Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 8, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 25 of 36 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you. Okay. So, that was to January 19th, I believe. Has anybody confirmed that day? I believe it's the 19th. Borup: Yes. I looked on a calendar. Zaremba: Item 6: I have the agenda. January 19th it is. Thank you. Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: PP 05-054 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 building lots and 1 other lot on 15.35 acres in an L-O zone for Touchmark Center Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley - southwest corner of Touchmark Way and Franklin Road: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: CUP 05-050 Request for a Conceptual Conditional Use for office uses on 15.35 acres in an L-O zone for Touchmark Center Subdivision by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley - southwest corner of Touchmark Way and Franklin Road: Zaremba: Okay. Next we'd like to open the Public Hearing for PP 05-054 and CUP 05- 050, both of these relating to Touchmark Center Subdivision. And, again, even though these are continued, we had no prior discussion. They were continued for a notice problem. So, this will be our first discussion. And we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission; I am pinch hitting this evening for Josh Wilson. He's at home with his kids. So, I will give this a shot. I did make some notes here. This project also has quite a history behind it. I'll touch on that in a minute. The subject applications are for a preliminary plat approval of 22 building lots and one other common lot and conceptual Conditional Use Permit approval for office uses on 15.35 acres in an L-Q zone and those 15 acres are bolded there on the map. The site is located on the south side of Franklin Road, west of Touchmark Way, approximately a quarter mile east of Eagle Road. The site is currently vacant. There is a single family home, I guess, on that property, I believe. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designates the land to be mixed use community. We'll go back to that map for just a second. To the north are future commercial developments. This is the road that goes around RC. Willey, zoned C-G. To the east are existing future phases of Meadow Lake Village residential development. This is the zoning code, so everything in purple here is office district. The reds are commercial. That's industrial there, the gray. To the south are professional offices and St. Luke's, which is -- their campus is right here. To the west are the existing -- quickly going away residences in Montvue Park Subdivision. That's -- most of those are zoned R-1 still in Ada County. You can see the -- some of them are going to an office zone. We envision a lot of these Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 26 of 36 will become office tied in with the hospital type clinics, et cetera. The subject property is made up of Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, and Lot 2, Block 1, of Touchmark Living Center Subdivision and an un-platted parcel, which kind of bisects the property there. The city annexed most of the subject property in May of 2001 as part of a larger development for Touchmark and approved the CUP to develop the property into a mixed use retirement community, consisting of various types of residential dwelling units, medical offices, commercial retail businesses, and a senior community center. That CUP approval was modified in 2003 to move the office portion of the development to the south side of Franklin Road, so where we are at today. The CUP was, again, modified in 2004 to allow the additional -- addition of a multi-story retirement center. A portion of the site abutting Franklin Road was annexed in the City of Meridian in July of 2005 and was required to be included in the current CUP application. That's what you have before you tonight is the addition of that recently annexed parcel. The plat is cut up into two sheets. Here is the north section. So, this is Franklin Road here. And, then, here is the south section. And, again, south section. So, the north part that ties into Franklin Road is right here. Makes it a little bit difficult to do a presentation, but I will just touch on a couple of things, especially on the north side. There is a private street proposed -- a private loop street proposed with the subdivision. They did submit a private street application for administrative approval and with that approval a cross-access will be provided to those lots -- all lots within the subdivision to use the private street for access. There is an existing driveway to Franklin Road and the staff report has been conditioned to state that that driveway needs to go away when -- before the city engineer signs the plat. And the final thing I think I want to talk about is the landscape buffer -- land use buffer that's -- that the staff report requires along the western boundary of the plat. In our review of these applications today I noticed that there was a public utilities and drainage easement along that same 20 feet, so the standard requirements for trees and things aren't going to work in there. So, I do have some language -- one change to the staff report that I'd like you to read into your motion when making your recommendation and that is on page one of Exhibit B and it's condition 1.1.9. The condition reads: The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a 20 foot land use buffer along the western boundary of Lot 6, 7, 8, Block 14. I'd like to have the sentence end right there. Add a period after the 14 and strike out the rest of the sentence and just add a new sentence -- are we all there? Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Hood: The new sentence would state: Due to the existing public utilities easement on the west side of the plat, comma, install shrubs and other ground cover within said landscape buffer. End of sentence. So, staff is recommending approval of this office subdivision and conceptual CUP. I would also like to note that it is just a conceptual CUP, so you will be seeing detailed conditional use permits for the buildings within this development in the future. So, with that I will stand for any questions. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions as outlined in the staff report with the one change. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8. 2005 Page 27 of 36 Moe: No questions. Zaremba: I do have one question that I ask every time there is a private street. Either I missed it or I didn't see -- and that refers to future maintenance of it. Is that private street in its own separate common lot for maintenance by the business owners association? I didn't see it that way. Hood: You may want to ask the applicant or applicant's representative, because I haven't looked that closely at it. I will do some research. It doesn't look like the -- like it's a lot. It may just be an easement over the lots, it looks like. The other thing I'm not quite sure of is that was an administrative approval and Josh may have some other document stating that that does need to be owned and maintained by the business owners association, that they are responsible for maintenance of it, but I'll do some more research while the applicant comes forward, if that works. Zaremba: Thank you. That works. Any other questions? We are ready for the applicant, please. Whitehead: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, hello and good evening. My name is Sabrina Whitehead. I am here on behalf of Touchmark, Treasure Valley, LLC, as well as Briggs Engineering. My address is 1800 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. 83705. For the record. And as staff notated, I am here concerning the two requests. One for preliminary plat for the 22 lots, plus the one additional common lot, as well as the concept conditional use application on the 15.35 acres. Now, I know that you are well acquainted with Touchmark's project, so -- and familiar with their scope and what their vision is for the project, so I won't summarize it all entirely, just this portion of it, the northwest portion. This application is designated as L-Q and it will be for light office. It's -- as you see, it's in two plats. There is phase one and phase two. Phase one is the northern one and phase two is the southern portion of the plat. As mentioned, there is 22 lots with the one additional common lot, which is designated as an individual well. I had read the staff report and I have reviewed with Josh the concerns concerning the landscape buffer, as well as a few additional comments, and as far as a recommendation of approval, of course, we agree with and as set forth all the requirements through the staff report, we will adhere to. So, on that note I will finish and answer any questions that you might have. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Moe: None. Borup: I assume you agree with the proposed change on the landscape -- on that landscape buffer? Whitehead: Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. We will be -- actually, on Fairview it needs an additional five feet to make a 25 landscape buffer, which we will make changes to Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 28 of 36 the landscape plan, as well as the 20-foot buffer that they are wanting on the west side, buffering the residential from the L-O. That will be done and submitted for final plat. Zaremba: The last one you mention I think is the wording that Craig asked to have changed. Borup: Right. That's what I was referring to. Zaremba: And I understand that the issue there is there is a utility easement that goes under that, which precludes the normal landscape requirement of trees. We can't plant trees in there, so -- Moe: That is correct. Zaremba: -- the discussion is -- because where the landscape buffer goes there is also a utility easement. It has to be some other kind of compliance. So, that's what I believe all that's about. The only question I have is about the public roads. Whitehead: Right. Zaremba: Is that going to be in a separate lot or how is it -- Whitehead: It's not -- it's not designated on the plat as a separate lot. I haven't reviewed the application, but I know that it is -- it will be private. We will adhere to all requirements and it will be owned and maintained by the business owners. And that will all be designated in the CC&Rs and can be a condition, if you guys would like to add that. Zaremba: I just think we have found it's easier to maintain if it is -- Whitehead: Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Zaremba: -- no one office owner, then, says, wait a minute, I'm maintaining my ten feet -- Whitehead: Absolutely. Zaremba: -- but you're not maintaining your ten feet. Whitehead: Absolutely. A road use agreement can be made between all the business owners explaining everyone's, you know, responsible for maintaining it. That can be another solution we can -- Zaremba: Let me ask a question, then. This would be -- what is easier to administer in the future? If some year -- 50 years from now the city discovered that this private road Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 29 of 36 was not being maintained, would it be easier to have it in a common lot or would an inter-agency agreement -- or inter-business agreement be workable? Guenther: Mr. Chairman, I did the OB-GYN and the Dr. Wigod Center. Both of those projects already own to the center line of that private street and they have a permanent recorded easement for that road, which would be one of the standards of our private standard of the UDC, which insures that that maintenance will be taken care of. Zaremba: So, if they continue that pattern around the whole rest of it, that's okay? Guenther: Yes. Zaremba: Which is what you're proposing to begin with. Whitehead: Yes. Zaremba: All right. Then I have no comments. Any other questions? Hood: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Hood. Hood: To answer your original -- original question, condition 1.1.6 does have the -- it's not spelled out, it just says that the applicant needs to comply with UDC 11-3F-3. That basically gets to your point of maintenance of the private road. I understand that there is two other properties there that have just had easements across there. There is no reason that this couldn't be a lot. They are going to have to go to -- there is two property owners, if this scenario plays out, if they ever need to go and ACHD takes over maintenance of it, which I don't think will ever happen, but if it did go that way, definitely having a lot and just going to the business owners association, rather than knocking on the door of each adjacent lot would work. But I think either way works. The easement works fine, so -- but if you wanted to add to that condition, 1.1.6, and add in new language that makes you feel more comfortable about the maintenance of that. Also, in the CC&Rs that were submitted with the development, they do have a provision about access drives in there and who is responsible for them at this point. I haven't reviewed them in detail, but I just looked in the section in there anyways, so -- Zaremba: Well, I agree that it could work either way. I think the only reason that I lean towards the separate lot is we are trying to be consistent around the city as well and we have been encouraging other people -- it's a little bit of redrawing and a little bit of renumbering on the plat. It's not moving anything, but -- Whitehead: Will a separate hearing have to be done, since it was notified as the 23, with an additional? Zaremba: It's not a building lot. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 30 of 36 Whitehead: No. Zaremba: It only needs to be if it was a building lot, I think. Whitehead: Okay. Okay. That's fine, then. Zaremba: Just trying to be sure. Any other Commissioners have that same concern? Do we need to add that or am I alone in that? Newton-Huckabay: Well, I -- does it complicate things with the way we approve the other -- the other -- the OB-GYN and the other -- Zaremba: It would probably exclude those two easements and begin behind them. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, the only other thing that I see the problem being is that the setbacks for those two lots are going to be from the center line, effectively, of the private street, where now you're making new property lines and property line setbacks for those buildings and so they are really losing 20 feet or so. However, the width is half the width of the road to where their building pad area gets shrunk by that distance as well. So, that's the only other real implication that I see with making it a lot, because now you got a setback to a lot line and not -- but to actually have a condition that says that it's to the sidewalks anyways and there may be sidewalks on both sides and I don't remember how -- Baird: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: You know, I'm not absolutely locked in. That's not a deal breaker for me. I'm just -- Mr. Baird. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, as a practical matter, whether it's defined as an easement or a common lot, as long as there are provisions in the owners agreement that require that it be maintained, it doesn't matter how it's identified, So, it may make sense just to leave it as is so as to not complicate things. Zaremba: I can be comfortable with that. Okay. Let's go on with the Public Hearing. We have nobody else signed up to speak, but there is somebody else in the audience, if you care to speak. Nothing to say. So, in that case we have no rebuttal that needs to be made. Whitehead: Great. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, discussion? Borup: I think we have discussed everything. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Mtg. December 8, 2005 Page 31 of 36 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on PP 05-054 and CUP 05-050 oh. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: And I will continue -- I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers PP 05-054 and CUP 05-050, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 17, 2005, and the preliminary plat dated September 8th, 2005, with the following modifications to the condition of approval and, basically, in Exhibit B, page one, item 1.1.9 should read: The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a 20 foot land use buffer along the western boundary of Lot 6, 7 and 8, Block 14. Period. Strike: Which complies with the requirements, et cetera, to the end of the statement, and add: Due to existing public -- Borup: Would that have been a period or a comma? Minor detail, but you're setting -- Newton-Huckabay: Are you interrupting my motion over semantics? Borup: No. I'm saying your sentence may make more sense. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Sorry. Shall I start over? Borup: No. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Block 14. Period. Strike: Which complies with the requirements of UDC to the end of the statement. Due to existing public utility easement on west side of plat, install shrubs and other ground cover within said landscape buffer. Period. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from November 17, 2005: AZ 05-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.87 acres from R1 to C-G zone for Sadie Creek Promenade Subdivision by Landmark Development Group, LLC - 3055 North Eagle Road: