Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 21, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 10 of 65 Wildwood: Yes, it has changed the fall zone, but we still have seven years to wait until they are ready to go. So, we were trying to see if we couldn't move forward on this thing. But I appreciate the Commission's time. Thank you very much. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: You bet you. Thank you very much. Could I get a motion to continue these items, please? Lucas: Excuse me, Members of the Commission. I just did want to make clear that if changes are made to the plat staff would need those changes by January -- by January 19th would probably be a good date -- a good date just to give me enough time to process those changes and include all changes in an updated staff report, so that you would have all the information that's correct at the time of the Commission hearing. Rohm: Okay. That's good to know and the applicant, I'm sure, is aware of that January 19th date and will have any necessary information to staff for you to write an appropriate staff report. Commissioner Moe, would you care to -- Moe: Sure. I'd love to. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I make a motion that we move to continue the public hearings RZ 06-011 and PP 06-060, preliminary plat, to the regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of February 15th, 2007. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items RZ 06-011 and PP 06-060, both items related to Sundial Subdivision, to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: And thank you folks for coming in and we will see you back on the 15th of February. Any of that paperwork will be made available. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: RZ 06-008 Request for a Rezone of 8.96 acres (Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12) from R-4 to C-N zone for Lochsa Falls Office I Commercial Addition by Farwest, LLC - south of Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Linder Road: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from November 2, 2006: MCU 06-002 Request for Modification of the approved Conditional Use Permit I Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 11 of 65 Planned Development to remove the requirement for detailed Conditional Use Permit approval for development on Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12 for Lochsa Falls Office I Commercial Addition by Farwest, LLC - south of Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Linder Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from November 2nd, 2006, of RZ 06-008 and MCU 06-002, both items related to Lochsa Falls Office Commercial Addition and begin with our staff report. Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a rezone for Lots 41 through 45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12. The applicant has requested these lots be rezoned from the R-4, Low Density Residential, to the C-N, Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit planned development, CUP 02-012, to remove the requirement for detailed conditional use approval for future uses on these lots. The subject property is located on the south side of Chinden Boulevard, east of Long Lake Avenue, within Lochsa Falls Subdivision. The site is currently vacant office commercial land. And to the east is agricultural land recently approved as Knighthill Center Subdivision, a commercial development zoned C-G. To the north is also agricultural land recently approved as Knight Sky Estates Subdivision, a mixed use development zoned R-4, TN-C and C-C. To the south are single family residences in Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zone R-4. And immediately to the west are future office lots zoned L-O. Further to the west, on the west side of Long Lake Way, is a future school site zoned R-4. The property was previously approved for office uses on Lots 42 through 45 and commercial use on Lots -- on Lot 41 through the planned development for Lochsa Falls Subdivision as a use exception in the R-4 zone under the old Meridian City Code. The development agreement for this subdivision allows for the construction and development of 11 office buildings and one commercial building for the commercial portions of the development. Staff interprets buildings to mean lots, since more than one building may be built on a lot. Staff is recommending that Lots 42 through 45 be rezoned L-O and Lot 41 be rezoned C-N, instead of their requested overall C-N designation, consistent with the uses approved in the planned development and development agreement. The applicant has submitted a response to the staff report agreeing with the change in zoning from the original request. There is an aerial view of the property. And that's the plat on which these properties are located. Here is some proposed elevations for the buildings on these sites -- sample elevations, I should say. The issues highlighted in the staff report for the Commission are as follows: First, the lack of a sidewalk and requirement of one along the north side of West Everest Lane. West Everest is the roadway right there, which these lots are accessed. The Hastings Development immediately to the west of this site was required to provide a sidewalk and this requirement will provide a sidewalk connection from Linder Road to Long Lake Way. Second, staff is requiring 135 foot minimum building setback requirement, measured from the center line of Chinden Boulevard for structures built on these lots. The setback consists of a hundred feet for current and future ITD right of way, plus 35 feet for a future landscape buffer. Seventy feet of right of way was Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 12 of 65 originally required with Lochsa Falls Subdivision. However, since, then, ITD has requested that development along Chinden Boulevard, accommodate a one hundred foot right of way for future highway improvements. Third, staff is requesting that the hours of operation on this C-N zoned property, which is right here on the east end, be limited to between 600 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., because of its proximity to residential properties in a variety of uses currently permitted in the C-N by the UDC. Last, the applicant had submitted some sample pictures for potential elevations, buildings for this site, that are very different in design. Staff is requesting the Commission to determine if the proposed elevations are acceptable or if they would like to see similar elevations as proposed with the adjacent offices buildings in Hastings Subdivision. These are the elevations proposed adjacent to the site. They appear to be stucco with some brick or stone accents on them. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions listed in the staff report and that's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Sonya, I just want to -- you make comment that you're looking for us to make recommendation in regards to the exterior elevations as far as what would their -- what they have got planned, as opposed to what's in the other office buildings nearby and I'm assuming, then, that's part of the -- the ones from the modification to the CUP. Watters: They are providing elevations now, sample elevations, and they are requesting that they not go through detailed conditional use approval in the future for these lots. Moe: I guess one comment I would -- I would be curious about is what does staff think about their planned elevations? Watters: Staff thinks they are all nice, they all have, you know, good design features. Basically, the staff was just looking for, you know, if the Commission had any, you know, certain desires they would like to see in that area. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, since we are on that subject, I think the only desire that I would like to add is the discussion of whether these are the facades from West Everest or from Chinden. If the backs of the buildings are facing Chinden, I think they should have some facade treatment as well. Just a comment. Then, I also had a separate question and I may need to ask this of the applicant, but I will ask staff to begin with. Let's see, can you go back to one of the -- whether it's an aerial view or an aerial drawing of thing. That one will do. That's fine. When the property to the east came through, we required them to work out a cross-access agreement, since Everest is a Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 13 of 65 private street, so that people using Everest could actually access through their property to Linder and leaving this property could use Everest. Do we know if that cross-access agreement was ever consummated, shall we say? Watters: Staff isn't certain, Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Okay. I will ask the applicant. If not, we will put it on the list of things to do. Watters: Sounds good. Rohm: Okay. Any additional questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward? Seeing none, would the applicant like to come forward on this application. McColl: Commissioners, Brian McColl, 420 West Washington, on behalf of the applicant. With respect to the last question, the property owner immediately to the east has approached us and requested that we provide access through Everest Drive and we have agreed to do so. We haven't drafted a cross-access agreement yet, but that will be done. There is no difficulty with that. Zaremba: Thank you. McColl: With respect to staff's observations, we are in complete agreement that we would modify our request for a rezone to have the four westerly lots zoned L-O and the most easterly lot be the only one that's zoned C-N. No difficulty with the sidewalk condition. No difficulty with the hours restriction. I would like to address for the moment briefly the status of the, quote, building setback. As it is right now, the Idaho Transportation Department has in fee a 40 foot right of way from center line. When Lochsa Falls was annexed, platted, subject to a development agreement, the platting process provided in addition to the 40 feet, a 30 foot common area that would be -- although it wasn't, I don't think, specifically specified, a 30 foot common area was available for future right of way should ITD want it. At that point in time when this project came through that's what they wanted, 70 feet. So, the 40, plus the 30, would give the 70 feet. And, then, yet another strip or common area lot was in the preliminary plat and in the final plat for this phase and that consisted of a 35 foot common strip for a landscaping buffer to comply with the city's requirement that there be that buffer. So, when this particular phase got platted that's how it ended up. ITD owns 40 feet, there is a 30 foot common area plat -- or a 30 foot common area strip and, then, another 35 foot strip. That takes you to the property line of all of these lots, including the two lots that were relatively recently rezoned by the owner of those lots as Hastings Subdivision and that's where the property line is. So, if you add those up, 40, plus 30, is 70, and, then, another 35, takes you to 105 feet to the platted line. In addition to that, then, of course, there are the setback requirements for the particular zone. I'm not sure how to reconcile the request for a building setback that is clearly different from the Uniform Development Code that this city has adopted with the fact that this has been plated already. So, I didn't want to brush this under the carpet. I think it's probably not appropriate to impose ITD's current policy in the form of an additional setback, I think for a number of reasons. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 14 of 65 First, the Idaho Department of Transportation has probably had four different opportunities to put this in the record to make this request and in each case they declined. I mean there was the two public hearings for the annexation, zoning, development agreement, preliminary plat, and that was never a condition. Can't be found anywhere. Again, when this particular rezone was brought and is being brought now, ITD that I'm aware of has not responded to a request by putting into the record anything in terms of what it might want in the future. The second reason for probably not solving the problem in the fashion of making this a condition is -- and it would be somewhat inconsistent. We already have platted in front of the Hastings Subdivision those two common lots, one 35 feet for the landscape buffer, and the other 30 feet for additional right of way and I believe the subdivision that was approved further to the west, that was not a requirement for that subdivision either. So, we would have this inconsistency that doesn't really solve the problem. The problem will ultimately be solved perhaps if ITD does come forward and through the process of eminent domain seek any additional right of way, whether it be from it's existing 40 to 45 feet to 70 feet to 80 feet to 90 feet or to 100 feet, they will make the request for eminent domain and the property, which in this case is going to be and already is the homeowners association, would respond to the eminent domain by giving it up or disagreeing and having that battle with them. I don't think it's necessarily the jurisdiction of Planning and Zoning or City Council to do an end run around that eminent domain process and, again, were you to do so I don't know what that means. Do we change the lot line? That's not before anybody. Nobody's requested it. ITD hasn't requested it. If ITD wants a hundred foot setback, I suspect that a hundred feet on either side of Chinden Boulevard, despite whatever plans they have for Chinden Boulevard, would end up with partially a landscape buffer. Well, the landscape buffer is there, as the staff points out in their staff report, the landscape buffer of 35 feet has already been built and is in place. So, based upon that I'd stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you. That was very interesting. Any questions of the applicant from Members of the Commission? Borup: I do have a question that -- and I don't know if you know the answer, but you had mentioned the properties on -- at least on the west. Do you know -- do you know specifically how the properties on either side were treated as far as the setback, future buffers, et cetera? McColl: Commissioner Borup, it's my understanding that the property immediately to the west, which is now the Hastings commercial or office subdivision, they came in under Lochsa Falls development agreement that said these lots have been, basically, set aside for office, but you need a specific Conditional Use Permit. They came in and it's my understanding that ITD had a letter saying we might want a hundred feet setback in the future, but despite that letter the re-sub of Hastings went through and there was no -- I mean I just don't think it's appropriate to call it a building setback. There was no additional right of way either deeded to the ITD or reserved for lTD. Beyond that, immediately to the west I guess -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21,2006 Page 15 of 65 Borup: So, that property line is less than a hundred feet from the center line? McColl: That's correct. That's correct. All -- basically, there were originally seven lots and those seven lots' property line is 40, plus 30, plus 35 or 105 feet from the center line of Chinden. Borup: The lots are. McColl: They are. Borup: That's what I just asked. McColl: Oh. Yes. The answer is yes. Borup: Okay. So, that -- and that's the same as what you're saying -- McColl: Yes. Borup: -- that you have here, other than the buffer is lacking on both of them, then? Or could be lacking if there was -- if they had had the 200 foot right of way? McColl: Yeah. If there was to be a hundred foot right of way, that right of way would have to be taken from the northerly lot line of all of these lots to the tune of -- if my math is correct -- another 20 feet. Borup: Either that or reduce the buffer, the landscape buffer. McColl: Or reduce the landscape buffer. Borup: Okay. McColl: Or have as part of ITD's right of way the landscape buffer. Borup: Well, I agree that it's not up to this Commission to require, you know, giving up of right of way and land, but I -- but I disagree that this isn't something we should be concerned about. This is what we are supposed to be doing is planning and looking to the future and to prevent problems down the road and having preservation and areas set aside does exactly that. McColl: And I agree completely, Commissioner Borup. And I think that when this was originally approved at that point ITD was talking about 70 feet. I mean we have this situation all the time, I mean there is lots of properties that have already been developed and ITD or ACHD's right of way requirements, their policies change and you see them coming in and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 16 of 65 Borup: It would be a lot easier if they'd get their act together and decide what it's really going to need. McColl: Yes. Right. Borup: I agree. Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair, before you move on to general public testimony, if there is any, I just wanted to kind of clarify Hastings, which is the two lot short plat that was -- is directly to the west. And it is a moving target with ITD and their right of way. It was -- it's been 70 feet for a long time. Luckily we haven't seen too much development along Chinden and have only required -- Lochsa is one of the few where we have only required 70 feet. Today was the first time I had actually seen the corridor -- 20-26 corridor study from Parametrics that is working for ITD, at least putting it on paper officially that they are looking at a corridor of 100 feet. We have been getting letters for some time now from them saying, hey, try to leave 100 feet, but with respect to the Hastings project, we asked ITD to provide comments. Their comments came after the fact. We had our conditions in place. It was dated like May 6th and the plat was done in April and so they were just late in getting us those comments. You know, we give them three weeks to respond and they took four or whatever and so staff would have had a similar or thought the same condition on those guys if we would have had comments from ITD saying, please, reserve 100 feet. Now, with the Conditional Use Permit any condition that the Commission feels is appropriate to move the project forward -- and that's how we kind of rationalize this 135 foot setback. Now, I agree -- I mean I can somewhat understand not being in these shoes before, but I can somewhat understand the frustration from an applicant, too. And reduction of that buffer may be appropriate, but to leave a five foot landscape buffer when we are going to have 35 on everywhere else in the mile, because we are getting 100 feet now. You asked, but we didn't answer the question about Knighthill and Knight Sky Estates, there is 100 feet there on both sides. Reserved. ITD has not purchased it, but we start counting their landscape buffers on the back side of that future right of way. So, we are trying to make sure that we aren't buying buildings of general public -- ITD is not buying bUildings in the future and that's where that requirement comes from. So, just wanted to -- a couple of background information for you. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Because the math on this distance from the center line is escaping me, is ITD asking now for 100 feet from the center line straight across -- I mean their discussion at one time was they definitely wanted 100 feet when they were near an intersection, because they wanted to do acceleration and deceleration lanes, right turn Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 17 of 65 lanes, and stuff. But perhaps when you are halfway between intersections they didn't need 100, they have settled on that now, they want 100 straight across? Hood: Again, I saw that map for the first time today and it's still subject to change, but they are trying to preserve a corridor of 100 feet from mile to mile. Now, that's going to stop somewhere -- I think the mile between Locust Grove and Meridian may be 70, but, then, from Meridian to Linder that's when that 100 feet -- and west -- points west will be 100 feet. There is already some constraints further back to the east near Locust Grove. There is some older subdivisions that only have 70 and they are buying a bunch of nice homes if you go in there and try to get 100 foot right of way in there, but this is for the most part undeveloped or underdeveloped and they are trying to preserve 100 feet along those mile corridors. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. At this time we have one individual that has signed up to speak. Jay Anderton. Anderton: Mr. Commissioner, Jay Anderton, 4752 North Sunset Way, Lehi, Utah. I'm the director of development and representative of Challenger schools, which is the owner of Lots 41 and 42. We support the applicant's proposal to go forward. We also have shared a similar concern with regard to the 100 feet setback, particularly in its commercial use. Our goal would be to have as close to access to Chinden as we can, so that people can have visibility of our commercial establishment. So, we kind of concur with -- it's going to be nice to see that buffer reduced. But it is our motion here or our desire to say that we are in support of the applicant and look forward to your decision to support. Thank you, sir. Rohm: You bet. Thank you. There is no others signed up to speak to this application, but at this time if there is anyone else that would like to come forward now is the time. Seeing none -- Moe: Mr. Chairman, if at all possible I would like to ask the applicant to actually come back up. Commissioner Zaremba did ask a question in regards to the exterior elevations in regards to what the look will be of not just on Chinden, but on the southern side as well. Can you speak to that a little bit as far as what that is going to look like? McColl: Unfortunately, I really can't. As the previous individual just testified, they have purchased two of those lots and when they come in for their -- I mean should this -- should this application go forward, my understanding is that these lots would get the zones that have been requested, subject to the variety of building forms that have been submitted as part of the application, then, a particular owner of one of those lots is going to come in to get their building permit and, then, I think at that point a determination will be made as to whether or not they are consistent or not consistent. If we wanted to put in the record that the facade facing Chinden be similar to one of the facades that have been submitted, I don't think anybody would have any difficulty with that. I mean, to be Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 18 of 65 frank, Challenger School is going to be building a school there and we don't know exactly what the school is going to look like, but it would have to have at least a styling similar to what's in the record now. And with respect to the others, they are not sold and we don't know who is going to buy them and for all we know they will come in for an additional re-subdivision, as Hastings did. Moe: Thank you very much. Borup: Mr. Chairman, for Mr. Moe's comment, I -- part of the staff comment says it must comply with the design standards in the Uniform Development Code, which talks about facades and percentages of the minimum change and that kind of stuff. So, I think the staff would probably be looking at that when they approve it -- Waters: That is correct, Commissioner Borup. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have some thoughts on this application? Newton-Huckabay: No. Rohm: Okay. I guess my thoughts on this is Commissioner Borup brought up a point that we are charged with the responsibility of good planning to the future and if, in fact, we are aware that Idaho Transportation Department intends to request 100 foot right of way each side of center and we grant permission to construct at 70-foot, I'm not sure that that's fulfilling our responsibilities and I can certainly concur is what the applicant was saying, too, that at the time that was originally platted, there was no reference to 1 DO-foot each side of center. So, I'm not sure what the right answer is, other than I don't think we should ignore information that's now available to us that wasn't at the time that the plat was originally drawn, so -- Borup: So, that being said, what are you saying? Rohm: Well, I think that just, you know, from my perspective I think that the building should be moved at least the additional 30 feet off of south of the -- the buffer zone and that way if, in fact, the -- Borup: So, that would put the -- that would put the building 65 feet from -- Rohm: Well, I'm not very good with math either, so-- Borup: Well, 30 plus 35 would be 65. Rohm: It would be 135 feet -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 19 of 65 Moe: To the buffer and, then, you're looking at another 30 beyond. Rohm: Oh, there is 30 feet beyond -- Borup: Well, right now we are a hundred -- was that correct that there is 105 feet from the center line to the property line? The applicant testified to that. Hood: Yeah. The applicant spelled it out pretty clearly, 40 feet they own today deed and 30 feet that Lochsa -- they reserved for a future ITD purpose and, then, our 35 foot wide landscape buffer in a common lot. So, that's why their lot starts at the backside of that common lot a Lochsa Falls landscape buffer lot. Borup: And then -- and, then, on a -- and, then, the setback is either 30 or 35, depending on whether it's L-O or C-N, isn't it? The building setback on the property line. Hood: Front setback -- I'm not sure what it is. Borup: Not setback. Well, this isn't considered the back? Hood: It depends on where the front door is, but it may be a rear setback. L-O rear setbacks probably don't even exist. I think there is a ten foot side, but I don't even know that there is a rear setback in the L-O. I don't have -- I just went online to try to look at the UDC online and this computer doesn't have it hooked up, so -- and someone ran away with our hard copy that was here, so -- Rohm: Yeah. By all means. Might as well let Caleb have it or the two of you could review it. Zaremba: What the staff is asking or looking for in their requirements, 1.3 -- Borup: Twenty and twenty-five is what it is, not 30 and 35. At least where I read it -- are you looking on Table 11-2B-3? Hood: Correct. Borup: So, that a 20 on the C-N and a -- I mean a 25 on the C-N and a 20 on the L-O? Zaremba: Well, if I'm doing the math right, then, we are only talking about like a five foot net difference. What staff is asking for is -- in their paragraph 1.3, that the building be 135 -- be no closer than 135 feet from the center line. One hundred feet reserved for the right of way, 35 feet reserved for the buffer. Even if you took the current property line and you said that the building could be no closer than 20 feet from that property line, you're at 125 from center line, so we are only discussing ten feet on that example. My feeling is I think it's wise to reserve that. In other words, go with the staff's request. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 20 of 65 Borup: Thirty-five feet from -- Zaremba: A hundred feet from the center line, plus 35 for the buffer. Borup: Plus another -- plus another 20 for the -- 25 for the building -- 20 for the building? Zaremba: No. Rohm: No, I think -- Borup: Okay. So, that was the point -- that's where I was trying to get to. Zaremba: They already have to be 125 feet from the center line. Borup: But they would need a reduction of -- but, then, they would be in noncompliance with the setback. Hood: The setbacks are measured to property line and we are not asking them to move their property line or that common lot -- Borup: You would allow that 35 -- part of the 35 would be outside of their property line and part of it would be inside? Hood: Correct. It would be, essentially, an easement for landscaping. And you can build right up to that easement. There is not a setback from an easement line. So, that 135 is where they could start construction. If -- the way the condition is worded currently if that's what you go with. Borup: Okay. Hood: There is not an additional setback. We are not that mean. Borup: Yeah. So, Commissioner Zaremba's comment was, right, just ten feet. Zaremba: The difference between what theoretically they could have done before and what -- Borup: So, the building would need to be ten feet -- Zaremba: Farther away from the line -- Borup: Yeah. Rohm: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21,2006 Page 21 of 65 Zaremba: I would support asking for that. Rohm: Could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing, then? Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-008 and MCU 06-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 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 numbers RZ 06-008 and MCU 06-002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 21 st, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. On Exhibit B I would add a paragraph 1.10 that says that the applicant shall complete a cross-access agreement with the property owner to the east for the use both of Everest private lane by the neighbor to the east and crossing the neighbor's property to access Linder by this applicant. And I believe that was the only change. I further move to require the applicant to submit new legal descriptions for the L-O and C-N properties as outlined in the staff report at least more than ten days before Public Hearing at City Council. Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 06-008 and MCU 06-002, to include all staff comments with aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 06-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.17 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Portico, LLC - 1780 E. McMillan Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 06-053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 26 single-family residential building lots and 3 common / other lots on 5.17 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Portico, LLC - 1780 E. McMillan Road: