Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 19, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 50 of 82 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Rohm: And, lastly, Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we forward onto City Council approval of Public Hearing CUP 03-070, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 PD zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, east of South Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road, to include all staff comments, presented on hearing dated August 5th and received by -- received on date August 2nd, 2004. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Opposed? Newton-Huckabay: Opposed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 18: Public Hearing: RZ 04-009 Request for a Rezone of 16.49 acres from R- 4 to R-4, R-8 and L-O zones for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC - 2090,2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 04-023 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 56 building lots and 6 common lots on 18.94 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC - 2090, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Item 20: Public Hearing: CUP 04-025 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use Planned Development consisting of single family residential, assisted living and office uses with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC - 2090, 2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road: Borup: Okay. Next is the Larkspur Subdivision project. We have Public Hearing RZ 04-009, request for a rezone of 16.49 acres from R-4 to R-4, R-8, and L-O zones for Larkspur Subdivision on South Meridian Road. And also PP 04-023, request for preliminary plat approval of 56 building lots, six common lots, and CUP 04-025, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use planned development, consisting of single family residential, assisted living, and office uses, with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage. These are all for Larkspur Subdivision. We'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm going to go through some of the history of this application. This is, actually, a combination of two applications you have seen previously. They have been combined into one -- into one project. The project is located at the southeast intersection of Overland Road and Meridian Road. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 51 of 82 And the project that you saw previously included Southwood Subdivision -- I'll go ahead and put the site plan up. It will look familiar. Southwood Subdivision, which was a project that encompassed light office lots, an Alzheimer's center, an assisted living facility and independent living unit. That project was what -- approval was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and, then, the project was denied by City Council on June 1 st of this year. And the second application you have seen before is Larkspur Subdivision, which was withdrawn by the applicant July of this year, because when Southwood Subdivision was denied, they lost their access point to the north. So, they withdrew that application and both applications have been submitted together as one large project. And I will -- later I'll go through the concerns that City Council had with Southwood Subdivision and detail how this applicant's met those -- those concerns of City Council. The project entails -- includes 16.49 acres, which are being rezoned from -- currently it's R-4 zoning, it's all presently located in the city with city zoning. Rezoning it from R-4 to L-O. The proposed light .office lots will have L-O zoning and R-8 zoning, which will be used for the remainder of the project. The project includes 62 build-able lots and a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development, which is going to allow the applicant to request reduced lot sizes and frontages and also allows them to request this L-O zoning as a use exception as a part of their planned development. If you remember, the previous Southwood Subdivision was dependant on the matrix being approved to go in and ask for that L-O zoning, but with the planned development application they can ask for this L-O zoning as a use exception and they do meet the acreage for the use exception. And I'll go through the project again briefly. The project includes 14 light office lots. The Alzheimer's center and assisted living and independent living units are on two lots. Here is one lot that's to the east of the canal. The other lot is to the west of the canal. And, then, there are 40 single family home patio lots and this portion of the project has not changed since you saw the previous applications, just joined in with the Southwood's application. So, I'll go ahead and go through some of the concerns of City Council and their reasons for denial at the previous hearing for Southwoods. The first of these is they were -- and there were concerns from Meridian Green residents, which is the subdivision to the west of the subject property -- excuse me, to the east of the subject property. The applicant has had a number of neighborhood meetings with residents of Meridian Greens and the subdivision to the north and they have submitted a statement that's been signed by 23 of these neighbors saying that they now support the revised project that's been submitted. So, they have done a lot of work with the neighbors. The second of these issues that they were concerned about was the incompatibility of the R-15 zoning with the adjoining properties in the area. The original Southwoods project was requesting R- 15 zoning for the assisted living center, Alzheimer's center, and independent living units. The applicant has request R-8 zoning for the project and I want to briefly go through staff's interpretation and why we feel R-8 zoning is appropriate in this scenario. Our interpretation is that the independent living units that are a part of this project function as a part of the assisted living facility there. They are difference from apartments in that the residents have on-site medical care and there is a central location where they are receiving meals, so they function differently than apartments and really function as a part of the assisted living facility. So, that's how they were able to ask for the R-8 zoning in this location. The third concern from City Council was the potential for the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 52 of 82 Alzheimer's center to disturb residents of Meridian Greens Subdivision. Remember, the original Southwood Subdivision Alzheimer's center was located on the east side of the canal. The refigured project has it in a much more centralized location, so it's essentially -- the project is buffering the Alzheimer's center from adjoining properties. And, then, the final concern of City Council, as they stated, and their reason for it during the project is -- was the incompatibility of the L-O zoning with the Comprehensive Plan, because previously they were relying on the land use consistency matrix, which was withdrawn by staff. And that's been resolved through the planned development application and their application for a use exception for that L-O zoning. So, they resolved all four of the major issues that were the reasons for denial by City Council. I want to go through several additional issues I just wanted to draw your attention to. I'm going to try to find -- the site plan is a little less busy. The first of these -- and I know we discussed this at length when it came to Planning and Zoning Commission. Last hearing is the -- the access points for these -- these two existing residential lots, which staff feels that there is probably a good potential, given the location and size of these lots, that at some point they will redevelop and we wanted to make sure that -- that they were able to redevelop and that we had access to those lots. We have a letter from ITD, their most -- several letters from lTD. The current letter states that the applicant can -- as long as these remain residential and there is no change to the property, can retain their access points off of Meridian Road. Upon redevelopment they will need to abandon those access points. The developer and the current residents favor obtaining access through the proposed light office development. There is a lot -- let's see. Well, you all have plans, you can look at the lot number. I don't have a rundown here. But there is a lot which they are planning to currently have as a landscape lot and upon redevelopment of these commercial properties, they will put a common drive and, then, that will serve as access for these two commercial points and that's the preferred point for the developer and for the current residents. We also discussed a couple other options at the last hearing, including using the emergency road access, paving that, and tuming that into an access or doing one to the north of the residential property and that was strongly opposed by the current residents. And the next issue -- we addressed the R-8 -- oh, he's squirming over there. Still strongly opposed it looks like. I wanted to make that clear. The second issue I addressed was the R-8 zoning and why we think it's appropriate to ask for that for the independent living units. And, then, the last issue I wanted to cover is staff is requesting that there is some internal pathways in the subdivision which are an amenity and we think a good part of the project. We wanted to make sure that lots adjoining those pathways had, essentially, micro-path fencing. Currently, there is nothing in our code to regulate the type of fencing that goes along an internal pathway of it doesn't meet micro-path standards. These are longer than micro- path lots. So, we are asking that they just go ahead and meet micro-path standards, so we increase visibility and safety in those areas. So, we are asking for that micro-path fencing along all open space areas and along -- along those internal pathways. The staff is recommending approval of this project and I will answer any questions you have. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to add anything? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 53 of 82 Sargent: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Ron Sargent, 4915 West Camas Street in Boise, and there is, actually, two developers in this project. We are doing the patio homes and the limited office area up here and, then, Doug Clegg can address the assisted living, Alzheimer's, and independent living spaces. I guess one of the things, because of the previous application, there was discussion about density and we are doing these patio homes in here and maybe I could just briefly explain a little bit our thought process behind the whole issue of the density in here and the reason that we -- we have done about 200 of these townhouses, patio homes, in the Treasure Valley area and what we find is by far and away the majority of the buyers, the homeowners in there, are seniors and some of the things that we look for is access to services in the community that are relatively close and just to the north of us, Southern Springs, you know, retail commercial development on this -- these two parcels here is planned for sometime in the future and we are hoping that they build that out and so that people from the patio homes would be able to walk to retail and commercial services up there. And I think having the close proximity to the freeway is also a good use for a higher density, because it makes it easier for people to get access to other services in the Treasure Valley, as well as being able to use the retail services on the north side of the freeway. So, we look at this as a good location for a higher density, because the type of buyers that we have been selling to we feel are going to be attracted to this type of development in this location, so just to kind of address one of the things that came up earlier. I guess, Wendy, could you go back to the site plan? And as we discussed, we have added -- I guess it shows it on this one -- an access at sometime in the future, because our feeling that these -- these two lots here are being retained by the existing owners, they are single family homes located there, and they are going to continue to remain as single family homes for the time being. But at sometime in the future when they are redeveloped, we feel that because of noise and the proximity to Highway 69 and Meridian Road, that they are more than likely to be redeveloped as commercial office property and not as residential. And we think it makes more sense for that type of access to go through the office area here, rather than coming through in this area where it comes through a residential and, then, into an office commercial area. So, we think it would be better designed to keep those separated and that's why we put this access over in this location to use at sometime in the future. I guess I'd open up to any questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I have a couple that are just kind of a review of things that we talked about before. Sargent: Okay. Zaremba: Your assumption is that at some point the end of this street would connect to an existing dead end that's probably, what, 500 yards south of your property? Sargent: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 54 of 82 Zaremba: That there would be a connection to that sometime, which gives you the second access, at which time you would give up this gravel and does that become a building lot, then? Sargent: Yes. That would be the intent sometime. Zaremba: Okay. Sargent: As soon as this road connects on through and there is a secondary access, then, our plan is to make -- then, turn that into a build-able lot at that point in time. Zaremba: Okay. Then-- Kirkpatrick: And, Chairman, Members of the Commission, we wanted to make sure that that lot does not redevelop until that connection to the north is established. Zaremba: Until there is that connection. Borup: Well, you're saying two connections, one to the south and one to the north. Kirkpatrick: When those two properties redevelop. Sargent: Yeah. Zaremba: Then, the other question is I agree with you that it makes sense to -- that this will probably develop at something other than residential -- Sargent: Right. Zaremba: -- after the people are tired of living there. The current owners. And this stub through here makes a great deal of sense. However, this -- if this develops as office or commercial of some sort, it's a piece of property about the same size as that. Might it not make sense to have a second way in and out of it, maybe there, just for traffic flow, not necessarily even for safety reasons, but just for traffic flow? Sargent: I guess it's -- Zaremba: Or is that one wider than I'm thinking it is? Sargent: Yeah. That's -- it's a standard drive aisle that is 24 feet wide and I think it's wider than maybe it looks. This also -- I think the opportunity -- and we don't know that this -- that Roslin comes in this area, there is a lot -- or potential for a development here and there could be access from the south as well off that public street. Zaremba: And have continuing connection all the way through. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 55 of 82 Sargent: Right. So, we -- I mean it's hard to say what would develop, but there is the potential for that to develop to the south, as well as commercial -- or nonresidential I guess is better terminology. Kirkpatrick: And, Chairman, Members of the Commission, just another point to consider, that the property to the south, while it is on an arterial, the Comp Plan designation is low density residential, so just kind of keep that in mind. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Zaremba: Yeah. Let me just clarify your last comment. If I remember, those are long -- a couple more long narrow lots similar to these and it's likely that they might develop with a 20 percent use exception similar to what we are doing, so it is logical that there might be something other than residential along -- Kirkpatrick: And while they could come in and ask for the use exception, the designation is low density residential. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Sargent: I'll let Doug Clegg discuss the senior campus. Clegg: My name is Doug Clegg and I'm at 1091 North Pinnacle Way, Eagle, Idaho. And I really don't have anything to say, unless you have got questions for me about what we are going up there. I think Wendy's presented all the concems. I personally talked with everybody but Bill Nary from the City Council and also Madam Mayor de Weerd after we were denied and we actually went back and asked them, instead of the denial, to change our status to a continuance, because we knew that the staff was going to be bringing forward a proposal to amend -- I'm not real sure what the terminology is, but the Comp Plan, so that we could do the consistency matrix and after talking about it and being denied, we just re-applied. So, all the concerns that she brought up earlier, which was the location of Alzheimer, the Mayor asked us to get letters of reference for our other locations and we currently have 32 of those gathered from surrounding residences of our existing locations in other communities, because there was some concern that we weren't going to be good neighbors and we will present that to the City Council here when we meet with them. The only other comment that I had was relative to a fence and from City Council on Ten Mile drain. And I think that that was from Councilmember Rountree. He's concerned about the fact that there is a pretty steep slope there on the Ten Mile Creek and that the seniors are using -- or anybody that would be using that pathway that parks and rec. is going to require us to develop there, would potentially fall in there and not be able to get back out. We have been in discussions with the irrigation district and also with the Army Corps of Engineers and we don't see a problem with that, but we are going to have to work through logistics of putting fencing on both sides of that to curtail foot traffic or something falling in there, Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 56 of 82 but I think other than that, all the other concerns have been addressed there. The only other thought I might bring up, too, is -- could you turn to the landscape plan, Wendy? Are you managing that? One of the concerns that the neighbors had that we -- we actually had nine items that we addressed that were included in the letter that was given to you with their signatures on it, which is pretty much an affidavit of them saying we like the project now, you guys have made some changes, and we had had two or three other plans before we actually came up with this one and some of the other concessions that we made was actually to have 20-foot separation on the side yard of those duplexes that are in that triangular section and a 35-foot setback and an increased density and you can see we have got a lot of trees going there in that back area to create a little bit better buffer with the neighbors there and I think they were pretty pleased with that. As you can see, none of them are here complaining tonight, so I think we got their vote of confidence on the project now, so those are the only thoughts I had. Borup: I'll commend you on that. It looks like you had spent a lot of time with the neighbors -- Clegg: Thanks. Borup: -- and you can see the difference. Clegg: Yeah. Thanks. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other testimony on this application? Clark: My name is Gordon Clark, I am at 1919 Southeast 3rd Way. Unfortunately, I'm right outside the barrier -- or the perimeter line that gets notified of these changes and stuff and also I'm -- unfortunately, I was not in attendance to the previous City Council meeting, I was on vacation at that time. Some of my concerns are -- I'm still kind of questioning the densities and if you look to the left there, you got Bear Creek and, then, you were talking about this Bellissmer -- or however you say that -- Subdivision and both of those are nice R-4 subdivisions and Meridian Greens is pretty much in the same density and we live on 30 acre lots there and so I'm kind of questioning -- if you take the lower -- is that pointer thing here? Borup: It's right there on your -- it should be on your-- Clark: Yeah. Right. If you look at the -- this section right here where the subdivision is going to be in, that looks to me about six acres and you're going to have 40 patio homes there and I'm just trying to understand how that fits in with, you know, all the other developments around there as far as density. Currently to the south there, I think that is about an R-2 in there. Some of the comments that were made, you know, access to, you know, this area that might be developed sometime into shopping for elderly that might live in here right now, this highway is not fun to walk along, it's terrible access, actually, so I'm not sure if they are going to try to buyout this land and get up in there or Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page5? of 82 what for access to that and I guess the main question is just now does this fit in. I'm trying to understand. You guys are the planning commissioners and stuff and I'm just really trying to understand how when you got such disperse density all around it, how all of a sudden we are going to have 40 homes and I think that is about six acres, wouldn't you agree or -- looks like 16 or 17 acres, I can't quite tell total. Borup: The total is 16, so you're probably pretty close. Clark: Right. I'm talking about this area right here. Borup: That's probably pretty close. Clark: It's about six acres and 40 homes and that just seems like a lot more dense than neighboring areas, so -- I can see that they have made concessions. I also, you know, appreciate the work they have gone to. I think the light office buffering on the site is okay. I still don't understand why exceptions always have to be made, you know, why can't you just stick with the regular light office zoning as it is in the code, you know, and allow the same density of light office, since that's the designation of light office. So, I don't understand why exceptions always have to -- to me it's just somebody needs to make more money and so they put in more office buildings, so -- anyway, thanks. Borup: Thank you. comments? Do we have anyone else? Okay. Did you have any final Sargent: Ron Sargent again and I guess just on the issue of the density, I think sometimes it's not so much the number of people or the homes -- and in this case it's slightly over seven acres and we have a density of about 5.6 homes per acre, there is also the use and the type of owners that are in there and I guess what I would say is that we tend to be -- the people that we sell to tend to be good neighbors, they tend to be seniors, they travel at off times of the day, they are not out there at rush hour with a lot more congestion on the streets. They tend to be quiet, they are not up late at night typically and as far as access is concerned, is we built a pathway system that starts here on the sidewalk and goes through up this way and there is a pathway, then, that goes over to the multi-use pathway on the Ten Mile Drain and, then, this pathway will continue on up to the commercial area at Southern Springs. So, there would be -- for people to walk into the Southern Springs retail development, they wouldn't have to go out on Meridian Road, there would be access on a pathway system at the back of the development. So, thank you. Borup: Okay. Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on all three of these items. Zaremba: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19. 2004 Page 58 of 82 Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Do we have any questions or discussion or -- Newton-Huckabay: I just want to comment after this came through as Southwood Subdivision, I drove out to Eagle and (looked at the development out in Eagle, because I just -- I wasn't real comfortable with the way the Public Hearing went and I would be very willing to live next door to that development that they have in Eagle. That was a real first class development. So, I just wanted to make that comment that it was everything that they said it was when I drove out there. And I think flipping the configuration around will make them even better neighbors. But I do -- I do like this development, even though it does have more density around it, I think the type of homes and the type of development it will be will compliment all of the neighbors around it. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I would say was I satisfied with the proposal before, but I actually think this is an improvement over it, so the tweaks have -- have been good and there were a few things left hanging that have been nailed down, all of which are good. Moe: And one other thing I would say is it has been good that there wasn't a lot of opposition tonight. Zaremba: Well -- and that's the credit to the developer of having a good neighborhood meeting. We try to encourage that, that things go a lot smoother if you can iron out the neighborhood problems before they get here. Moe: I agree. Rohm: With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of Public Hearing RZ 04-009, request for a rezone of 16.49 acres from R-4 to R-4, R-8 and L-O zones for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC, 2090,2190 and 2240 South Meridian Road, including all staff comments for the hearing date August 19th and received on August 16th. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of Public Hearing PP 04-023, request for preliminary plat approval of 56 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 59 of 82 building lots and six common lots on 18.94 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC, 2090, 2190, and 2240 South Meridian Road, including all staff comments for the hearing date of August 19th, 2004, received on August 16th, 2004. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and Second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of Public Hearing CUP 04-025, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use planned development consisting of single family residential, assisted living, and office uses with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage for Larkspur Subdivision by Larkspur, LLC, 2090, 2190, and 2240 South Meridian Road and including all staff comments for the hearing date August 19th, received on August 16th, 2004. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. That concludes that application. Thank you. We are going to take a real short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 21: Item 22: Item 23: Public Hearing: AZ 04-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 64.48 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development Company - north of West McMillan on North Meridian Road: Pubic Hearing: PP 04-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 234 single-family residential building lots and 16 common lots on 64.48 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Ventana Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development Company - north of West McMillan Road on North Meridian Road: Pubic Hearing: CUP 04-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed use Planned Development consisting of single family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage (including cul-de-sacs) and request to exceed the maximum block length