development as a whole, so I thought if it was on a common lot, it would be more clear that everyone owns and maintains these common areas and has access to them. So, I did also want to show you some elevations that were submitted. I don't think you were privy to those, since they came in an a-mail addressed to me, but they are -- they are nice buildings. The pictures do show buildings that do have a lot of character, esthetically pleasing would be -- I believe they are nice looking buildings. Again, the real difficulty was the designation on the Comp Plan and this being a neighborhood, not necessarily the design of the buildings, but the design of the site and how that ties in with the surrounding uses. So, with that I believe I will stand for any questions you may have of me. Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I do have one that goes -- it's on a subject you were on, but it actually goes about a step farther. You were suggesting that the two amenities be made common lots. Wouldn't it be typical for the drive aisle and parking areas to be a separate common lot as well? Hood: They do go by both ways. I would say it's probably about a 50-50 split with it just being an easement versus a common lot. That was kind of the logic I was looking at. If you make a Lot 11, call it a common lot with the drive aisle and have little flares on the end of it for your common gazebo area -- Zaremba: It includes the amenities. Hood: It seemed like a design issue that could be taken care of, but I don't design plats and I don't know what the difficulty in that would be. You're looking at one of them, you know, as a standard note on the plat that says Lot 1 -- or Lot 11, Block 1, is a common lot that's to be owned and maintained, they don't have ingress-egress to said lot and maintenance thereof, et cetera, et cetera. The other one, you know, is an easement that is provided. So, either way -- staffs okay either way with either the easement for access or it being a common lot. And, like I said, we see them both ways. Meridian Planning $ Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 24 of 65 Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Now, excuse me. Mr. Hood, you're referring to the easement access for the drive aisles and the parking? Hood: Yes. Borup: So could that same -- could that also apply to the gazebo? Hood: Again, that's kind of what I was envisioning was if they made that just a common lot. All of the drive aisle and parking, you just kind of have some extra area on the end of that and you would call it all a common lot of ingress, egress, and amenities, basically. Borup: But I thought you were referring to the other as an easement. Hood; As proposed by the application, the lot lines go to, basically, the centerline of the drive aisle. Borup: Yes. Hood: So, there aren't any frontages for the rear four or five lots. They don't have any street frontage. Borup: Because of -- Hood: So, that's the difference. It's an easement over the parking area and the drive aisles. Borup: And that was my question. Could like a gazebo area also be an easement? Hood: Yeah. And that's what -- I'll let the applicant discuss that, if an easement -- a recreational easement is provided. Borup: And that's free access to everybody in there. Hood: I think that could work. But, yeah, haven't seen how the easement's worded and just, again, got to make sure that everyone has access to that. I think that could work. Borup: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. Representing the applicant. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this was kind of a challenging site. If Craig could put the vicinity map up there. The site's only 3.8 acres of usable area. As you can see, we have got that one acre site here that's an Meridian Planning 8 Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 25 of 65 existing residence and, then, the collector roadway coming into Heritage Commons at the half mile is located here and, then, Heritage Commons, along with their original application for development has some office and commercial type approvals for their lots adjoining Locust Grove. We have got the Meridian fire station that's just constructed recently right here on our south boundary and, then, another single family dwelling here that comes back with kind of a flag lot. With this particular site we looked through the neighborhood center criteria and we came up with incorporating one -- an alignment with Summerfield Drive to minimize our access points to the arterial. Two, we have no backing motion into this ingress and egress that is here. It's also -- I believe it's -- I got it 30 feet wide versus your standard 24 to give it a little more width. All of our buildings were oriented to the exterior, incorporating the new urbanism, so you're not looking at a sea of parking. The parking is all within the interior. We could not, since the site was so small, it's only 329 feet wide and, then, 507 feet long, so we were very restricted in what we could do and I struggled with this to try to come up with something that looked good and the Y concept seemed to work real well with, you know, a little leg down here with a nice big island and, then, the Y coming up here. And, then, the owner of this property says, you know, I have been very good friends with the adjoining neighbors and they would like to have some cross-access and I said I think that's an excellent idea. So, we have agreed that we will provide cross-access, pedestrian and vehicular, so that in the future when that acre, if it were to redevelop, would have an opportunity to interconnect with us. They, in turn -- I'm told when Heritage Commons was approved, got a private drive access to Heritage Commons collector. So, therefore, they developed to the north, so they could have an interconnection clear from the collector through this. Therefore, interconnecting these smaller parcels with the Heritage Commons, which is the dominant development in this section. And when this - - the Commission and the Council came up with the neighborhood centers, I testified that it was going to be very problematic as far as implementation when they were doing the mid section neighborhood centers, because I said are we going to put the single family detached dwellings at the arterial intersections? Because it talked about that, you know, the neighborhood center, the intensity of the uses decreases as you fan out from that half mile mark and I also brought up the fact about what about small parcels, in-fill type parcels, how are we going to handle them and incorporate them? Obviously, to come in with a residential component on a parcel this little, I have no clue how you could even make it -- market it, make it work, make it pencil.. I mean I don't know. And so what we tried to do is come up with something that we thought was creative and staff, you know, had some concerns and I got a little hot under the collar, but we tried to, you know, think of some things creative and one was your L-O zone requires frontage, 50 feet of frontage for every lot. Well, you know, that -- that means you just do like a strip office development fronting them with their frontage going on out and taking access to Locust Grove. So, we came up with the idea, well, let's, go through a planned development, that would allow us to deviate from the frontage requirement, we would have to provide two amenities in order to qualify and so, then, we had to think about what type of amenities could be utilized within a development of this small size and get the use and picnic areas are what I see people using the most. They go out there, they eat their sack lunch, they sit around and visit, they sit around and smoke, those areas appear to kind of be a little gathering place. And so that's what we came up with. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 26 of 65 These buildings are very small in size; they range from approximately 2,000 to 4,000 square feet. They are residential compatible. That's what we have put in our application. Singe level. Most likely like a stucco design with some masonry -- you know, we see them throughout the city springing up in the suburban areas and we see the accountants, the doctors, the realtors, the engineers, you know, different -- different types of professional people utilizing these types of developments, because they are close to home or close to where they do business. But we feel that this project is a good project. We have got ten buildings, ten lots. The question arose why did we come up with the cross-access easement. I have done them both ways and I never could see whether one was more advantageous than the other to create a separate lot for the access and the parking versus have it shared. I mean there is pros and cons, I guess, for both -- for both types. This particular applicant indicated that he preferred it to be an access. We typically place it on the plat. It's crosshatched. It's in bold letters that this is across-access easement, it cannot be dissolved, and it benefits all the different lot owners and it includes sewer, water, utilities, et cetera, and we thought that the recreational facilities, the little picnic gazebos would be the same, what we call a recreational easement. Your ordinance requires to calculate the parking area and have six percent of that parking area be landscaped, we are 8.95 percent. So, we do exceed that. We are almost at nine percent. I think on these small parcels, you know, this is as good as it gets. Like I said, I struggled, tried to come up with something that I thought was creative that minimized the impact on the arterial, that interconnected, and that could co-exist. We had our neighborhood meeting, I had I think three or four residents that attended, they were all very impressed. they like it, they thought that was a good fit, a good use, they said we like it, it's a low traffic generator, I think if I was -- if I was proposing apartments, I probably would have had a group here opposing me, because, you know, this is the kind of development that they envisioned there. They asked a few things of us to coordinate our fencing so it matches what Heritage Commons has installed, to coordinate with the neighbor to the north on the irrigation, the piping of the ditches, their drainage, see if we can come up with some type of a joint possibly pressurized system that would benefit the two. I recommended that she get with the applicant and they come up with something. The neighbor over here from Summertield said he would like us to post a sign no skateboarding, because I guess he backs up to the school, the charter school, and they had kids riding those little motorized scooters and skateboarders and it's been a problem for him, so he said that was his main concern, that we post signs that no trespassing, this is a business, et cetera. But I was very pleased with the response that we received and I think this is a good project and have done everything that I can do to utilize the tools that we have to work with. Do you have any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission? Moe: Yes. I see on your plan there that you have made the change for pedestrian access -- McKay: Yes, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 27 of 65 Moe: -- on both -- both ways there. McKay: Yes, sir. Moe: What about the 20-foot over there to the upper left? McKay: I did not have time to take out that last parking place. As Craig indicated, with elimination of this end parking space, then, that -- that would give us that 20 foot setback. Moe: And that wouldn't be a problem there? McKay: No, sir. Moe: Okay. Borup: Other questions? Zaremba: As usual, a creative solution to a difficult spot. I guess my personal instinct is to have common areas be a separate lot. I don't know why I have developed this opinion, but it seems like the future rights of the owners, if they know it's a separate common lot and they contribute to it, seems smoother to me. I don't have a problem accepting that your current applicant wants it a different way. So, I guess the only questions I would have is even if you call the two amenities a recreational easement, I don't see on the current plan that I have that that's mentioned. You're going to add that to the plat -- McKay: Yes. Zaremba: -- and somehow crosshatch that next to the other cross-access easements? McKay: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Okay. McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, that -- I guess it didn't occur me when we were devising the plat to put that on there, but I wouldn't have a problem doing that. Like I said, it's -- you know, the preference of this body, what they feel most comfortable with. Either way, I guess, it would work. Zaremba: Well, my personal preference is that it would be a separate common lot. You would have 11 lots, instead of ten lots. McKay: We would have 12. Zaremba: Is that the right number? You would have 12? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 26 of 65 McKay: We would have one here and, then, we'd put -- Zaremba: Well, I'd just throw that in to the -- I would make them part of the same other common lot that everybody has to maintain. You would change the outline of your common lot a little bit to include the two amenities. Borup: Let me -- maybe some clarification. Is that a common lot? Isn't that all -- right. McKay: This is an easement. Zaremba: Not currently. McKay: Not currently. Yes. Borup: Are you going to make it a common lot, though? McKay: I guess that -- Borup: Yeah. That was my point. If it becomes a common lot, I definitely agree with you that it -- Zaremba: And I'm not ready to -- Borup: -- should be a common lot. If it stays an access agreement, then, it would be consistent to have -- I mean if it stays arecreational -- stays an easement, I should say, then, it makes sense to me that the other recreational easement would also apply. That's consistent between the two. Zaremba: And I think what I'm thinking, obviously, I'd prefer that it all be a separate common lot. I would make on common lot that includes the drive aisle and the two amenities, but I also don't have a problem, but I would still think that it should be one single cross-access that, then, includes the recreational cross-access, as well as the vehicular cross-access in one -- in one easement. So, that it -- there isn't any doubt about who maintains them and -- I mean that's what I'm going for is no future doubt that if the guy on Lot 6 says, well, I don't have to contribute to maintaining the amenity, because I can't even see it from my place. McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, one other thing -- one other factor that I faced in the past with the city of Boise and it was not just applicable to the city of Boise, it's in the building code. We were -- we were platting -- platting an office complex far Winston Moore off of Emerald with existing single level office buildings. We met the separation between buildings as far as fire code and so forth, but when I created lot lines, then, the uniform building code kicked in another setback and we to have certain firewalls and we had to go in and rip out columns and put, firewalls in these columns, because the building had columns in front of them and it was very strange. So, I have Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 29 of 65 had instances where that can create a problem and in that situation, you know, that -- and so I guess that would be my main -- another concern I would have if we made this a separate lot, that, then, how do we deal with the setback coming off of that lot line. I don't know. Bruce -- maybe he's faced it in an analysis on some of these other -- it's in the commercial building code and that's what has caused us problems. But I have no problem with this easement overlapping onto the recreational easement. Borup: And I assume that part of that -- McKay: If you're really concemed, we could do like maybe a little lot -- just a little lot here for this, alittle -- you know, a separate lot here, but still keep this in an easement, if you're concerned about one building owner saying, well, that's on my lot, I don't want your employees eating lunch there anymore. Borup: I'm not so stuck that it has to be a separate lot and your explanation is a good one for not going that direction. I think what I would still go toward, instead of having three different easements, the one access easement and the two recreational easements, I would still go toward that being one all-encompassing easement. McKay: And I have no problem with that, sir Zaremba: Okay. And show that on the plat. McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: I assume that's going to be part of the agreement? McKay: Covenants. Borup: Part of the covenants or is there a separate building owners agreement or something along that line, too? McKay: Yeah. Because there will have to be maintenance of all of the parking, common maintenance of the drive, snow removal of the landscaped area. Borup: Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair? Borup: Mr. Hood. Hood: Members of the Commission, Ijust -- I'm with Becky with the setbacks and stuff. I mean we would have to basically re -- with a PD you can set your own requirements for setbacks and that's even different than the UBC for separation and all that. On this particular one I think we are probably all better off right now just going with an easement. But just for future --just kind of a side comment and a way that maybe, you Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 30 of 65 know, the open space isn't one of those design standards in the neighborhood center to -- you know, these kind of almost look like they are afterthoughts. It's like we will put a gazebo over here and over there and maybe if it was something that was kind of more central to the development, everyone has access to it a little bit better, it's more -- it's clear that, hey, this is my gazebo, too, you know, and, then, you're in a common area and it could be, you know, tied in with your -- with your drive aisle lots and so it's kind of future stuff, but I think you would -- if you made a lot today, we are having to write a new condition about setbacks, because the front setback in the L-O zone is going to be 30 feet. And the front of these buildings now are just over 30 feet to the centerline of the drive aisle, so -- Borup: Okay. Zaremba: That's a good argument for not making it a separate lot and I accept that. McKay: And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, as far. as the location of the gazebos, I moved them around about three times and so -- I mean if somebody's got a thing -- that's where it should -- you know, a better location, I'm open to that. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, one other point that comes to mind looking at this. If it is going to remain an easement, I think that the drainage facilities that are shown should be included within that easement. McKay: Yeah. Freckleton: That way the joint responsibility can be spelled out clearer and it's not going to -- the responsibility is not going to fall on the owner of Lot 9, for instance, because that drainage facility happens to fall in his lot, so -- and, then, it just needs to be real clear in their covenants that they share in the responsibility. Zaremba: The only other comment I would have is the discussion whether or not there should be a residential component. I understand staffs point that if we were almost forcing any future applications to have a residential component if we are going to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. I like what is being presented to us and I can understand the reason that it goes that direction. The only way to add a residential component would be vertical integration and I don't know whether that's even necessary. I guess since staff brought it up, it should be discussed. Vertical integration is that you would have office on the first floor and a second or third -- second and maybe a third floor that would have residential. Hood: And that's a true, you know, mixed use building even. The L-O zoning designation, I guess, is one -- one of those, you know, four things -- four or five different design standards that are called out. Again, the ten acres maximum per neighborhood center, 100,000 square foot in non-residential neighborhood center. And I don't know -- I'm not on the other side of things, I don't know marketing, I don't know the dollars, I don't know how to make all of it work out, but from a planning perspective, you know, Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 31 of 65 looking at some multi-family units that also share -- I know sometimes, you know, banks and things look at those as commercial developments, so just for financing reasons -- and Idon't know what the reason for that is, but it's not -- the intent of that -- the comment for residential component was to get that mixed use feel in this and it wasn't a condition of approval, just a comment to be discussed further. I don't disagree that this isn't a good design, if it weren't in a neighborhood center area, I like how the buildings are closer to the street, the parking is in the rear, again, the structures are nice, cross- access, one access point, I mean that's -- those are great aspects of the development. Again, it's the Comprehensive Plan and the diagram showing what a neighborhood center is and does, how this just doesn't meet that, you know, as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. So, again, as far as making it actually pan out dollar wise for the applicant, I haven't considered that, just that you're over what the Comp Plan says for eventual uses and, you know, some of this could work, because when other properties want to develop, we are going to look at those and go it's already used up, you have to be multi-family at eight dwelling units per acre or, you know, not to go below eight dwelling units per acre. Maybe not multi-family, but -- Zaremba: But even there would they be able to satisfy it by being vertically integrated if they wanted to have a commercial component or office component. Hood: In the vertically -- we don't see a lot of that. I think that's -- and that's probably something else that I have heard and read about a little bit that's even tougher to get financing for and zoning -- yeah, zoning is another thing with a planned development. I think we -- you know, we may be able to address some of those things, but we are looking at that with the new ordinance right now, again, staff is looking basically saying, okay, you get L-O for three-quarters of it, but the acre and a half we want tc see higher density, eight dwelling units per acre or more. Now -- and you may get some neighbors that, you know, oppose the project and understand where the applicant's coming from there, but the city has said we want to see high density, a neighborhood center type development here. So, that's kind of what -- again, what the staff report was based on, some of those aspects, so I think I'll leave it at that. But, again, that's kind of the discussion and where staff is. Borup: I like the looks of -- I mean the effects you can have with neighborhood centers. I think it's a little more difficult when you're talking most of it in-fill type property and that's one of the restraints here is what we are looking at is a lot of small parcels that are going to be redeveloping more as if it was, you know, in the middle of a mile on a 40 acre piece you have got a lot more control. Zaremba: I like this project. I guess my only question is are we backing ourselves into a comer with the other projects that will be neighbors to this. Borup: And they are the same. They are all -- I don't think there is any of them over five acres. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 32 of 65 Zaremba: Yeah. They are all going to be small and they are all going to have the same challenge, so -- I'm willing to put that off and deal with it when they come. Borup: Okay. That's probably what it will do. I do have a couple questions on -- it has been mentioned on the neighbor to the north and they came to the neighborhood meeting. McKay: Yes, sir. And she's here this evening. Borup: Oh. Okay. Yeah. McKay: She may want to speak. Borup: Okay. Good. McKay: Whether she would want two story apartment buildings. Borup: Well, I had some questions on the access and the buffers and stuff, so I'll wait and ask them. McKay: Okay. Mr. Chairman, one thing to keep in mind about your Comprehensive Plan, it is a guiding document. They are goals, they are not specific requirements and standards and we, obviously, have to look at each situation and these small parcels along these arterials, as they redevelop from residential to a more intensive, is -- it's going to be challenging to find a pertect balance, I don't know how you go about that, but even with Heritage Commons -- I mean Bruce may correct me -- I don't believe Heritage Commons was eight dwelling units per acre. No. Wasn't even close. Borup: Depends on what street. McKay: And they were -- well, yeah. But I mean they are the core of that neighborhood center and even they deviated from that eight dwelling unit goal. So, I guess, you know, we have got to use, obviously, logic, the situation, the parcels, the locations, to determine what are the proper uses. I hate to see us say, well, you know, we only have a finite amount of office or finite amount of commercial. We used it up. I'm sorry, Mr. Smith, you know, you have to be multi-family. I don't think that's an appropriate solution. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Who do we have that would like to testify on this? Come forward. Go ahead and state your name. Donohue: I'm Beverly Donohue; I live at 3775 North Locust Grove. I'm the 1.22 acres north of this commercial building. We looked at the plan and we thought it was nice. The only concerns we have is the issue was if Heritage Commons is doing all commercial and the parcel to the north of us, the four acres, is that going to tie us from Meddian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 33 of 65 not being able to be do commercial, because all of it is used up? Is that what this discussion is over tonight? Borup: Part of that was they are saying that could be a problem: Donohue: Yeah. Borup: Your situation may be a little bit more unique than some of the others down the road, maybe, since you're surrounded on both sides. Donohue: Exactly. Because our thought for future for planning is kind of -- we got access now from this development going straight through and Heritage Commons has given us a private driveway, because we are going to be landlocked in, because we are not going to have any access on North Locust Grove where we had two driveways previous and we were like the in-fill, so we were not given any consideration for the 150 access to the opening of Heritage Commons. So, when we are trying to get out of our property right now, we are in a situation where we have got traffic from both ways hitting us and it's, you know, been kind of very difficult as of right now with the growth not even finished with the commercial coming through on Heritage Commons area. So, that's something, I guess, I'm going to have to talk to Planning and Zoning on, trying to get, you know, some kind of access, what we are going to do with our property. Borup: Right. So, are you fine with the design that's proposed to reduce -- they are talking about a reduced buffer and -- Donohue: The only concern Ihad -- and like I told Becky is they are going to have the parking in the middle and my concern was -- is like -- if there is like 10:00 o'clock or whatever from the elementary -- or the high school across the street. They have the skateboarders and they are flying around there -- the police or no one will be able to see them if there is any destruction being done and the noise and if they have all these little gazebo stuff, the kids are going to hang around there, which, you know, if they are being respectful, it's no problem, but if they have the skateboards and they are just flying up and down on the weekends and whatever -- is there going to be a city ordinance, noise ordinance, or is there anything that can be done with the city? Borup: Well, those ordinances are in effect now. Donohue: So, then, we just -- Borup: As far as noise ordinance and -- I don't know as far as -- Donohue: The skateboarders? I mean they have a park. Borup: Yeah. But right now your -- I mean you're fine with the reduced buffer to ten feet and the access is a location that works for you also; is that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 34 of 65 Donohue: Yes. Freckleton: Mr. Chair'? Borup: Yes. Freckleton: Could I ask a question of the -- Borup: Yes. Freckleton: Do you recall when Quenzer was approved -- or Heritage Commons was approved and that driveway approach was -- was given to you, do you recall any restrictions on that? I did not do a review of the file tonight before the hearing, but wasn't there some discussion about restrictions on current use and. future use and things like that? Maybe you could clarify that. Or was it unrestricted? Donohue: No, there are restrictions. It's for personal use only as of right now. Freckleton: Okay. Donohue: So, the question being is -- what are we going to do for future if I've got this commercial on this side of me that wants to have ingress and egress -- is that what it's called? Versus the other side, they got a road coming in, but they don't have it going all the way through, where if it's all going to be commercial, this whole ends up commercial, to keep people off -- the traffic and the flow off North Locust Grove, which is bottlenecking already, where it's supposed to be a community family-type thing, you would want the driving all to be off the main road and is that what the future plans are for the Planning and Zoning? Borup: Well, we have always wanted cross-access and for vehicles to be able to continue -- yeah. Exactly what you're saying. That's what it -- that's what I think this commission is -- Freckleton: Mr. Chair, my point is that that's the ideal situation is to have that cross- access and be able to get up there, but (believe -- and I would have to do some research, but I believe at the time that that access was provided to the Donohue parcel, there was some restrictions put in place that it was only for residential use -- Borup: But can that be amended if there is a change of use? Freckleton: Well, I would imagine. I mean it's going to have to go back through the homeowners association of Heritage to do it. Borup: It would --the agreement -- Meridian Planning 8 Zoning June 3. 2004 Page 35 of 65 Freckleton: Because that goes across a common lot in Heritage Commons to get that access over to the Donohue parcel. So, yeah, I mean it's not aslam-dunk, but it's feasible that it could happen. And, yeah, certainly desirable by the city to have that cross-access between these parcels. Donohue: I thought the city at the time really wanted it, but they were not budging. Hood: That's the problem. We can't require the developer to give you property for access or frontage on this street that they have built, so in the future, if you can -- again, I haven't seen how that easement is worded either, but if it's for your private use and when your property redevelops, if they say, no, you don't get access, you will have to go to ACHD and trying to get another access out to Locust Grove -- or an access out to Locust Grove Road. Sure, in a perfect world, you know, it ties into their collector street across that common area and may we, through you, may be able to go to the homeowners association of Heritage and acquire that easement and change the language that's in place now to make it for office or commercial use and I guess that's why Iwould -- I don't want to make it sound like when this property does come in, some type of a commercial use seems to make sense for this subject property and we aren't just going to say, you know, there is already ten and a half acres approved for non- residential, you can't do non-residential, but it does factor in and it's something we have to look at when writing a staff report and, you know, the Comp Plan says up to ten acres. Okay. We let you go; now it's 12 acres. The next guy that comes in the -- near the core area of that neighbofiood center, do you budge it even further? Pretty soon you have got, you know, 20 acres that are non-residential on the arterial and it's just -- it's not -- it's not what was envisioned with the Comp Plan. So, not to discourage, you know, you too much from not getting on residential uses, because, again, you're going to be sandwiched between them. Donohue: Exactly. Hood: But it's almost a reverse. Your property should probably be the office or commercial use and this property should probably be the residential. So, that's -- that's the bind and kind of what staff indirectly was getting at again in the staff report, so -- something else just -- that Becky brought up. Quenzer was actually approved prior to the Comp Plan being adopted, so they were not subject to the neighborhood center designation. This was, actually, approved as a use exception, 20 percent use exception, so the neighborhood center designation wasn't even in existence when that was -- it was in draft form, but it hadn't been adopted and that was the idea with that use exception was this is going to be the core area of our neighborhood center in the future, but they weren't subject to those provisions yet, because it hadn't been adopted, so just to clarify that, too. Borup: Okay. They were kind of leading edge on that. So, I guess that was a long way of saying it sounds like what your proposal may be makes sense and most parts would the city be acceptable to it, but the promise can't be made at this time, of course. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 36 of 65 Donohue: Right. Okay. Well, yeah, because that was our concern is because we were the in-fill, I guess that's what I learned. Borup: Right. Yeah. Donohue: And so even though we have lived there our whole lives, I ended up with an entrance right next to my bedroom and even though it wasn't a hundred feet, which was an ACHD regulation, we are the ones that are taking the front out of the mess and, then, we are going to end up if we don't have access, land locked. Borup: Yeah. Donohue: Which I think the city -- Borup: Well, I think the city would be behind you on having an access to -- Donohue: Okay. Borup: -- through to Heritage. Any other questions from the Commission? Donohue: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Donohue: Thank you. Borup: Is there anyone else to testify? Yes, sir Canning: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Joe Canning, I'm employed by B&A Engineers in Boise at 5505 West Franklin and I'm here tonight representing the applicant as a project you will be seeing in about four weeks. It's just north of this about three or four parcels. It's aten-acre piece also. It's also in the mixed-use neighborhood zone area on the Comp Plan. Borup: Is that the piece next to Razzberry? Canning: Correct. Immediately south of Razzbeny. And that particular development is proposing atwo-acre piece out front on Locust Grove. It's a -- we are suggesting or trying to get an L-O zone. So, our primary concern is how the city will be looking at the guidelines presented in the Comprehensive Plan for the ten acre. -- of two ten acre apparent maximum in the Comp Plan for the non-residential uses. Our project is a mixed-use project. We have on professional offices we are proposing in the front on the two acres, the remaining eight acres will be open space and I guess I call them patio homes. The old concept of like zero lot line, but with the new building codes we can do zero lots lines, we have to come up with something a little bit different, but it's the same type of concept. And our concern is that we want to go on record that we also would Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 37 of 65 like a similar type of designation as what Razzberry did. And, then, just to get some other information, I am fairly familiar with this vertical, I guess, zoning use, land use, mixed use projects. We have had some pretty heavy uses in downtown Boise, our office, with mixed use projects with parking garages, apartment complexes, and retail, all in downtown Boise that are all done vertically. I have been watching some projects in particular on Ustick Road in west Boise that went through a similar zoning issue where there was some retail offices or professional offices on the first floor and, then, either apartments or I think in this particular case they were condos they were proposing on the second floor. It's rather interesting to note in the true urban areas, such as downtown Boise, those projects are fairly successful. As soon as you get out in the suburbs that particular project on Ustick has not been anything. It's been approved two or three years ago, the back part of the project, which are just townhouses, sold quite rapidly, and, then, the front parcel, which are out on Ustick, remains vacant. So, I think the key is having something fairly close that's quite large and vibrant downtown, such as a4 night, there seems to be quite a difference on the health of that project. So -- but as I have mentioned, my main concern is, I guess to get on record, that we will also be here in four weeks. Our project is a true mixed use, but we do have two acres in the L-O zone we are requesting. So, with that I would be more than happy to answer any questions. It's coming. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Canning; Thank you. Zaremba: I would only comment this is a not commitment to approve your project, but we have tended to -- the people that are actually putting their money into making something happen, we have tended to believe your market research and if it proves that what you think is appropriate there, we have tended to lean that way. But that's no guarantee of the future, but just a comment. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: Just to round out the discussion to try and maybe finish this issue off on how this area will develop in relation to that ten acre, 100,000 square foot maximum. Heritage Commons was the first in with their -- non-residential uses up front there. I'm going to flip forward briefly to the neighborhood center concept. If you imagine this as Locust Grove, the idea was to have right at or near the half mile a collector coming in and commercial or office uses on either side and then, surrounding by the higher density and transitioning out. When Heritage Commons came in with theirs, they are basically the left half, if you will, of that commercial core area. They did put in the collector right on their north boundary. The discussion at the time it came in was that this is one half of that commercial center and the -- the other half would be to the north of it. Well, the only one you haven't heard from tonight is that north half. So, we are really increasing the amount of non-residential uses and the actual center of this Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 38 of 65 neighborhood center is not yet before us at all and would have been intended for additional commercial office type uses just on the other side of this collector, which comes right on the half mile. What we have now, in addition to that, we have got Razzberry approved with some just off the map. Mr. Canning, who just spoke, would be representing the parcels just below it. Then, there is the remaining piece. And the project that's before us tonight below that and the parcel -- the Donohue parcel, which is between Heritage Commons and Brockton Subdivision. So, if they all go, it's about a half a mile plus or minus of office and commercial development that would ultimately be there, as opposed to the concentrated core surrounded by the residential. I guess that's just something that has to be weighed by the Commission and Council as it goes through. That's all. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Did I ask if we had anyone else on this to testify? Okay. Final comments, Becky? McKay: Just one. With the neighborhood concept, like I stated before, it's a goal. If you go back to that map, Craig. Sorry about that. It's a goal and it states in there this is not the only -- it says right by the drawing -- it's not the only way that it can develop and I guess in a perfect world, if you go back to the map -- that one. The aerial. There you go. In a perfect world this would be totally undeveloped, you know, a large 40 or 80 or 100 acres, so that that -- that neighborhood concept, you know, could be fostered, but what you have got here is a five acre lot here with a house, a five acre lot here with a house -these are two sisters that fought Heritage Commons, because I dealt with them on Havasu Creek. We have tens here. We have got other fives. So, it's already kind of been chopped up and to think that they are all going to come in as one unit and you're going to have this big, you know, north half of this center, it's going to kind of come in little bits and pieces and you're going to have to piecemeal it together and since Heritage Commons did come in prematurely based on the neighborhood concept, the interconnection, obviously, was restricted to Mrs. Donohue's parcel, so, therefore, you know, even Heritage Commons impairs us from trying to have the true neighborhood center with all that total interconnection to get these accesses off of the arterial. So, I guess my point is we have got to work with what we have got and we have got to come up with creative ideas to make this happen and there is not going to be any fast, hard rules that you can apply to every one of these applications, you're going to have to look at it on a, you know, case-by-case basis and come to a determination and we try to be as creative as possible. Thank you. Borup:Okay. Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on these three items be closed. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 39 of 65 Zaremba: I can't think of any issues that haven't been resolved. We have discussed a lot of things, but --anybody think of anything that isn't reasonably resolved? Moe: No, I can't. Borup: No. Do we have any --any discussion on the -- some of the changes that -- Zaremba: I think I noted them. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I'm ready to attempt a motion. Borup: Let's move on. Zaremba: Let's try it. If anybody needs to correct me, jump in. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-010, request for annexation and zoning of 4.10 acres from RUT to L-O zone for proposed Brockton Subdivision by Confluence Management, LLC, 3665 North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo of -- for the hearing date of June 3, 2004, received by the city clerk June 1, 2004, with no annexation changes. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor`? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 04-013, request for preliminary plat approval of ten commercial building lots on 4.10 acres for proposed Brockton Subdivision by Confluence Management, LLC, 3665 North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of June 3, 2004, received by the city clerk June 1, 2004, with the following changes. On page 13, paragraph two -- we didn't discuss this, but there is a sentence that says maintenance of the drive aisles and parking areas should be provided for in a note on the face of the final plat. I would put a period at that point and deleted the rest of the sentence -- and/or in a document such as CC&Rs would be deleted. Then, that paragraph continues with another sentence. And I do that because I'm now going to jump down to paragraph nine, which is a similar statement, and make an adjustment to that on paragraph nine, page 13. I would change that to read: Maintenance of all common areas, including, but not limited to drive aisles, parking aisles, add the word amenities, comma, landscaping, comma, add the word drainage areas, comma, et cetera, shall be the responsibility of the Brockton business owners association and so noted on the face of the plat. Then still on page 13, let's go back up to paragraph five, in the second line, the word future can be deleted. End of preliminary plat motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 3, 2004 Page 40 of 65 Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-012, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for proposed Brockton Subdivision with request for reduction to the required landscape buffer along the north, south, and west boundaries and a reduced or no lot frontage by Confluence Management, LLC, 3665 North Locust Grove Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of June 3rd, 2004, received by the city clerk June 1st, 2004, with the following changes: On page 19, under site specific conditions, conditional use, paragraph two, it begins all building construction within Brockton Subdivision shall -- and we will add the word substantially, so that it reads shall substantially comply. On the third line there is a similar -- the sentence starts construction materials shall -- add the word substantially, so it reads shall substantially comply. Continuing with paragraph two, but now over on page 20: Any modifications to the approved architectural design features and/or materials list -- let's see -- shall be approved by the planning director. Moe: That was in the third sentence also, was it not? Zaremba: Yeah. I just realized I'm missing my math here. That is a continuing sentence, I believe. What we are trying to add after materials list is, that this will be determined by the planning director. Hood: Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: Uh-huh. Hood: Staff had -- if you want to leave this out, that's fine. Significant after any. So, it's not just any modification, but any significant modification as determined by the planning director. Zaremba: Thank you. I did miss that one. On page 20, this first paragraph, which is -- this first sentence, which is part of paragraph two. Any significant modifications and, then, after materials list as determined by the planning director. Oh, now that sentence makes sense. Okay. Let me read the whole thing. Thank you. This is the new sentence: Any significant modifications to the approved architectural design features and/or materials list, as determined by the planning director, will require a separate CUP modification approval. And, then, the sentence after that remains. End of CUP motion. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning June 3,2004 Page 41 of 66 Borup: Motion and second. Discussion? Was that intended the CUP modification approval -- Zaremba: I'm sorry, say that again. Borup: -- would be under the -- would be under the -- okay. Staff can approve the modification is what you're saying. Zaremba: Yes. Architectural design features and materials. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Staff can approve it, but the way we are meaning this is if it's a significant modification, the planning director may require a separate CUP for a significant modification. Borup: Well, that's what I was wondering. heard your sentence. You didn't say may, I don't think, in how I Zaremba: No. I did read it will. I left it will. Borup: Does that work for staff? Okay. Okay. Motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Okay. I think this would be a good time. We will take a short break and we will reconvene in a few minutes. (Recess.) Item 4: Public Hearing: ZOA 04-001 Request for Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow small antennas to be mounted on existing and new light and power poles within residential, office, commercial and industrial subdivisions by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting. If Mr. McKinnon is here -- or shall we go on -- do you want to -- oh, they are here. Okay. We'd like to -- Item No. 4, the zoning ordinance amendment. So, we will continue with that. McKinnon: Thank you, Commissioner Borup, Members of the Commission. Again, Dave McKinnon, just for the record. Steve and Wendy and Craig and Bruce and Tim and I, we all got together and worked this out and this is what we have come up with and it addresses the issues that you wanted addressed, Commissioner Zaremba, concerning the agreement, the license agreement. In fact, I just had a moment to talk with Will Berg, the city clerk, and he said that, yes, it should be a licensed agreement