Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 21, 2005 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 80 of 90 Moe: That is correct. Zaremba: Does the second accept the amendment? Rohm: Absolutely. Zaremba: Okay. Then, we have a motion and a second on amending the previous motion. And all in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Thank you all. It is after midnight and we usually don't start a new subject, but you all have hung in here a long time and looking at the sheet at the moment there aren't very many people signed up to speak on this, so I am suspecting we can probably continue with this tonight. Commissioners, are you willing to -- Rohm: Sure. Item 21: Public Hearing: AZ 05-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.502 acres to R-8 zone for Maxfield Subdivision by The Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive: Item 22: Public Hearing: PP 05-927 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2 residential building lots on 4.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Maxfield Subdivision by The Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive: Item 23: Public Hearing: CUP 05-034 Request for a Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development approval far one single-family home and five retirement homes on two lots in a R-8 zone for Maxfield Subdivision by The Land Group - 3295 East Falcon Drive: Zaremba: Okay. In that case, I will open the Public Hearing AZ 05-027, PP 05-927? Is that correct? Maybe that should be -- that should be -- let me correct that. It should be PP 05-027. And the Public Hearing CUP 05-034. All three of these relate to Maxfield Subdivision by the Land Group at 3295 East Falcon Drive and we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject site is located on the east side of Eagle Road and on the south side of Falcon Drive, approximately 675 feet south of Victory Road. It is within our urban service planning area and our current city area of impact. The property is designated low density residential on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan future land use map and it's currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The site currently has a single family home that the applicant is proposing to remove. You can see it here in the aerial. It's on the northeast side of the property. To the north of the subject site are several single homes on large parcels similar to the subject parcel. To the south are single family homes, also zoned RUT in Ada County, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 81 of 90 as well as the east and the west, they will have single family homes, zoned RUT in Ada County. The point it has contiguity with the current city limits are to the southwest in Messina Village. As you can see here, the homes aren't there yet, but you can see that there is almost a point for point there and that's the existing city limits today, as you can kind of see on this map as well. Just want to point out one other development recently in this same area. Kingsbridge Subdivision was recently approved by the city, located just to the south in this area here. So, just to kind of give you your bearings a little bit. The applicant is proposing to zone the entire 4.7 acres from RUT to R-8. The proposed preliminary plat subdivides the property into two buildable lots. The existing single home will be on one of those lots. The lot lines don't show up very well, but there is a property line something like that and, then, Lot 2 will -- or the five retirement homes and a clubhouse would be on Lot 1 and the existing single family house will be on Lot 2. In addition to the five retirement buildings, they are proposing a clubhouse and flower bed and gazebo area kind of centrally located within the retirement community for their amenities for the planned development and here is the landscape plan. They are not proposing any access to Eagle Road, which staff supports. There is one new access being proposed to Falcon Drive, a local street, which ACRD is making the applicant improve, Falcon Drive -- their half of Falcon Drive curb, gutter and sidewalk. Quickly, the elevations for the retirement buildings are single story. They do house 14 bedrooms and one bedroom is double occupancy. There is an oversize kitchen within the units w and laundry facilities. There are garages on the side of the buildings as well. And without any further adieu, I will stand for any questions that you may have on the proposed development. Staff is recommending approval with just some minor changes to the site plan. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Apparently not. We are ready for the applicant, please. It wasn't who I thought it was going to be. Maxfield: I'm Gerald Maxfield, CEO of Cottage Investors, is the owner of the property. I apologize for the lateness of the hour for what I'm sure is pretty much a thankless job, but I will be brief. We have done a number of these assisted living projects that are identical to this. The most recent one was in Meridian as part of the Bridgetower Subdivision. We are on Ten Mile. There is a couple of corrections that I -- corrections or questions that I should make. I just remembered I didn't give my address. It's 1920 South Mayflower Way in Boise. On page two -- excuse me. On page one, the first paragraph under Maxfield Subdivision, it talks about 5.5 acres and in the very next paragraph it talks about 4.7 acres. I think the 5.5 must be a typo, because the 4.7 is correct. On the next -- page two, where -- the first complete sentence it starts there with each building contains a garage. Actually, only one of the -- one of the buildings has a garage and it is an attached garage. The next paragraph, down towards the bottom of that paragraph, where it talks about phase one, includes two retirement homes and the clubhouse. Later on in the document is talks about the clubhouse being a part of phase two and that is correct. The clubhouse, actually, is not a part of phase one, which is the two cottages initially. A minor correction at the bottom of that page where it talks about the Kingsbridge Subdivision, it says to the south and west, that actually is south and east. On page seven down under special considerations number one, kind of in the Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page $2 of 90 middle of that paragraph, it talks about a 12 foot wide buffer. I don't know where that comes from, because it is a 20 foot wide buffer that we have there, so I'm not sure what happened there. But, anyway, it is 20 feet, so we are not asking for any special exception there. Page eight, number five, it talks about the fencing and that's correct, we weren't showing any plans far fencing. We should have, because we are planning on putting a nice vinyl fence around the property. Under site specific -- under number two, that bullet under number two, I'm not sure why that's there, because we already have a 20 foot in all those areas that are discussed. Page nine. No. I don't have anything on that page and I think I'm just about to the end of my comments on the staff report. Oh, yeah. I just wanted to point out on page 12, down towards the bottom, number two, where it talks about the amenities, in the middle of that paragraph it talks about the clubhouse being a part of the future project and that is correct. That's the comment I had earlier. On page 13, under site specific number three, as planned development amenities, construct a gazebo, a flower bed of at least 800 square feet, and a clubhouse as proposed. Except for the clubhouse, which shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning for the third building. So, the third building will be a part of phase two and the clubhouse would be a part of that and so I'm wanting it worded that I have to build a clubhouse before I can get permission to build building three. I want to do that at the same time. Is that point clear what I'm mentioning there? Zaremba: Wouldn't that just mean that you get the certificates simultaneously for the two buildings? The third -- your third retirement building and the clubhouse? Maxfield: That's what I want. I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't saying that I had to build the clubhouse before I could get permission to do phase two. Zaremba: While you're there let me ask staff. Can we change the ward prior to simultaneous? Would that -- Hood: I would rather prefer that we change the prior to issuance of the third retirement building to the fourth. I mean we can allow it to go to a certain point, but I think at some point that building should be constructed before we issue anymore more building permits. I mean he can pull the permit and never construct the thing. We need to make sure it's up and constructed before we issue the last -- at least two building permits I would say. So, if you want to go to a third building, then, prior to the fourth you need to have the clubhouse up, I think that's agreeable. There is just nothing in the -- there was no proposal when the future was actually going to be, so that's what I proposed and -- Zaremba: Does that work? Maxfield: That's true. There was nothing specific and that would work if we changed that to fourth, instead of third. That's the extent of my comments on the staff report. Zaremba: Since you were going through it and you were approaching page 14, I just wanted to make sure that you are aware of some of them. I'm sure you have read that thoroughly, but I know it's your plan that all of your residents will be ambulatory, but you Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 83 of 90 understood the fire department comment that if at anytime in the future that plan changes, you're limited to five nonambulatory residents per building I think that is. Maxfield: Yeah. I have been through that very thoroughly with the city when we did the other project. Zaremba: So you know that -- Maxfield: I understand exactly that. Zaremba: -- requirement is there? Maxfield: Yes. Zaremba: And, then, also a couple pages later on page 16, the police department wants to talk to you about visibility and you're willing to da that? Maxfield: Yes. We will certainly work out any issues. Zaremba: Okay. Just double-checking that you know those are there. Commissioners, any other questions? Rohm: No questions. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Gerald Mayfield is the only one signed up. You're welcome to speak. If you have nothing to say, then, that's fine, too. Turner: Sorry. I arrived late, knowing that this was last on the agenda and the sheets were gone when I arrived, so I couldn't sign up. My name is Brady Turner, I live at 3678 South Caleb Place in Dartmoor Subdivision. I have spoken to a number of my neighbors about this proposal and they, maybe being smarter than we are, were unable to attend tonight due to various vacations and other prior commitments. I do have same e-mail letters here from them expressing support far the concerns that I will lay out for you very quickly here. Our concern was the -- we are not opposed to the usage of the property itself. Our concern is more with the zoning of the property, which R-8, that that is a two step increase in the zoning density above the current Comprehensive Plan in this area is currently zoned at R-3. In talking with Craig Hoad, the planner, we understand that the zoning of R-8 is driven not necessarily by the density, per se, but by the schedule of permitted uses of the City of Meridian for residential retirement communities. Understanding that, our concern is more related, then, to if the property is rezoned to R-8 and for whatever reason the development does not go through, the zoning would still stand on this property and some other developer could come in and, then, develop duplexes with five foot setbacks an the rear property, as we have discussed earlier this evening. So, what we are asking for -- and I have met with the applicant and have proposed, is that we put in the development agreement a condition of approval that the gross density of this development would not be greater than Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 84 of 90 something on the order of 1.3 dwelling units per acre, being 4.7 acres divided by six, would be roughly around 1.3 dwelling units per acre. That would be a condition of approval. The second concern was that the Dartmoor Subdivision being to the south of this development, we would ask that the setbacks on the south side of the property be increased from 20 to 25 feet. That would be consistent with the setbacks that are being provided by the Kingbridge Subdivision to help provide some increased buffer area surrounding the larger acreage parcels that are currently developed. And those are our two concerns and with those two concerns addressed, we could fully support this development. Zaremba: Thank you. Turner: I will entertain any questions. Zaremba: Questions, Commissioners? Thank you. Turner: Thank you and good morning to you. Zaremba: Yes. Good morning. Anybody else care to comment? Please do. Forrey: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Wayne Forrey, 1952 South Wildcreek Way in Boise. And, boy, thanks for having the meeting after midnight. I wanted to say that my grandfather has lived in one of the communities -- in another one of the communities that Mr. Maxfield has developed and he's very happy and this would be a good addition to the neighborhood. I live in this general area and I think the R-8 or even R-15, if it would make a project like this work, would be appropriate, because these are nice additions to the neighborhood and we need more services like this for ourselves as we get older and our parents and grandparents. So, I think this is a nice development and I hope you approve it. So, I just wanted to say that I support it. Zaremba: Thank you. Anybody else care to comment? I was just kind of mulling aver in my mind if -- there is no way to put a condition on it that if it does not develop as proposed that we unannex it. You can't undo that. But the applicant will come up and speak again in a minute, but I certainly agree with the sensitivity as saying once it's zoned R-8, we probably want to have some other restrictions an it that it doesn't just develop to a typical R-8. I mean we -- I like the idea behind this project, but I might not like in that location just a typical R-8. So, it has to be R-8 to get this project, but I would support putting a restriction on it that -- I don't know how far we can go in saying it can't be anything else, but I certainly am sensitive to steering towards this. Hood: Mr. Chair, I may have a suggestion for you. As proposed, no development is agreement required. All the conditions are composed in the Conditional Use Permit and the preliminary plat. However, it is an annexation and you can have the applicant enter into a DA and just be that simple, that, you know, the only uses approved in the R-8 zone are as such, and you can limit it to whatever I guess you wanted to put in that DA. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 85 of 90 But that's the other mechanism and you don't de-annex, necessarily, but you can, for a limit, through a development agreement, uses similar to what Mr. Turner provided you or whatever you feel is appropriate there, to be no more than eight homes or whatever it is, to be similar to this -- eight -- ar R-4 zoning designation, so -- Zaremba: And the result of that is that if same future owner or developer wanted to change their mind, then, they'd have to come back for a change of zoning. Hood: Yeah. Well, yeah, the zoning would still be R-8, but the development agreement will run with the land and so if there is a stipulation that says you're approved for retirement homes and they came in about duplexes, those are not retirement homes, they would have to amend the DA and go through the whole public hearing process. I mean anything's reversible, but that makes it that someone just couldn't plat an R-8 subdivision and go through it, because everything meets code. There would be a DA that would also run with the land, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Hood: And just a couple of other things to clarify real quick, you will run passed them, but just for the applicant's benefit as well, the annexation to the center line of the street if 5.5 acres. That's the discrepancy between the 5.5 acres that's being annexed and the 4.7 acres that's actually being developed. That's exclusive of the right of way for the adjacent streets. And, then, I just was going to point out to the Commission that the -- if you did want to require the buffer to be increased, the street buffers and the 20 foot wide that it is -- I just double-checked, it's 12 feet right now an -- adjacent to the drive aisle to the existing single family from the retirement home. That's site specific condition number two on page eight, if you want to modify that at all, then, that's where that's at. I think that's all that I had for you. Zaremba: Thank you. Please return. Maxfield: You know, as far as the R-8 zone is concerned, I understand his concern. I wish I didn't have to have the R-8. I don't -- I don't want it, but, unfortunately, because of the language of the city, that's what's required. And just a side note, if the city would update their language that wouldn't be the case, but -- Zaremba: It's in the process. Maxfield: Yeah. Zaremba: We have a whole new development code coming. Maxfield: But to help in that regard, as far as the development agreement is concerned, I am willing to do that. There is no reason why I shouldn't do it, because that's -- Rohm: That's the direction you're going. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 86 of 90 Maxfield: Yeah. Rohm: Great. Maxfield: And I'm aware of his request for the 25 foot setback, instead of the 20 foot setback. Zaremba: Along the south borders there is several -- Maxfield: Yeah. Along the south. And I guess we don't -- oh, here it is. Right along here is where he's talking about this building and that building are only 30 feet apart. And unless I can figure out some other way to modify the site plan, I don't want to get those buildings any closer than 30 feet. That's pretty close as it is. So, I don't see how I can meet that additional five feet, unless I can somehow squeeze it somewhere else, which I don't think I can. But even with -- I mean with the 20 feet and there are no homes close to us on the other property to the south of us that --there is a considerable distance in their back yards, so it's not like we are -- we are very close to their homes. I would do it if I could, but I don't see how I can. Zaremba: Would you be perhaps amenable to throwing a couple extra trees in the buffer or -- Maxfield: Oh, sure. Zaremba: I don't know if that would help, but -- Maxfield: And there is going to be a -- Zaremba: -- it deadens sounds and changes -- changes what you're looking at from a distance. Maxfield: And there is going to be a five foot fence. I mentioned earlier that, you know, we have not mentioned that on our site plan. That was an oversight. But we are going to put a five foot vinyl fence along there, too, so -- I think that's the extent of my comment. Zaremba: Commissioners, questions? Rohm: Sounds goad. Zaremba: Thank you. We have comments from staff. Are we ready to proceed? Rohm: I'm tired. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe, you're being put on the spot. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 87 of 90 Moe: Okay. That will work far me. Question of staff again. Craig, I assume that we will put the development agreement language under -- as an item number three under the annexation facts and additional comments? Hood: Yau got it. Moe: It only takes me a couple of these, I figure that stuff out. And, then, once again, someone want to give me a little bit of language for that? That agreement? Hood: There isn't much discussion amongst the Commission. I think the -- to summarize, what Mr. Turner summarized for the neighborhood is their concern for redevelopment or this present development, so just something to that effect, that this property is approved for, you know, the R-8 zoning designation for a retirement home community and any future development on it shall -- and I'm going to leave it to you guys to kind of -- to ward it however you want to limited that. Zaremba: Most of the other development agreements start out by saying the applicant will get together with the city attorney Mr. Bill Nary. Hood: Yes. I will include that language that gives them the contact information, kind of a lead in to what the DA is, but the meat of it is what you're going to be -- Zaremba: That was a goad beginning. It's being approved for -- Moe: I kind of got that. I think we just need to kind of discuss exactly what we are going to -- what we are going to bring it down to. I mean are we looking at any -- an R-4 type designation, if, in fact, it's not constructed as planned? Zaremba: That would work far me. That's what's so -- probably going to surround it at same point. Rohm: I think it might be easier just to have the development agreement run with what's being proposed. Just say the existing proposal has five building units and just this development agreement is -- limits this R-8 designation to this -- these five structures. Something to that effect. Because that's what the developer's wanting and what the neighbors are concerned that it doesn't exceed. Zaremba: That's fine with me. Moe: Well, we'll try that. Hood: A couple more, maybe, to help you along. I just wanted to make sure, so I didn't have to ask for clarification after the motion, so -- Moe: Oh. Okay. Meridian Planning &~ Zoning July 21, 2005 Page 88 of 90 Hood: The fencing that the applicant has talked about, I imagine you have got that one down to add as a -- since the applicant's clarified that. Moe: That would be on number five under the fencing, it would be a vinyl fencing at the perimeter. Hood: And, then, the -- Mae: That's on page eight. Hood: And, then, page 13, the amenities prior to construction of the -- Moe: Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Let me mark these pages first. It's getting late. Rohm: Yes, it is. Moe: 13-F. The fourth retirement building. Hood: Yes. Those are the only things that I had. You had it. I was just making sure Moe: Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-027, to include all staff comments of the hearing date July 21st, 2005, transmittal date of July 14th, 2005, with the following change -- or addition, I should say, under -- on page six, under the annexation and zoning facts and additional comments, I have an item number three, that the applicant will enter into a development agreement with the city that the property is constructed -- if the property is not constructed as planned, and that any further development would be limited to five structures only. Zaremba: That could be five apartment buildings of 20 dwelling units each. Moe: Five structures no larger than what has been planned. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: Okay. Be right with you. Craig, just for clarification, the fencing situation under the preliminary plat, that's just -- that's just noted on the special considerations or do you want that under site specifics?