Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 3, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 3 of 56 act on that project the same evening. There are times that we end up having to continue for whatever reason, but, generally speaking, we try to conclude. Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 06-034 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.95 acres from R4 (Ada County) to L-O (Limited Office District) for Ashtyn Park Annexation by David N. Price -- 201 W. Ustick Road: Rohm: So, with that being said, I'd like to at this time open up the Public Hearing for AZ 06-034 for Ashtyn Park annexation and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. There is the Ashton Park annexation. It is just an annexation application. There is not an associated development application for the 2.95 acres that is being requested to be annexed into the city and zoned to L-O, office zoning. You may recall last year this same parcel was also before you and you forwarded on a favorable recommendation to the City Council. The City Council did deny that application, primarily because there was not a detailed enough concept plan for the site and it was at that time, too, just an annexation request, but it wasn't real firm on how that site would develop out. So, the owner of this property has hired The Land Group and have put together a concept plan, which I will show you here in just a minute for how that site will develop and staff has taken that concept plan and some of the other provisions that are generally put into place for properties that just have a concept plan on them into a development agreement that we'd like the City Council to approve for this site, so when it develops it does resemble the concept plan that they are proposing. To orient you a little bit, this site is located on the southeast -- or southwest corner of Ustick and Meridian Road. I'll move to the aerial here. It is just east of the church and day care. This -- actually, part of this parcel was just until recently owned by the church and that's why about half of this property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map as public, quasi public, and the other half is designated as residential, because back in 2002 the church did own this parcel or portion of this parcel and it was shown as public, quasi public. They have since deemed it unnecessary for their uses and have sold it to Mr. Price. To the south are a couple of single family homes in the county. Those homes are zoned RUT. Across Meridian Road is Eastbrook Subdivision. There is a public street there, Eastbrook, just south of Meridian Road. I'm sorry. Just south of Ustick Road. It's about 200 feet south. And I'll touch on access here in just a minute. To the north across Ustick is Settler's Park. And, then, if you go kitty-corner to the northeast corner of the intersection is the office uses that are approved in Sundance Subdivision. They are just going to be under construction, if they haven't broken ground. I haven't been out there in a couple of weeks, but they should be breaking ground on the office uses there on the corner of that intersection. So, here is the aforementioned concept plan. There are six buildings shown on this plan. The access point, as I also mentioned, is at the far southern boundary of the site. The previous plan -- there were a couple of concept plans with the '05 application that was processed. The access point at that time, ACHD required them to align that driveway with Eastbrook Drive, I think it is, that is directly across Meridian Road. The ACHD has recently -- I don't want to say rescinded that staff report, but they have updated it to reflect this concept plan and requiring the applicant now to have that Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 4 of 56 driveway be no less than 315 feet south of Ustick Road. So, that's generally where you will see the driveway and staff has also required that that driveway connect up with the church parking lot, so that a reciprocal easement can be granted, so that people on this property can get through the church up to Ustick Road and vice-versa, church patrons can come through this property and get to Meridian Road. So, not everyone has to go through this intersection if you were heading back to the west and you're at the chiropractor's office or whoever may be in here. And same with the church, if you are just heading south you can cut through the office. development and continue on and bypass that intersection. There are several provisions in the development agreement. I don't know that I need to touch on all of them. Some of them, just real quickly, have a minimum -- or maximum size, excuse me, for each of these buildings to be no greater than 5,000 square feet. They aren't shown quite that big, I thought I'd give them a little bit more flexibility. I think they are in the neighborhood of 3,500 square feet now, I thought maybe if you have got a user that wanted a little bit more, combine two of these buildings in one or something, 5,000 still seemed to be a pretty manageable number and wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb, really, in this development anyways. So, the other DA provisions do require the 20-foot wide land use buffer along the southern boundary and a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along both of the arterial streets, Ustick and Meridian, as well as a 25 buffer foot wide buffer to the church, because it's zoned residential. That's according to ordinance. So, I think I touched on pretty much the main points here. I won't belabor it too much more. I know you saw a similar project here -- or similar layout here on this site and I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Borup: Just one. Caleb, the staff report mentions that some of the dimensions do not seem to comply with the UDC. Is there anything specific that's a concern or is this just minor things? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, they are pretty minor. If you look right here there is a little bit of this backup area for this -- this parking stall that does encroach within that required 20-foot land use buffer, so it needs to be a 20-foot land use buffer, exclusive of any asphalt. That's the one off the top of my head I can think of. But nothing too significant or else I would have spelled it out a little bit more clearly. But that's the one I can think of. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? And, please, state your name and address for the record. Elg: Sure. Thank you. My name is Van Elg. I'm with The Land Group, 462 East Shore in Eagle. I'm the planner for The Land Group and representing Mr. Price tonight, who is the developer. Caleb, do you have that disk, that Powerpoint? Oh, it's already up. Again, I won't -- as Caleb mentioned, I won't belabor it too much. We have gone over Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 5 of 56 the staff report and find that what Caleb has indicated in this report is in compliance with what we understood to occur on the project. We don't have any particular issues with any elements of the staff report. There was a comment that I think Caleb probably had addressed, but you may have it in your packet. ACHD initially transmitted a report that was the same report, apparently, from the last time that this was before the Commission and there has been a slight change in here. So, let me -- as I go through this I will point out what change that was and why ACHD has now adjusted that report. Again, you have seen the aerial here, Caleb, so we can flip to the next one there. There is just the vicinity map again, which Caleb had on his. This drawing right here -- I wanted to show you some of the initial drawings that you saw last year as from a concept standpoint. This is the first concept drawing that you saw. You will notice that the access point is about 220 feet from the intersection of Ustick and Meridian Road, which is in approximate alignment with Eastbrook Subdivision, which was a point of contention for some of the neighbors last time. They did not want to see that -- that intersection in alignment there. In addition, ACHD had some issues with it and it was going to be a restricted access to right-in, right-out only. And since that time we have come back with what we believe to be a much better plan. Caleb, you can flip to the next one now. Again, this is another concept plan that was presented. We didn't feel like this one really met the intent or was a design that we wanted to proceed with. And the next, Caleb. When presented last year, Mr. Price identified a number of permitted and conditional uses in the application and Caleb has indicated in the staff report that through the development agreement we are being restricted to only those permitted uses in the L-O zone, that conditional uses won't be allowed. I think the only thing that - - it looks like the ordinance may have changed a little since the last time we were in, Caleb. I believe the L-O zone has changed. Some of those things that were conditional uses at one point are now part of it. The next slide kind of highlights -- condenses those yellow areas. Oops. No, it doesn't. I think it went to -- one back, maybe. Clicking over somewhere. Okay. Anyways, if you look at those yellows you can see that there is -- that's a summary of all of the principal permitted uses in the zone. And we completely agree with what's allowed there. You can see that our intent is to proVide professional office spaces, dental offices, doctor's offices, chiropractic offices, maybe financial offices, perhaps a day care center, as allowed by the zone, but certainly nothing that will be intensive in either traffic or pedestrian generation in the site. It will be a fairly low impact development. Caleb, if we can go to the next -- flip through -- is that the last one for ACHD? There we go. There is the condensed version. This is the -- yeah. That's fine. We will use that one right now. Okay. This is what you were lacking last time. One of the things -- one of the elements that you were lacking was an aerial of the site and -- I don't mean an aerial, an elevation of the site. And you will probably recognize this. This is Heritage Commons or a similar type development. Mr. Price fully intends to have something very compatible to this type of development on that site. Let's go to that site plan now, Caleb. This is the site plan that we have identified as being what we believe to be a much superior plan to the ones that were presented last year. You will notice that, as Caleb mentioned, 315 feet south of the intersection you will find the full access intersection -- or access point to this site. It's not a right-in, right-out, but a full access. No longer aligning with Eastbrook Subdivision, but should provide a much better means of access to the site and reduce some of the transportation -- the trips that Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 6 of 56 are generated through that intersection, as you will come directly into the site, instead of passing through Ustick and Meridian Road. In addition, this site allows -- or this access point here will deter cut-through traffic from Meridian Road or from Ustick Road through the church site and back down through. So, you can see you'd have to wind fairly significantly through that project to get back out. So, it won't be a very convenient cut through approach. The six buildings that you see there, as Caleb mentioned, vary in size. I believe there is a total of about 21,000 square foot of commercial space, with about 3.8 parking spaces per thousand. Certainly that one parking space or turn out -- back out area there on the south boundary is something that we will have to come back and address and certainly willing to do that. But with that I don't think that there is whole lot more that we need to cover particularly with this -- with this proposal, other than we did mention the cross-access easement. That does exit. Mr. Price already has that agreement in his hands and we will be providing that for the church and possibly allowing them to park on Sundays within the property as well. We would ask that the normal hours of operation be consistent with the code. I think it goes from, what, 6:00 to 10:00 is the normal standard hours of operation. And with that I will open myself up to any questions that you might have. Rohm: Okay. Any questions of this applicant? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: Okay. Before you sit down I have a question of staff and, then, possibly you can respond. Caleb, he had mentioned day care as one of the potential developments, Is that something that would be accepted in this -- as part of this project? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, it is on that list, which looked like the list out of the UDC. It is principally permitted. I think that is one of the changes that was made from the old Meridian city code to the new UDC in giving home, if you will, for day care centers, whereas before they were, basically, a Conditional Use Permit in all types of -- all different zoning districts and now it is principally permitted in the L-O and I think there are still several other zoning districts where they would require a C-U. But I can verify if I had a UDC here and I may try to find a hard copy of one or jump online real quick and just find you a for sure answer, but I believe -- Rohm: Typically, the day cares require a CU and I just wanted to validate before we went forward with the assumption that it would be principally permitted. Hood: Right. Rohm: And that's fine. Elg: Mr. Chairman, I checked the UDC directly online, Caleb, and that's where I found that as well. That -- I wasn't aware of that change myself, so I checked it several times. Rohm: Well, good. I'm satisfied with that, then. Good. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 7 of 56 Elg: You know, as Caleb mentioned, the day care center is currently existing -- currently at the site at the church and has for a number of years. And they are anxious to potentially use one of the buildings, so -- Rohm: Good. Okay. Thank you. Elg: Thank you. Borup: That is what my book shows. Rohm: Okay. Good. I just -- I didn't want to move forward without clearing that in my own mind. Elg: Yeah. That's why I checked it several times myself, because-- Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Just one question, Mr. Chairman. Previously the City Council had denied that. Do you feel it was because of the sample buildings or because of the landscaping layout or -- I mean there is not a lot of difference from what you submitted then and now and I -- do you feel comfortable that it will be okay at City Council this time? Elg: Frankly, we do. Borup: Okay. Elg: The Council -- I guess could say this. They asked for the additional elevations and such. The applicant initially wasn't able to be at the meeting -- missed the first part of the meeting. When he got to the Council meeting through the appeal wasn't able to -- because the meeting had progressed he wasn't able to get the elevations and so they denied it. So, I think it was just a combination. He didn't have a good concept plan and he didn't have the elevations that he needed -- Borup: Okay. Elg: -- and there was a few things like that. Borup: Thank you. Elg: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you very much. We do not have anybody else that has signed up to speak to this application, but if there is anyone who would like to, this is your opportunity and, please, come forward. And state your name and place of residence. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 8 of 56 Vogel: My name is Lester Vogel and we have some water users and there is an irrigation pipe that comes up on the corner there and will they be leaving that alone and not planting shrubs or something around it? Rohm: Typically, the way a development works is any water use that was available to adjacent properties before development occurs has to be available once the development is completed, so-- Vogel: They won't be obstructing me? Rohm: The water will be delivered just as it was prior. Vogel: But how about bushes and trees over that? Borup: I think that can -- that ditch is probably outside of their new property line. I think that's probably within the ACHD right of way, if I'm -- it's pretty close to that. Vogel: Okay. There won't be anything over it? Borup: Well, normally, the ditches are required to be covered if it's -- Vogel: Yeah. It's covered, but it's got a clean out there, so it needs -- Borup: Oh, you're talking about a covered ditch, not the open one that's there? Vogel: No. It's a covered ditch, but there is a plate there where it goes under Meridian Road and under Ustick Road. Borup: But along the road it's open, isn't it? Vogel: No. Borup: Okay. I'm thinking of a different one. Vogel: If you have -- if it gets plugged or something you -- Borup: Okay. We can probably -- the applicant can answer that specifically, but -- whether it's on the property, but, no, they were -- Rohm: Okay. Thank you, sir. Before we ask the applicant to come back, is there anybody else that has any question about this particular project? Any other testimony? Would the applicant like to come back, please. Elg: What you said is true when we come back with a full development concept plan that's for final approval, we certainly understand that we can't impede or interrupt or obstruct any of the flow -- any irrigation flows there. He's correct, there is a covered Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 9 of 56 ditch up there. It is in -- it's the Nampa-Meridian or Settlers irrigation and that the church was the end user on that, as the applicant explained to me just a moment ago. And they have seceded their right to -- or at least a portion of the rights to this site here. So, we will do whatever is necessary to make sure that irrigation water is protected and preserved in that ditch. It may take some negotiations with ACHD as well and there will be some coordination as we get that, so we don't obstruct the flow of irrigation. Moe: So access will be available? Elg: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just had a question for staff. Caleb, what -- is there an ordinance that requires them to deliver water or -- Borup: State law. Newton-Huckabay: -- or state law or -- and not interrupt the water usage? Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, there is a state law for sure and there may be something in the Public Works section that talks about, you know, where irrigation water enters your property and exits. You can't mess with those two points. I don't know of anything in Meridian City Code. I know it's a state law, but I'm not sure of state code, so I'm going to ask Mike if he -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I just was aware of that legal responsibility by -- Cole: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, there is a state statute that requires that you deliver water from where it enters your property to where it leaves Your property when you develop that, that you have to maintain historical flows from where it enters and deliver it where it exits your property. Meridian City Code doesn't require that, it requires that you tile any ditches that lie within that property and to comply with all state statutes. We, in the past, just for a little bit of clarification, and it might help the member in the audience, in the past we have required downstream user approval prior to final plat signature. At times that's caused some headaches, because facilities are already put in, it's costly to redirect them at that time. We since have a new policy where prior to construction plan approval -- so even if they are doing a construction without a plat involved, if they are doing just multiple buildings on one lot, as the UDC allows, they still have to have the construction plans approved, sewer, water, and one of the -- one of the requirements that we make them is submit written approval from the downstream users prior to construction plan approval, so it's hatched out before it's in Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 10 of 56 the ground. If it's a Settler's or a Nampa irrigation ditch, they have to provide something from that district. If it's a downstream user, the next property downstream they are the ones that have to get written permission from those people Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you very much. Rohm: Any further discussion among the Commission on this application? Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-034. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-034. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-034 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 3rd, 2006. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-034 to include the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 06..033 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.6 acres from RUT (Ada County) to 6 acres of R-4 (Medium Low-Density