Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSept 5, 2002 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 90147 Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ. 02-017, request for annexation and zoning of 5.41 acres from M-1 county to I-L city zones for Ronald Yanke property by Ronald Yanke and Walter T. Sigmont, Jr., northwest corner of East Franklin Road and North Eagle Road on East Lanark Street, to include all staff comments of the memo dated September 3, 2002. Mathes: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 02-018 Request for annexation and zoning of 5 acres from RUT to L-O zones for Bair Property Annexation by Donn Reiswig - 3975 East Franklin Road: Borup: The next item is Public Hearing AZ. 02-018, request for annexation and zoning of five acres from RUT to L-O zones for Bair Property Annexation at 3975 East Franklin Road. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, if I could direct your attention to the overhead. This is - we spent a little bit of time on the slide that you have in front of you. As you remember, the Touchmark property is a very large piece of property that's directly behind the St. Luke's and across the street -- or I guess kitty-corner, more or less, from the RC. Willey property. It's a large -- what is typified as a retirement-type community with assisted care, with attached dwellings and other types of housing for seniors and ifs a very large project. Throughout the project it completely surrounds the piece of property that we are talking about the annexation tonight that would be highlighted, the thumb that sticks through here. Again, this is another piece of property that's a County enclave completely surrounded by the city. The applicant or Touchmark, when they came through, did not own this piece of property and, subsequently, when the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the Touchmark project took place, this property was not changed on the Comprehensive Plan from the 1993 to the mixed use zone, as all the rest of the Touchmark project was. What it ends up with is we have a piece of property that, according to the 1993 Comprehensive Plan that was in effect at the time, showed that as being residential. On the effective Comprehensive Plan it is continuing to remain a single-family residential. It brings up a couple of issues, because if we were to change it to the mixed planned development per the existing - per the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, we would be required to have this piece of property go through a Conditional Use Permit. Because anytime you're in a mixed-use zone with the Camp Plan, it requires a Conditional Use Permit. We need to have a specific finding tonight and you will notice that on page five -- it actually starts on Page 4, points of discussion, and ends on Page 5, discussion on how we need to handle that tonight. If you were to include this as part of the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5,2002 Page 10 of 47 Agreement that took place when the rest of the property was annexed, you need to make a specific finding that the requested office use that they are making should or should not have to go through a Conditional Use Permit. It sounds very convoluted and it is, there is three or four different steps that we had to go through and hopefully you have read the staff report to follow that a little more closely than the brief explanation I have given you tonight. As I just mentioned, they have requested to use a -- to use the property for an office use. There is an existing single-family dwelling on site and they have asked that they use that home for an office. In discussions with the Public Works Department, Public Works Department felt that it would be appropriate to allow them to continue to use the existing well and septic system that are on site and that when services become available through the Touchmark project, that that area be included with the rest of Touchmark. That way water and sewer will be available to them at that time. The intent is not to use this forever as an office, but to incorporate this as part of the overhaul Touchmark project. Hopefully you have had a chance to read through all the additional considerations as Steve pointed out. I think I have touched on most of those at this time. The applicant, they are here tonight, we would ask that they offer just a little bit of information concerning the asphalting of the driveways and the parking area. There was some concern from Steve in writing the report about 19 foot parking spaces with only a 21 foot driveway aisle and if there is land available to make that larger, the applicant could address that tonight. You could draft a question to him at that time. We do support this. We would like to see this included as part of the Touchmark project. There are a couple hoops that we have got to jump through, though. We have to amend the Development Agreement that Touchmark had for the development of this property. We will have to include this as part of the Development Agreement that will not necessarily go to you, but the Council will have to make the amendments at that time. We wanted to make you aware of that that the Development Agreement for the entire project will have to be amended to include this small parcel as part of the overall project. With that I'd ask if there is any questions that you have for me at this time and we will have the applicant. If there are any other questions that arise, feel free to ask. Zaremba: This is kind of a two-part question. If the applicant is willing to put this into the Development Agreement and willing to have an 18-month expiration on the right to use this house in this way, then there doesn't need to be a CUP? McKinnon: In the site-specific requirements -- Steve spent a little more time with this than I did. In Item Number 6, what you're talking about, if you took -- I'm looking at the exact same note that you did. I've looked at Items Number 2 and 3 underneath the site specific comments on Page 6, that the current Development Agreement has to be amended and the temporary office use of 18 months. Then if you look down to Site Specific Number 6, it talks about requiring a Conditional Use Permit for the office use. It sounds like it's the same question that I had, is there really a need for a Conditional Use Permit if we are amending the Development Agreement and that would be a good question for Nick to answer, as he smiles. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 11 of 47 Wollen: Well, with all these -- my take is that if you did go back to amend the Development Agreement, that you wouldn't need to go through with a Conditional Use Permit. It would be redundant, but that's - that is as far as I know on the situation. Borup: Any other questions of the Commission? Shall we get the applicant up here and maybe clear things up? Mathes: Dave? McKinnon: Yes. Mathes: Number 6 it says you will need a CUP for any use other than the temporary office? McKinnon: That's intent of the applicant - Zaremba: So I read that if they are going to use it for a temporary office, then they don't need a CUP, as long as the development agreement is-- McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: And this is just a catch-all that says if they change their mind about the use, then it does have to go through a - McKinnon: Yes. That does - that's right. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Cook: Are we ready? Borup: We're ready. Cook: Richard Cook with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland in Boise, here tonight representing the applicant. Dave, do you have an overview for the site plan - or of the site plan, by any chance? McKinnon: I'm sorry. Borup: We have one in our packet. Cook: Oh, you do? Okay. Let's see. The Development Agreement for the Touchmark Living Center does make reference to the Bair parcel and the future annexation thereof and we will amend that according to the requirements of staff. That's not an issue. We can take care of that. One thing we would like to ask for is on Condition 3 on the site Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 12of47 specific requirements, temporary office use of the existing vacant residence shall expire within 18 months of approval of the annexation, but the -- Borup: That was a question I had, too, was if that's adequate or not. Is that going to be a construction office? Is that the intent or - Cook: It's going to be used as an office specifically for the development of the project, okay? Construction office and logistics and what have you. Borup: That's what I was assuming. Cook: Right and -- Borup: So the intent would be that that would be there until - until the new office -- until the new building was built that it could be moved to or was the intent to be there until the whole project is completed? Cook: No. It's the intention of the applicant to retain this long enough to allow them to get a new office building constructed on the site that is part of the Touchmark Living Center development. As you know or you may be aware, that it's within the project and there are residences, there are offices and there is some retail -- Borup: Will it be in one of the office buildings, which is, I believe, close to that entrance somewhere, where they were - rather than in the main building on the southerly part of the -- Cook: Right. Correct. One of the things we are looking at is that 18 months from the date of approval would not really give them the time that they need to utilize the structure. Once we get the annexation approved, everything and we have to go in and remodel the building, and that's going to take some time before they can actually start using it. We would like to ask the Commission to accept a 24-month time frame on the temporary use of that particular structure. Borup: Does that give you enough time to get your other building built, then? Cook: The way we see it right now, yes. We are keeping our fingers crossed. Borup: Are you talking 24 months from annexation or 24 months occupied time? Cook: From annexation the way it reads right now. The next issue, Item 4, all parking and associated drive aisles shall be paved per the ordinance and so on. That I believe encompasses the paving of the parking area, the driveway, and the dimensions thereof, if I know the ordinance right. We do have a problem with the width of the drive aisle behind the parking stalls. If you look at the site plan you will see that four of the parking stalls are in front of that existing garage. I just simply did not have enough room to maintain a 25-foot drive aisle, provide enough space for the trees over on the east Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 130147 property line, and put the parking in there as well. I didn't want to get the parking too far south of the garage. We could move it south of the garage, that would hinder the handicapped parking area somewhat, and that's not really a desirable thing to do with your accessible parking spaces, you like to have those as close to the building as possible. Again, this being a temporary use, it's all going to go away and it's not a through drive, it's just a -- you know, an area where people are parking there who work in the office will back up and turn around and head out and. 1 think the 21 feet that we have is more than adequate to provide safe backing distance to get people turned around and headed back down the hill. Also on the - Zaremba: Mr. Cook -- I'm sorry to interrupt. Cook: That's okay. Zaremba: While we are on that subject, may I ask you - the cars that would be parking there, are they for employees who would likely come at the beginning of the shift and not move the car again until they go home or will there be in and out of people coming to the office to do something? Cook: It's primarily for the employees. There will be some in and out, but it will be the employees that are going in and out to check areas on the site or to go off to a meeting or whatever. Essentially, the parking is going to be stationary throughout the day, with people coming in say at 8:00 in the morning and going home at 5:00. There won't be a lot of in and out traffic. Zaremba: Thank you. Cook: Now the paving of the driveway, we would like to ask the Commission to give us permission to adhere to the requirements of Ada County Highway District, which is to pave the driveway to its full width of 30 feet in depth, rather than putting down all the asphalt clear up to the office building, just to turn around and have to rip it out in 24 months. Seems to be a little excessive. If there is any difficulty with dust control, we can use the approved dust control measures on the driveway itself. We don't see that as being a significant problem. As far as the rest of it is concerned, I don't see where we have any real concerns. Let me see. Points of discussion. Well, I think that covers it and I will respond to any questions you might have. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay. I have got a couple. Just -- 21 feet is -- can be a little tight, especially on a construction site with some of those long trucks and stuff that may be in there and I'm wondering if you couldn't at least take the three stalls to the south of the garage and add some depth to those three. Cook: Yes. Borup: The plan I have shows three of them - three of them south of the garage there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commisson Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 14of47 Cook: Right. Borup: Yes. Those could - the depth on those could - it looks like you could -- Cook: We could shift those to the west a bit to provide more room for turning around. I don't anticipate any kind of large construction vehicles in there. There might be a pickup truck. Borup: I'm thinking a long bed pickup with a crew cab. Cook: That could happen. Borup: And then as far as the gravel driveway, were you anticipating that was going to be compacted and rolled? Cook: Yes. Borup: Not just spread and -- I mean there are different compactions. Cook: Right. Right. Borup: I have seen some gravel compaction that's - for a while looks almost - is almost as solid as pavement. Cook: We don't have any objection to doing that, because I know you can put down the proper mix and then roll it and it's a pretty solid surface. Borup: Okay. Any other comments, David, on -- from staff on -- well, on both of those. That would only add three more parking places. You know, the other would be, I guess, compact size, technically, but- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, that sounds fine to me about the parking spaces. As far as the driveway in and out, you know, only going 30 feet back per ACHD's requirement, I just have a couple of questions concerning the dust abatement, as you mentioned, Mr. Cook. Are you talking about oiling the road? Is that what you - Cook: Yes. That was my thought. I know they have an environmentally safe mixture now that they can use to oil the road, so to speak. It's not really an oil per se, but it's something that is environmentally safe that they commercially produce now. McKinnon: Have you given any - Bruce and I were talking just a little bit. Have you given any consideration to using some reclaimed asphalt -- recycled asphalt in that location? Cook: I haven't thought of that, no. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 15of47 McKinnon: Okay. Because that may be, I guess, a more lasting improvement than simply oiling the - and it's less dust and that's one of the major concerns that we have is with the construction dust. Cook: So rather than the gravel, using the reclaimed asphalt and rolling it down? McKinnon: You'd use a gravel base as you would, but then it's an overlay of the recycled asphalt. You can actually roll that and I have seen people actually put it back through a pug mill and go ahead and roll it back out and new oil and everything, but typically it doesn't last as long as asphalt, but it's a little bit less expensive and it would meet closer to the intent of the ordinance. Cook: Sure. McKinnon: Okay. Borup: So, Mr. Cook, you think that would be -- that would work for you if we made that -- if that was part of the recommendation? Cook: Yes. Using the reclaimed asphalt? We can do that. Borup: Okay. Okay and if there was a turnaround, probably, again, to the south of the tree, it looks like a pretty solid site plan. You do have a little extra room if they need to come back up in that area where the road can go further to the east, but maybe you can see how that works on site. Cook: Was it the intention to eliminate the parking spaces that - Borup: No. Cook: - in front of the garage? Borup: No. Cook: They just take those -- Borup: Those three there and - Cook: -- and extend them out. Borup: Extend the depth on those so you have some -- Cook: Yes. Yes. We can do that. Borup: Okay. That would get those in there, so the other cars could maybe back around easier, too. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5. 2002 Page 16 of 47 Cook: The cut out that we have to the south, we can increase the depth of that a bit as well. Borup: Yes. You probably would for it to be usable, wouldn't you? Cook: Yes. Borup: Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one clarification. I just heard your discussion about lengthening the time to use the temporary office an additional six months. It sounded like you were hoping that that would be. the right time. Wouldn't it be better to add a little bit more time to that, so that you don't have to come back in case you have a problem, say two and a half years, 30 months - Borup: Is it 24 months from the time of occupancy? Cook: From the time of occupancy would really - I think that would be more than - McKinnon: I'd feel more comfortable with something like that as well. Cook: From time of occupancy, rather than from the time of -- date of approval. Borup: You had mentioned that you would be doing some remodeling there, so - Cook: Correct. The structure right now is in pretty sad shape, so it will take some extensive remodeling. Borup: I thought it was just temporary. You guys want to be pampered while you're in there? Cook: Oh, absolutely. They want to be warm and cozy in the winter and cool in the summer. Borup: Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Thank you, Mr. Cook. Cook: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing AZ. 02-018. Mathes: I will second that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5,2002 Page 17of47 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: It looks like Item Number 2 and 4 in the -- well, never mind. I'm looking at the points of discussion. Shreeve: Three and four. Borup: Okay. Item Number 3 and 4 in the site specific requirements. Shreeve: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Shreeve. Shreeve: Unless there is some discussion, I think I'd like to make a motion that we - Zaremba: We probably are, but I just want to clarify that the points of discussion one and two, about there not needing to be Conditional Use Permit if the Development Agreement is changed. Borup: Doesn't six clarify that properly? Zaremba: In points of discussion they are Items 1 and 2. I think item two in site specific requirements answer that question, as long as we are make a requirement. I think we have discussed it and it's covered. Okay. Shreeve: Is that right? Okay. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve AZ. 02-018, request for annexation and zoning of five acres from RUT to L-O zones for Bair Property Annexation by Donn Reiswig, 3975 East Franklin Road, with all staff comments dated August 28, 2002. With modifications to the site specific requirements Number 3 to be 24 months from the time of occupancy is when the temporary office shall expire. Then Item Number 4, that the driveway shall meet ACHD requirements, which is to pave the full width back 30 feet deep, and then from there to use reclaimed asphalt for the remaining driveway and parking lot. Also including that the back three parking stalls to the west of the existing garage - Zaremba: South. Shreeve: Or south of the existing garage be extended, what, five feet? Got to give them some kind of a distance, I guess. Borup: Well, we are four feet short from the ordinance, I think. Shreeve: So four feet? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 18 of 47 Borup: Minimum. Shreeve: That it be extended four feet to make them longer. I believe that's it. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if we could get some clarification on the parking lot. The parking lot would be asphalted, rather than reclaimed. It's really hard to get a wheelchair through reclaimed asphalt. Shreeve: Is it? It's compacted. McKinnon: It breaks up. Unless you rerun it through a pug mill, it's essentially gravel. Is that okay with - it's really hard to -- Shreeve: You're saying that the asphalt - that there would be asphalt for just those stalls? Borup: That is, too. It looks like -- it looks almost like regular asphalt for the first year and then after that, depending on how much traffic. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just spoke with Mr. Cook and he said that there is a large concrete pad at that location in front of the garage at this time and that they were planning on asphalting the rest of that with hot batch asphalt. Borup: From the existing concrete to the edge of the - okay so the gravel is just the driveway. Shreeve: Is just the driveway. Borup: To the -- Shreeve: Oh. Okay so parking will be asphalted or - yes, or concrete. It's just the driveway that we are talking about the reclaimed asphalt. All right. Well, that - did you get that motion right? Wollen: Mr. Commissioner, I just want to make sure that we did. The changes to the sight specific requirement Number 3, 24 months from the date of occupancy is when their -- the 24 month period from the date of occupancy. The driveway shall meet all the Ada County Highway District requirements, paved to 30 feet deep, and then we are allowing a reclaimed asphalt driveway with a concrete parking lot, which is already in the plans -- developer's plans. Then the three parking stalls to the south of the project be extended four feet. Borup: I think the parking lot will be concrete and asphalt. Wollen: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 5, 2002 Page 19 of 47 Shreeve: Concrete and asphalt mix. Zaremba: May I ask a question? Do we need to clarify that the right to use the existing domestic well and septic system also expires at that same 24 months or is that -- that's item one of the site specific - Borup: Well, yes, Item Number -- oh, I'm sorry, I'm looking back at the staff - Zaremba: Page 6. Shreeve: It just says the city services extended -- they have to be abandoned when and if there is a change in use as far as expansion beyond that being proposed. Borup: So they can be used just for the temporary office only. Shreeve: And so if, in fact, that building isn't temporary -- if it is temporary, then it changes its use. I think it's covered. Freckleton: I think we are covered. Zaremba: I second the motion. Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 7: Public Hearing: Mike Caven MI 02-005 Request for change of Area of Impact by Caven, Inc. for 39.64 acres located at the northeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road Borup: Okay. Item Number 7 -- I'm not sure -- did we have anybody else come in to testify on Item Number 7? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: At the request of the applicant, I move that Item Number 7, Public Hearing on MI 02-005, be continued until our meeting of September 19th. Mathes: I'll second that. Shreeve: Is there room for the 19th? Borup: Well, that's what I'm a little concerned about. That's why I wouldn't mind maybe discussing that a little bit tonight, if staff has some answers. My question is whether --