Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 18, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 16of47 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-008, to include the staff report and noted amendments for changes to that staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Again, folks, thank you very much and I appreciate your diligence and you did a great job making your presentation. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Thomason, you have had enough training now that you will be able to enjoy your new career. You have enough training in this now that you can endeavor into your new career. Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 06-003 Request for a Rezone of 3.13 acres from R4 (Low-Density Residential) to L-O (Limited Office) for Hastings by Monterey, LLC - 2300 West Everest Lane: Rohm: Public speaking. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 06-003 for Hastings and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request for a rezone of 3.3 acres from R-4 to L-O. The subject property is located on the south side of McMillan Road. It is two lots within -- I'm sorry, south side of Chinden Boulevard. These two lots within Lochsa Falls Subdivision. These two lots were previously approved as part of the planned development with the use exception for office uses on here. They are zoned R-4. This is pretty much a clean up rezone to zone the property to reflect the future land uses on these lots. In fact, just this last week, I believe, our department has issued two certificates of zoning compliance for two office buildings, one on each lot there. We are also processing a couple of short plat applications, so they can divide the property up into eight total tax parcels, eight total lots, and construct eight separate office buildings is the intent here. But, again, the application before you is just to rezone that to office to match the -- the future land uses. I do want to point out a couple of things. One, there is in the staff report -- I hope it's not confusing, I'm just trying to save myself a little bit of work here when it goes to City Council. I have included the vacation application analysis. You do not need to make an action on that. If you have a feeling one way or the other, you can sure express that to me. It seems pretty -- pretty straight forward as well. I was just trying to incorporate it all, so I can just take this and send it on to City Council as well. There is one thing that I didn't get a chance today -- we had a 3:00 o'clock staff meeting. I did have a chance to talk with Anna a little bit and I apologize to the applicant, I don't exactly know -- there is a recommendation in Exhibit B, it's the third one there, it's more of a heads-up kind of, than anything, for the applicant at this point in time. I guess I should back up a second. The City Council just last week heard Knighthill Center Subdivision, which was before this Commission six weeks ago or so. There was some concern about the lack of sidewalk along Everest Lane. The Mayor and Council had some concerns about if we get a grocery store in here and things, that people in Lochsa will be wanting to walk to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 17 of 47 those. So, just based on that concern Anna asked me to look into a sidewalk requirement. Put in the staff report that it's recommended that they construct a sidewalk there on the north side. It's not a condition as its written now. I think before this gets to the City Council we are going to look at amending the existing development agreement. What appears to have happened -- staff brought it up back in 1999 and year 2001 when Lochsa Falls was originally going through. Somehow it doesn't appear as part of the motion that they had that the Council let them off the hook in not having to provide a sidewalk, it just -- it never made it in the Findings. So, I'll do some more research on that before we get to City Council, but it looks like that condition was inadvertently left off the original approval. I haven't had a chance to talk with them about constructing a sidewalk, if that's going to put a huge hiccup in the project or not, but I think that's, really, the only thing that needs to be discussed with this application. It's pretty clean. And basically at the request of city staff and also in order to get their short plats approved. So, with that I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Moe: I just want to make sure I'm in the right spot. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would mention that the discussion you're having about the sidewalk is, actually, in Exhibit A, not -- you mentioned Exhibit B, but it's in Exhibit A. Hood: I'm sorry. Exhibit A has the recommendations for approval or comments I guess they are at this point. I apologize. Moe: 1.13; correct? Hood: Correct. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Hosac: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Nate Hosac, one of the owners of Hasting Subdivision and we really have -- really have no comments -- Rohm: Could we get an address, too, please? Hosac: Sorry. The address is 10221 West Emerald. Rohm: Thank you. Hosac: In Boise. And we are in agreement with the findings of staff. I just want to make a quick note on the sidewalk that we are talking about. I don't think we'd have any trouble with the sidewalk at all. It's going to be a pretty heavily developed area when it's done out there and the residents of Lochsa Falls will probably want to use the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 18 of 47 sidewalk. The only gray area is that Everest, as constructed by the Loshsa Falls developer, is pretty narrow. It's very narrow. And, eventually, Everest is going to be kind of a conduit road that goes from the entrance of Lochsa Falls Subdivision over to Linder. Now, when that happens -- and I haven't spoken with ACHD, but I will bet that they will want it widened. And, if so, we would be in the position of, then, tearing out a sidewalk if we go ahead and put it in now. So, I'm not certain if we want to go ahead and put the sidewalk in now or if we want to find out what in the future ACHD is going to have us do, because I think the development on the corner of Chinden and Linder and to the east of our project, are probably a couple two or three years behind us. And that's, really, the only comment. I think a sidewalk is no problem as far as cost or what it does to our project. It doesn't matter, but only that we don't want to put it in, have ACHD come back later, say widen this road and we'd have to tear it back out and build another one. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may. Members of the Commission. I just -- maybe a little bit of background information. We have talked about all of this before in relation to that Knighthill Center Subdivision. The City Council did require that developer-owner to construct sidewalk -- sorry, I don't want to put this pointer in your eye here. They did require the stub street that comes up here, they did require a sidewalk there, a 25 foot land use buffer adjacent to all the residential. They did require a sidewalk from their extension that comes out at the drive aisle and ties back into Everest Lane. They did require a sidewalk up into their property that they abut. So, the sidewalk would be, you know, right stubbed to that Everest Lane. Now, Everest Lane is a 30 foot wide lot in Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12 and there is a 20 foot wide landscape buffer on the south side of that, so there is, really, 50 feet there. However, I don't think ACHD is going to jump in the middle of this or really have anything to say. It's a private lane, an approved private street, so they aren't going to have any requirements and that's really why we need to get a sidewalk, because it's going to need to function as a private drive aisle, essentially, for a service drive for public and private, but ACHD is not going to help us out here and get sidewalk in the future. If that were the case, then, we would just let them do that, but since we approved it as a private street, the sidewalk on the north side seems to be the best location and I guess just to further that thought, we haven't exactly determined the exact location. Probably what makes the most sense is to have just the southern most five feet of your property and do that sidewalk easement. So, that would be taking the 30 feet and making it a 20 foot wide drive aisle and sidewalk, trying to cram it all in there, pave as much of that 30 feet as possible and, then, put a five foot -- give us an easement -- or a pedestrian easement for a sidewalk and we will get that all the way across is kind of a -- Hosac: On the north of the street? Hood: On the north side. Hosac: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 19of47 Hood: So, that it's fully on your property and you don't have to go to the homeowners association and say, hey, I want to build a sidewalk in this common lot to do it and, then, it would still get a pedestrian connection as those seven lots come in. So, that's -- that's kind of the idea beyond that requirement, so -- Hosac: Yeah. I can't think of any issues that we'd have with that. You know, if we are confident that the ACHD -- it is private land, so if we are confident that ACHD won't come back and want to do anything with that -- with that lane, then, we have no issues with that. Rohm: It sounds like just something -- change the text of the development agreement to include the addition of the five foot sidewalk, something like that, Caleb? Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. In the motion if you can accept the staff's recommendation, the applicant's willingness to construct a sidewalk on the southern part of their property adjacent to Everest Lane, that would be good enough and we will work on changing the language a little bit to give some more analysis for the City Council, you know, in a separate section or whatever we are talking about that, but we will just update this hearing with that provision. Rohm: Okay. Good. Thank you, Caleb. Thank you. And we do not have anybody signed up for this application to speak in addition to the applicant, but at this time if someone would like to come forward now is the time. Seeing none -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-003. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ 06-003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 18th, 2006, with the following change: In Exhibit A, under the planning department, Section 1.3, I would just like to extend the information there where staff recommends that the sidewalk be constructed on the north side of Everest Lane and none exists, unless you guys want to put would I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 20 of 47 be the southern five foot of the applicant's property on the north side of Everest Lane. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of RZ 06-003, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned changes. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Well, if we are not going to get to 9:00 o'clock, maybe we should take a 15 minute break now. Zaremba: We are going to miss our break. Rohm: We are going to miss our break. Newton-Huckabay: Give me a break. Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 06-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 2 common lots on 5.49 acres in proposed R-15 and L-O zones for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 06-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 24 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: Rohm: Okay. And I'm just kidding. We are not going to take a break. Okay. With that being said, at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 06-004, PP 06-021, and CUP 06-014. All three items relating to Rushmore Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The Rushmore Subdivision is a rezone of 5.49 acres, approximately half -- the northern half of that property currently contains the Meridian Friends Church. They are proposing to zone that to L- 0, office designation, where churches are principally permitted. The southern half is proposed for -- and, I'm sorry, this is skewed a little bit, so the cul-de-sac -- actually, that's -- yeah. I can't really see it. Okay. That's right. There is the lateral, the Nine Mile is at the northern boundary there, which splits the R-15 and the L-O zone. So, there is an existing stub street to the property that the applicant is proposing to add a cul-de-sac and add seven -- or, excuse me, six four-plex buildings on and construct a drive aisle and parking around. So, the cul-de-sac is here. Their drive aisle and parking -- this is a real busy site plan. I'm sorry, I didn't look to see how busy it is. But there is parking adjacent to each one of these six four-plex units. They do have a manager's office on