Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 18, 2006 P&Z Minutes " ~ '" Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 8 of 47 Newton-Huckabay: Have we verified that we have a quorum? I, myself, am out of town on business that entire week. Moe: That was what -- the one weekend I was going to have to -- I'm going to have a conflict as well. Rohm: Then, I guess it's up to the remaining three of us to make sure we are here. Zaremba: I will be here. I can't speak for Commissioner Borup, but I will be here. Rohm: Well,l-- Newton-Huckabay: Before we get too -- we might want to verify that. Rohm: When Commissioner Borup gets here we will ask that question. But thanks for bringing that up. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may, just real quick to follow on that. We are trying to keep that agenda fairly light anyway. So, if it turns out there isn't a quorum -- we have one large project and that's the real reason for the hearing in the first place and I think we have one, maybe two pretty simple, straight forward projects, that are also on our agenda. So, if it turns out that we don't have a quorum, we can sure push them back to July. But that's the reason this one we anticipate will take several hours just to get through it, so -- Rohm: Boy, that sounds fun. Moe: Several hours? Hood: A couple, anyways. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-008 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 23.39 acres from RUT to R-4, C-C and L-Q zones for South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation by the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance - east side of South Eagle Road on both the north and south sides of Victory Road: Rohm: Okay. Good. All right. Okay. With that being said, at this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing from April 20th, 2006, for AZ 06-008, related to the South Eagle and Victory Road Property Owners Alliance Annexation and before we go to the staff report and to any public testimony on this application, this is only being opened to hear testimony associated with the R-4 inclusion to this project. We have heard very thoroughly over the last couple of times it's been opened and the only reason it was continued this last time was it was felt that the change in the application to include an R-4 zone was significant enough that it should be re-noticed. And so with that being said, I'd like to at this time ask for the staff report. '1' Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi:;;:;;ion May 18, 2006 Page 9 of 47 Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm going to keep this very brief. This item was on the March 16th agenda originally, continued to the 20th of April, and here tonight, as you stated, so we could send out new notices to the property owners. Originally, a C-N zone was proposed for the entire property -- that's the wrong project. And so new notices were sent out to property owners and the Valley Times did publish their -- the new request with the three different zones. The applicant did mention in their last letter about the staff report that I did transpose the acreage of the L- a property and the R-4 property. They are both -- one's at one point something acres and the other one is at two point something acres. But there is a larger portion of the residentially zoned property being proposed. I will scan in the new legal description into the staff report you have now, is the one from the 20th that hasn't been updated for this hearing. I will scan in the new legal descriptions as proposed by the applicant provided by that land surveyor and I will update the acreages that I just mentioned that I transposed in the staff report, as well as updating the process facts to state when the new published dates were in the Valley Times and things. But I have no new information for you. I'm sure you are all familiar with this. You have been through it a few times now and the CPA that was done last fall. So, I will stand for any questions you have at this time. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Caleb, are you satisfied that the new legal descriptions that have been supplied match what they are asking for in the different zones? Hood: Commissioner Zaremba, yes. Steve O'Brien of the Public Works Department came over and gave me his stamp of approval today. They match the concept plan, not exactly. This isn't scaled out on here, but it does generally match up center line of the streets that they are showing, at least between the yellow and the brown and the yellow and the purple. So, yes. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Caleb. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? And I remind you we are talking only about the R-4 zoning change and the logic behind the addition of that to this application. Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My preparation tonight was regarding a rebuttal, because I wouldn't be speaking in context of the R-4, other than talking about the concept map. I'm sorry. Marty Thomason. I live at 2960 South Eagle Road. And I'm a member of the Property Owners Alliance. So, my understanding from the last meeting is that I would have an opportunity for rebuttal of what the public had testified to and that's what I'm prepared for. I thought what we would be doing first was opening the floor up to the public regarding the R-4. And perhaps I'm misunderstanding here and so I would ask for clarification on that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 10 of 47 Rohm: akay. I think all you need to do, then, is just speak to the logic behind the addition of the R-4 zoning to the application and, then, we can take any public testimony related to that and, then, you can have your full rebuttal after that. So, if, in fact, the change in the application of -- speaks for itself, then, maybe that's where you can leave it and we will take our public testimony and, then, you will have an opportunity to rebut the public testimony. Thomason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It clearly speaks for itself, so I will let the process continue. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Wow, this is kind of interesting, because we don't have anybody signed up to speak. But at this point the floor is open. Anybody that would like to speak to this application related to the residential inclusion, please, step forward and you will be heard. Okay. Thomason: Again, this is Marty Thomason. 1 live at 2960 South Eagle Road, Meridian, Idaho. As I said, I'm a member of this Property Owners Alliance and tonight my discussion is really going to be oriented towards the public testimony that was given at the last meeting and I'm going to be relatively brief on that. To do this discussion, I have to rehash some of the things that were talked about at the previous four meetings, but I will move through those rather quickly. Rohm: Please do. Thomason: We are currently zoned RUT as you know. You know our area. We are -- to the north of us is the EI Dorado and Silverstone business park. To the south of us is the new proposed assisted living development. To the east is Sutherland Farms and Boise and so fourth. And to the west is Locust Grove and more subdivisions. We are pursuing a rezoning of our property, because we feel like we are in an island now, that the development plans of the city are passing by, and with all of these things that are going on around us, we determined that we would hire a consultant. You all know this. Wayne Forrey. We asked him to research the highest and best use of our property and in doing that, we determined that it was not appropriately zoned for what was going on around us and so we wanted to pursue a rezoning. I need to make clear, based on the public testimony that was presented last time, why we believe a rezoning is appropriate here. So, 1 will move through that rather quickly, too. Wayne presented two points. The first is that we are ideally located for community oriented businesses. The second point is there is inadequate commercial zoning in this area. Let's just clarify those two things. We are a mile and a half off the South Eagle Road interchange. It's the first interchange out of the City of Boise. Lots of businesses want to be located here. Lots of residential developers want to do their developments here, because it's the first way that they get those people off the street. The second component is that we are on the south side of 1-84 and that's an important place for residential travel. The fact that Silverstone and El Dorado are already there makes community-oriented businesses further south more important to service those subdivisions developing to the south of us. The second point that Wayne made in the October 17th meeting is that the commercial .~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 11 of 47 zoning in this area isn't adequate. Yes, there is EI Dorado and Silverstone, but they draw from the valley to here. They don't service the adjacent communities that are developing. The Kawalis and Mackey letter I thought made that very clear, which I read at the last meeting, which Wayne had introduced at the October 17th meeting. The second issue is that, yeah, there is commercial zoned land on the middle of the mile between Eagle and Victory -- or, excuse me, on Victory between Eagle and Locust Grove, but there is still the question of when that will develop, what will go in there, is it even enough for the commercial -- or the community oriented businesses that need to come up and support these residential areas. And, again, commercial oriented businesses want to be located in highly visible areas on high traffic zones, which is what our 20 acres represents. This led us to the point of understanding that -- based on Wayne's research and our understanding of what's happening in the City of Meridian, land would not develop under its currents zoning anyway. And with that -- with that mind set, we determined that we would rather have the land rezoned prior to our selling it. The current situation with our land needs to be understood, too, based on the public testimony at the last meeting. Our proposal is unique. I recognize that. It doesn't include a development project. Our proposal is simply for a rezoning and annexation. This land will be developed at some point, though. I don't want to -- I don't want that to be missed here. Our land is going to be developed. We all desire a rural setting. The decision before us today is whether this proposal for rezoning and annexation has merit, not whether our concept map is -- should be a development project. I think the best way to illustrate this issue is to talk about the way the land -- the current situation with the land and the current zoning. Caleb, if I could have that bottom page that just shows the part -- oh, you're ahead of me. Thank you. Ten tax parcels, five property owners. All of these tax parcels -- well, seven of them are under three acres right now and that's an important component to understand, given -- which allows certain flexibilities for our developments today. Three of these parcels could all be split. because of the grandfathered opportunity for the one time split on these parcels. So, the essence is all of this land will be under three acres and I will make clear why that's important in just a moment. Our current situation, in the absence of a rezoning of this entire unit, where this land might develop in a piecemeal fashion, what I want to make clear here, the options that are available for us today are R-8. We are zoned for medium density residential. We could put that on all these properties. That's 160 dwellings on these 20 acres, if we chose to go that route. But, of course, we could do a step up as well, which was discussed at the October 17th meeting, where we could go to high medium density residential, without having to do a rezoning. And that's 15. All of a sudden we are talking about 300 dwellings on these 20 acres on these two arterial roadways. Our next potential option is that we could put light office on all of these parcels now if we sold them individually. According to the resolution amending the text of the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan -- and that's Resolution No. 04-454, which. states: At the discretion of City Council, areas -- at the discretion of City Council, areas with a residential Comprehensive Plan designation may request office uses, if their property has frontage on an arterial street or section line road and is three acres in size or less. And all of these parcels, as I mentioned, that would be the case with them. So, we already have the flexibility for light office, provided the plan was appropriate without having to do rezoning. The second thing that we need to understand is how the area Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 12 of 47 might develop in a piecemeal fashion in the absence of rezoning this as a block. First of all -- Caleb, if I could have the next page down, please. This is a crude rendering of how the parcels break out. I did it in color so I could highlight the fact that there are several parcels here. If we look at the north corner of Victory and South Eagle Road, there is a parcel in yellow. That's probably the one that would sell first, because that's the one that the market has already expressed the most interest in. It's anybody's guess, I suppose, at this point what would go in there. Obviously, we know it could be R-8, possibly a bump up to R-15 or it could be light office. But I have driven around and looked at what five lane road intersection corners look like and they don't look that way, typically. They look like a bank branch or they look like a convenience store gas station, something that's highly retail in orientation. But, again, that may not go in there, but that's probably the parcel that at that first attempt at rezoning would occur on. The next one may be the parcel that's at the top of the screen, it's a one acre parcel next to the commercial dog kennel of McKibbens Kibby's Kennel. Again, we know what it's zoned, R-8, R-15 potential, or light office, since it's under an acre. But it's backed up against a commercial dog kennel and the owner of which testified at the last meeting that he doesn't want to see residential there, because of the potential difficulties that that would raise in the future. So, again. the buyer of that parcel might likely be interested in pursuing a rezoning for that particular parcel. Not that that would get approved, but that's the issue that we are talking about here in a piecemeal development, there wouldn't be a coordination. The next question is bigger than the others and that is what parcel would go next. If we sold these in parcel by parcel -- and the reason that would occur is because that's probably how us property owners would get the biggest bang for our buck. The reality is that rather than looking at them in some sort of multiple block. The next parcel that would sell is probably the parcel that has the frontage on Victory Road. Again, we know what it's zoned today, R-8, step up to R-15, could go light office, because it would be under the three acres, but is that what would go there, is that what the person who bought it would be interested in doing, would there be an attempt at a rezone, because there is so much of that land that's on the Victory Road arterial frontage. This all raises more issues now. If there is a hodgepodge of development along the arterials, then, what happens at the interiors? What kind of transition, then, is appropriate? Is R-40 appropriate in one of those parcels for transition? Maybe not. I don't know. But it's probably something that would be pursued parcel by parcel. There is the next question of compromise on buffers. We have made tremendous compromises on buffers, which I'll explain in just a moment. But a buyer of each of these parcels piece by piece probably is going to be less inclined to do more than what the code requires in terms of a compromise. And probably wouldn't be required to do more than that either. There is the issue of curb cuts that we have all talked a bunch about. If I could have the transparency portion of that put down. Another crude drawing. This shows the number of curb cuts that would be on this property as of the widening of the South Eagle and Victory Road project. Ada County Highway District has already committed to 14 curb cuts onto these parcels. That's the number of curb cuts that are in their plan. In a piece-by-piece development of this over a several year period, I have no idea how many of these will be eliminated, but it's not as many as we are proposing, I'm sure. Then there is the other issue that's probably close to your home and that's how many hearings will these ten parcels generate. There will be the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 13 of47 request for a rezone -- I know I'm making light of it here and, of course, I don't have to say anymore, because you recognize the issue. We are convinced this land won't develop under its current zoning. That's what brings this proposal forward. Rohm: And I want to at this point -- this testimony that you're making tonight, really, is part of the original testimony -- Thomason: Yes, it is. Rohm: And we -- we have all got that information before us and I'm not trying to cut you off from the standpoint of not wanting to understand your project, but I think the project is pretty well understood. Thomason: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Rohm: And I will tell you from this Commission, I think that you have done an excellent job trying to lay things out in an orderly fashion and it's made it a much easier job for us to assess it and I thank you for your work and if there is some concluding remarks, you know, I will give you that. Thomason: Okay. Rohm: But I think, really, the project's pretty well understood by this Commission. Thomason: Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I will, then, conclude. Yes, I have more to say, but I will save that. We have a letter from a resident in Tuscany I think that recaps this very well and I will give you each copies of that and I will commit it to the record just as quickly as I can: Dear Marty: As you know, I live in Tuscany and commute on 1-84 to and from work. I don't want to see more residential properties putting more cars on Eagle Road just when I am going to and from work. Furthermore, I would prefer some closer community oriented retail and services that I or my children can get to without going down to Overland or still further away. Therefore, I support the proposal of the South Eagle Road and Victory Road Alliance Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Please feel free to submit this correspondence in support of your Alliance's property to the Commission or City Council, sincerely Clint. And I'll give each of you a copy of that. Rohm: Thank you very much. Thomason: Thank you. Okay. With that, if there are any questions regarding the current concept map, which I don't have up there right now that Caleb went over to begin with. We have put in an R-4 buffer. We are currently zoned R-8. We have more than compromised. We improved several of the conditions, we believe. We have a light office area. Again, that was the compromise of the planning staff. We have put teeth into a development agreement for what can be done in each one of those C-C zoned areas. And, again, we want the C-C zoning because of the flexibility it provides Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 14 of 47 us, since this isn't a development project, and our thoughts are that if we develop this property as a whole, the Alliance wants to have it rezoned before we sell it. With that, thank you for your time. Rohm: I appreciate your testimony. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Moe: I have no questions. Rohm: I have no questions. Any questions from you, Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: It's all been thoroughly explained. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Thomason: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Good. Zaremba: But it is nice to have thorough presentations. We are not joking about that. Rohm: Absolutely. Zaremba: We appreciate that. It makes everything clear to begin with. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I would move to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-008. Moe: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, short discussion? Rohm: Short discussion. You're up. Zaremba: akay. This is a discussion, that as has been mentioned, we sort of had during the Comprehensive Plan amendment hearing as well. as earlier parts of this hearing. I'm inclined to recommend approval of the annexation, but I would add to that t Meridian Planning & Zoning Commi:;;sion May 18, 2006 Page 15of47 a sentence that -- that we do not approve the concept plan for having too many access points. And all it does is put the applicant on notice or any future buyer on notice that when they come in with a real preliminary plat, it probably shouldn't look like this concept plan. Rohm: I think I'd support that same conclusion. Moe: I agree a hundred percent. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have some thoughts on this before we take a motion? Newton-Huckabay: Nothing additional. As you guys are all aware, I was -- felt like that the Property Alliance had done, each time they have come before us, what they have been asked to do. So, I would like to see this move onto City Council and give the residents of -- in that area the chance and give us an opportunity to see how City Council is going to act and I personally appreciate the fact that this property may all develop at the same time, because you are right, three acre developments, one acre developments, are hard to do and they are very frustrating for me as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner to look at and say, oh, that's a good idea. So, I appreciate the fact that this is going to a large development, hopefully. Rohm: Thank you. And with that being said, would -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 20, 2006, and subsequent continuances, with the following changes: I would note that the concept plan is not approved, as it depicts too many accesses to the future arterials. And, second, I would suggest that when it reaches the City Council agenda it be matched with a previous Comprehensive Plan amendment on the same subject. End of motion. Moe: Would you mind adding the -- basically what we are zoning up to? Because of the continuation of the meeting tonight to bring in the R-4, it might be prudent to make sure that we know that it's the R-4, C-C, and L-Q zones that we are approving. Zaremba: That's included. Thank you. Add that to the motion. Mae: Second. ( Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission May 18, 2006 Page 16 of 47 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. apposed 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