Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutmarch 2, 2006 P&Z Minutes ~ .." ::: Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 33 of 90 Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 06-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots and 1 common lot on 10.01 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-006 and PP 06-005, both relating to Knighthill Center Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Knighthill Center Subdivision is located at the southwest corner of Chinden Road and North Linder Road, adjacent to Lochsa Falls Subdivision. Surrounding the site to the south -- to the general southwest is over 800 homes in Lochsa Falls Subdivision. And, then, some commercial lots that were approved along Chinden that are vacant today, but I think there are applications on a couple of them in the works. With Lochsa Falls there was a private street -- backage road, if you will, that was approved parallel to Chinden Road that the applicant would propose to connect to with this application. The plat is for four commercial building lots and one common lot on ten acres. They propose to annex from RUT, Ada County, to a C-G, general service and retail commercial zone. I'll kind of hit on a few highlights in the staff report. Staff has recommended a stub street -- a stub commercial drive and services to the parcel. I apologize that the presentation tonight isn't ideal, but to the south of the project, along Linder Road, there is a small parcel with a home currently on it. We did recommend that a commercial drive aisle and services be stubbed to that property, so that it could redevelop in the future. By the time that property gives up its extra right of way and street buffer, it's very small and there is not much they can do with it, except place one commercial building on it and that would, then, take access from this drive aisle, eliminating another close access to Linder Road. So, we did recommend that. We are in support of their proposal to connect to the private street in Lochsa Falls with the commercial drive aisle that would, then, extend to the connection with Linder and that would be the access to the site. The building pads are located -- there is two along Linder with associated parking and, then, there is also two building -- larger building pads adjacent to the Lochsa Falls commercial lots. Kind of some general comments that staff had in the staff report deal with parking lot landscaping and the need for design review. Those are not really part of this application, I just want to make the applicant aware of those. Those would be addressed at time of certificate of zoning compliance, which is a staff level approval. The landscape plan that was submitted did have conifers, which didn't completely comply with code. Code does require -- and this is something new to the UDC -- is that conifers can be in a street buffer, as long as they are placed in the middle of a street buffer that is at least 20 feet wide. So, this street buffer is 35 feet wide and, actually, wider in places. So, if those conifers were placed in the middle of that buffer they would comply with the UDC. That was one comment. And, then, we are in support of their proposed right of way along Chinden. It is consistent with what ITD has requested , ., Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 34 of 90 along this portion of Chinden, which would be one hundred feet from center line. And I think with that I will end staff's comments and stand for questions. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Moe: Josh, in your report you speak of ACHD's comments, you talk about a continuance of this? Wilson: Yes. Moe: This hearing. Wilson: Sorry for skipping over that. That's a rather important topic. ACHD has not approved this project, so staff's recommendation is that we go ahead and hear it tonight, get the issues out there and discussed with the Commission, but, then, continue it until we do have that ACHD approval and I think we are recommending continuing it to April 6th. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, would the applicant like to come forward, please? Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 839 East Winding Creek Drive, Suite 201 in Eagle. And, we are fine with that. I just wanted to get up and if there was any neighbors or anyone that wanted to talk tonight, let them do that. I will be very brief. Staff did a good job at summarizing the application request. We anticipate approximately 90,000 square feet of commercial retail bank institutions and restaurants and retail and, then, a large -- probably a large grocery store. We did meet the parking requirements of the code, landscape buffering along both Chinden and Linder. The main access, again, will be off of Linder Road. A detached sidewalk system, connection to the Lochsa stub and, then, again, connection to the south to Lochsa Falls development for interconnectivity. One thing the developer did want to point out is on the corner of Chinden and Linder the plan is to design that corner and work with the city -- and I believe the city has a committee that is actually looking at the gateway corridors and the specific themes that the city has for the area. We are also working on the project across the street, so that one's also going to have that corner. So, that corner is going to have a water feature and we will work with the committee on exactly what the design is going to look at and so at some future date I will bring that back to show you what that ultimately looks like. This is going to be a nice entrance way into the City of Meridian. So, the developer wanted to point that out to you. With that I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Yeah. I'm just kind of curious as far as on the north side right in the middle, are we anticipating quite dense landscaping and trees in that area, so that we are somewhat buffering the fact that we got a whole bunch of asphalt parking all the way through the center of this property? .~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 35 of 90 Nickel: Yes. And we did submit a landscape plan to show that buffering along there also. You can see the dense plantings here and in that area right here. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, yes. Mr. Nickel, am I correct in my understanding that this will be four separate lots; is that correct? Nickel: That is correct. Zaremba: Okay. Nickel: With one common lot for the parking with a cross-access parking agreement. Zaremba: Where that's leading is a question. I'm a little bit concerned where West Everest comes actually to the back of the building. That's not going to be very attractive driving up Everest and to the people here it's not intuitive that there is another escape besides going out the front driveway and I have one of two suggestions. The first one was the more extreme and staff can chime in on this, too. Would it be possible to move this building farther south and change the drive aisle from being on the south end of the building to going between the buildings and pretty much align with Everest. Is that a possibility? Nickel: I would have to check with the architect. One concern I would have is there is the residential lots, Lochsa here -- Zaremba: Oh, that's right. Nickel: -- and trying to get that large building -- to encroach on that I would have concerns. I kind of envision this -- and I don't know if this is good or bad, that kind of decision, but like behind on Eagle, Crossroads, kind of behind the Old Navy and all how that connects back to the south. So, I -- I don't think that's very practical to move that building -- Zaremba: Also, you make a good point about it being closer to the residences. So, my second suggestion was much less extreme -- Nickel: Okay. Zaremba: -- and that is could there be signage in this area directing people that there is another exit? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 36 of 90 Nickel: I believe we could do something like that. I'll look into that and, then, at the -- I guess April 6th meeting I'll address that. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nickel, I wasn't clear if -- is that access to the south there, the access, that isn't the access requested by staff to the -- that property? Nickel: No. There is an out parcel -- Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Huckabay, there is an out parcel right here and I think staff's wanting an access internally in that area and we are fine with that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Nickel: Yeah. We will provide that. Let's see. Right there. Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and staff, this may be off the wall, but that does look like a small parcel for development. Would that be a good size or shape for the fire department to put a facility there? Mr. Cole appears to have an answer for that. Cole: If you follow down further south to that cul-de-sac, that parcel is about twice the size as the one you're looking at, is, actually, a new fire department location right there. Zaremba: I thought there was going to be one out there somewhere. Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Nickel: Thank you. Rohm: There is nobody signed up to testify to this, but at this point in time I open it up to public testimony. Yeah. And is there anybody that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none, discussion? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 37 of 90 Newton-Huckabay: I am curious on the lots to the west -- to the north of the private street, are we still envisioning that those are going to be businesses as well? And those are going to front on the private street or -- Wilson: They will take access from that private road, that Everest. Newton-Huckabay: And the front of the building will be on -- Wilson: Yeah. I mean they will be designed -- they will have to be, because of the design review standards, they will have an attractive appearance to Chinden, but I think they really would orientate toward that private street. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess -- Zaremba: The doors would have to be. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Where I'm going with that, I'm wondering if -- I don't think you're going to get the same effect as you're getting with the -- the back side of the Crossroads development, because that, in essence, at some point will be acting as an approach -- front approach on there and I might suggest that we consider that in design of the buildings on the west side of that property, that I think it's going to look odd to have the back of the store front at the end of a row of commercial buildings fronting onto that private road. Rohm: Your concern is with the -- these buildings -- Newton-Huckabay: This is the back of this set of businesses here. This road here -- all these businesses that are going to be put in right here are going to front and face to the south and I'm guessing that's about the half mile down there where that private road starts, so at some point you're likely going to see a light, I would guess, and so this is going to become a fairly I would say more of a major intersection -- or road than it is now and you're going to be driving down this and you're going to be looking at the back of the grocery store, the way this project was designed now. Which I mean I understand it should front onto Linder and that's fine, but I don't think that you get the same effect when you go to Crossroads, you are truly at the back of a development that backs up completely against residents, where this is actually going to be, in essence, facing to public street -- public or not, I mean it's going to be a public street -- the public is going to use it. Borup: The street is actually right here. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Borup: So, I don't know if this parking is going to have access to the back or not, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 38 of 90 Newton-Huckabay: Well, my point still stands, you're going to be driving down here looking at the back of a concrete building and I would think that at the very least we should look for some kind of architectural relief, such as we asked for with the Kohl's development on there. Rohm: Okay. And, thank you, that's a good point. Shawn, would you like to -- Nickel: If you're referring to this area right here, yes, I believe that will have an architectural relief. Keep in mind that because this is intended as a grocery store, this is most likely going to be loading -- loading bays and things like that. Newton-Huckabay: That's exactly what I have in mind. Nickel: Well, I think it's more appropriate to have it next to the office, than to have it down encroaching into the end of the residential for reasons that we all know that -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, yes, and I would agree -- I would agree with that. Nickel: Definitely here you will have some architectural relief. I don't know if you'd like to give some suggestions. I don't know how to address -- I know what you're saying. And I don't know if that should be left up to design review for recommended to the design review or at that point of the review. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I mean I think I have been perfectly clear in the past that I'm not an architect, so I don't feel comfortable saying I would like to see this particular architectural design, but I do think that -- that you could probably come up with something that would keep in mind that it's visually appealing when you're driving up from it at that point. Nickel: Yeah. Because we don't have an end user in mind right now. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Right. I would think that that -- Nickel: I will agree with you and I think we can -- we can -- Newton-Huckabay: I mean I would go so far as to -- I would think that you could enter on the west side of -- particularly the south, that you could have -- you could have businesses on the west and east I mean at some point on the south -- the part that's labeled retail. I mean, in essence, you are going to front on two public roadways. Nickel: Well, technically, the one's a private, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Well-- Nickel: -- I know what you're saying. There will be -- there is a light currently down here. ...".0 f Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 39 of 90 Moe: Mr. Chairman, just a comment to staff. Josh, would this not come back in a CUP as far as the buildings themselves? Wilson: No. This is a C~G zone. They would be allowed uses. It would be all staff level after this. Moe: Good point. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: That's the end of my comments. That's my only concern. Thanks. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I did have one other question and maybe I should have caught Mr. Nickel while he was still here. But, actually, it's for staff. No, I need you to listen, though. Stay here. In the new UDC did we put in the requirement that all property similar to this automatically have to have cross-access agreements? I notice that we are not asking for that in the staff report as often and I think the answer was it's already required. I see some heads shaking. Wilson: It's not in the UDC that we are aware of. They have proposed cross-access agreements for the development, so -- Zaremba: Okay. I didn't see that as a requirement. So, my question for Mr. Nickel would be -- although the answer I think has already been given -- you're comfortable with cross-access agreements among all of your lots in here? Nickel: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. That was it. Rohm: Okay. Moe: Could you state that in the microphone, please. Nickel: Yes, we would agree with that. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Shawn, would you sit down. Okay. With that being said, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Moe: No. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, due to the absence of the ACHD report -- Rohm: Oh, continue. f Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2. 2006 Page 40 of 90 Zaremba: -- we wish to continue. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: And was the date April 6th? Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue AZ 06- 006 and PP 06-005 to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006. Moe: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Public Hearing AZ 06-006 and PP 06-005 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Well, we have reached that 9:00 o'clock hour and we traditionally take about a 15 break here and we will reconvene at 9:15. (Recess.) Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 06-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.43 acres from RUT to L-O (Limited Office District) for Strada Bellissima Subdivision Outparcel by Strada Bellissima, LLC - 3015 South Meridian Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the Planning and Zoning meeting for March 2nd, 2006, and begin by opening the Public Hearing on AZ 06-002 and begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Strada Bellissima Outparcel, as it has been termed, is an annexation of .43 acres from RUT to the L-O zone. It is located on -- pretty much on the northwest corner of South Meridian Road, State Highway 69 and Victory Road in south Meridian. When -- if I'm correct, when Strada Bellissima came through, the owners did not have control of this parcel and, therefore, it was left out of the development. They have since gained control and would like to incorporate this parcel into their office development. It's a fairly straight forward application that staff supports. We do have a conceptual site plan. This parcel ends up being pretty much a parking lot. You can see the outline of the parcel here and it is incorporated into the overall project that was proposed previously. No accesses to Victory Road are proposed. We did include a requirement for a DA, specifically to prohibit direct access to Victory Road, wanted to keep it to those internal roadways that have been established. On that DA there was a condition included that should not have been. It was a copy error from another report and that is the second to the last bullet, which says prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property shall be