Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 21, 2006 P&Z Minutes 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 I other lots on 5.17 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Portico, LLC - 1780 E. McMillan Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 22 of 65 Rohm: Thank you for coming in. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-052 and PP 06-053, both items related to Portico Place Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the applications before you are an annexation and zoning and preliminary plat request for Portico Place Subdivision. The property is 5.17 acres in size and is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The subject property is located at 1780 East McMillan Road on the north side of McMillan Road just east of the intersection of Locust Grove and McMillan. Right there. The property is bordered on the east by Sheridan Place Subdivision, zoned R-8. On the west by rural residential properties in Ada County, zoned R-1 and RUT. On the north by vacant land in Ada County and Sheridan Place Subdivision. And on the south by McMillan Road and an Idaho Power sub station, zone R-8. The applicant is requesting that this property be annexed and zoned to the R-8 medium density residential zoning district for single family residential use. A preliminary plat is proposed for 26 building lots, consisting of 20 attached units, five detached units, and one existing detached home and three common area lots on 5.17 acres of land. Here is a copy of the preliminary plat right here. All lots meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-8 zone, except for Lot 2, Block 1, which was -- which does not meet the minimum street frontage requirement of 40 feet. And the applicant has submitted a revised plat that meets this requirement. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 5.03 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes range from 4,000 to 7,054 square feet, with one large lot of 20,142 square feet where the existing house is located. The applicant is proposing six percent usable open space with a large landscape common area in the center of the development with a gazebo, pathways, and parking areas located at each end. A 35 foot landscape buffer is required along -- 35 foot wide landscape buffer is required along East McMillan Road, because it's an entryway corridor to the city. The applicant is requesting alternative compliance to this requirement and proposes to reduce the buffer width to 25 feet on the south side of the existing house. Right here. Due to the current location of the home the required buffer would be right up to the edge of the existing structure. In return for the reduced width, 42 additional shrubs and three additional trees beyond the required amount will be planted along the entire length of the McMillan Road landscape buffer. Right there. Access to the site will be provided from East McMillan Road via North Beethoven Avenue. A stub street is provided at the north boundary of the subdivision for future connectivity to the parcel to the north when it develops in the future. No on-street parking will be allowed along Beethoven and parking will only be allowed on one side of Portico Avenue and North Chopin Avenue due to the width of the proposed street section. Access to the existing house is proposed to remain temporarily from McMillan Road until the current resident no longer lives there. An additional access to Beethoven is also proposed for the existing house. Staff is not supportive of the request to retain the existing access to McMillan Road for Lot 17, Block 1, because the Comprehensive Plan limits access to arterials. The police department and ACHD are not supportive of additional access points onto arterial roadways, other those required for subdivision access. Also, an additional access point for the existing home would be located approximately 45 feet from North Beethoven Avenue, the access point for the proposed subdivision. If approved this would Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 23 of 65 potentially create a safety hazard for traffic exiting and entering either of the access points at the same time. The applicant's proposing two separate landscape plans. The one you're looking at here is with no McMillan access proposed. It shows a landscape buffer across where the existing house is and the existing driveway. The second landscape plan is landscape with McMillan access shown, the cut out for the existing drive right there. The way they are proposing is to have the existing drive and, then, also have a little drive access to Beethoven there. Staff was also concerned about how the attached unit proposed on Lot 7, Block 2, would be accessed by the adjacent common drive. This one here -- here in the corner. The applicant has submitted a layout of the lot showing how the proposed lot will be accessed by the common drive. The applicant has submitted elevations of typical attached and detached homes proposed in the development. Here is a copy -- let me back up just a second here. Here is that Lot 7 I was just speaking about. This is the common drive right here. This is how they propose their driveway to access this house here. These are some elevations for the proposed attached units. Staff recommends approval of the subject application based on the conditions stated in the staff report and the Findings of Facts as listed in Exhibit D. 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, have they answered back in regardS to the fencing or are you expecting them to answer that -- Watters: Yes, Commissioner Moe, they have agreed with all staff conditions, except for they still want to retain that access to McMillan Road for the existing house. Rohm: Okay. At this time would the applicant -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Oh. Go ahead, Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I'm sorry. I need an explanation of something that hasn't been talked about. In our packet there was a letter from Idaho Power saying -- if you're not looking at it immediately -- they possibly need to upgrade existing infrastructure in order to provide electrical service to this development. There is an existing 135 kilovolt line, so Idaho Power requests a 25 foot setback from the center of the line -- I assume that means the power line -- to be a no build zone. Do we have any idea where their existing line is and what that 25 foot setback would mean? Watters: I don't right off. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 24 of 65 Borup: I think it's on the south side. Zaremba: Requesting 25 foot setback from the center of the line to be a no build zone. Borup: Isn't it on the south side of McMillan? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, we have been receiving that letter on pretty much every development that's come in and I'm not sure -- Zaremba: Even south of the interstate, right? Hood: No, they have all been north of the interstate, but it has been a standard letter now that they are sending to us, so I'm not sure where the existing line is. I think I could call to see if they can find something. I don't know that we have any documentation showing where that line is, but they are requesting that 25 foot wide easement. At the platting process stage we will definitely have to work with them and make sure that whatever easement it is that they need they get or it's -- that line is relocated somewhere so where they have good access to it still. But I don't know where it's at and I don't know what's prompting these letters all of a sudden, but I have not seen them, but just in the past couple of months on a regular basis they are sending them. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: My only comment on those utility easements is if the utility is to procure an easement, I would say that they'd to have pay for it. That's -- it seems to -- Borup: Or they could not prepare an easement and not provide utilities. Rohm: I don't think they have that prerogative. I think that they are charged with the responsibility of providing service within their area of jurisdiction and that's my comments on the utility service. Okay. Any other questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward? Would the applicant like to come forward at this time, please? Sargent: Ron Sargent, 1883 North Wildwood Street, Boise, Idaho. Commissioners, maybe just start out with the last item first. Idaho Power -- I guess the -- can you -- Sonya, can you put up the plat that shows the location? The one thing that we do know that we are going to have to do is right about in this location here there is one of the high power -- I don't know, you know, the hundred foot power lines are located and we do know that we are going to have to move that. The power line -- the main power line runs on the north side of McMillan all the way up to Eagle Road and, then, crosses in this location to go to the transformer station that's located on the south side of McMillan in this location. So, in our meetings with Idaho Power so far, that's the only, you know, major issue that we knew of that we are going to have address at some point. So, that I guess the location of this one tower was not set back far enough from the center line of McMillan, so -- and I'm not exactly sure the distance that we will have to move it back. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 25 of 65 Rohm: Is that existing power structure on road right of way or is it on your property? Sargent: I believe right now it's on road right of way and it has to be moved back onto our property and that's -- the thing that we noticed is the power poles going eastward on McMillan are all set back behind -- in the landscape easement, but -- but this pole here is about another 20 to 30 feet closer to the center line of McMillan than those other power lines and I'm not exactly sure why it wasn't located back in the same -- in a straight line with the others, but I know that in our meetings with Idaho Power they have asked us -- they said that's one of the things they are going to ask us to move that back. Rohm: That's interesting. Sargent: Yeah. And I'm not sure that -- I think there was some history in getting the appropriate easement location when they originally set that power line there, that for some reason they didn't get enough land far enough from the center line of McMillan to set it where it should have been set at that time. And I think that was done several years ago. Borup: So, you're saying maybe the previous property owner would not grant -- Sargent: I think there were some issues with the previous property owner on what they would allow -- or where they would allow Idaho Power to set their pole. Borup: So, now you have got to pay for it. Sargent: Now we have to fix it. Rohm: I'm curious. What -- what does that pole in its existing location, what does it do to prevent you from your development? Does it stop the roadway or the access road or Sargent: I believe -- let's see, I'm trying to remember. I think it sits in the -- approximately in this location down here. It's very close to the right of way. So, they want it moved back further into our landscape easement. Rohm: But as far as your individual lots, does it adversely affect your development at all? Sargent: No. It's just -- only if the cost of moving the pole is what -- the impact that we have. Rohm: And that's one of those steel structures? Sargent: Yes. It's a large steel structure. Rohm: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 26 of 65 Sargent: I guess I'd just go back and say that, you know, we are in agreement with the staff report and the recommendations, everything except for the access to McMillan Road and Mrs. Buckley has lived in this house for approximately 30 years -- a little bit longer. She's 83 years old. She's legally blind and she would like to continue to have access to McMillan Road, because she has a Ferrari that she keeps in the garage and she likes to take it out for a spin every now and then. But the reason that she -- you know, she can't drive anymore. But, basically, she just wants the house to remain as it is as long as she can continue to live there and, then, when she moves, then, we would, then, landscape the -- you know, the property here along the front and remove that access and the main reason is that she -- because she's legally blind she knows where everything is in her garage and if we eliminate that access we are going to have to move the garage doors from the south side of the house over here to the west side of the house and in doing that it's going to be a fairly major disruption for her in the garage and her ability to find things and know where everything is located. Plus just the disruption from the construction process. So, she's requested that she can continue to leave the garage doors as they are on the -- facing the south side of the house and I have a -- I guess a photograph of the house and where the existing garage doors are at this time. So, instead -- so we have to move those garage doors to the west side of the house and she is just requesting that her living space not be disrupted for as long as she continues to live there. We would do a cash bond with the city, so that the city would know that the landscaping and the elimination of that access would take place at sometime in the future when she could no longer live in the house. I guess I'd stand for any questions. Rohm: I think that that's a very well intended request. It's easier said than done. I mean if she had a nephew or something move in and, then, perpetually have the use of that access to McMillan Road and maybe we'd never get that eliminated and, quite honestly, just from my perspective, I think that it's part of our responsibility to make sure we minimize hazards and when you have two access points to a roadway right next to each other, there is potential hazard and I think that it would be better to address this now than wait any further down the road. And I'm not sure what any other -- the balance of the Commissioners thoughts are on this, but -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment -- and the question I was trying to decide whether to save for later as well. Certainly sympathetic to her need to keep things as they are. I am well sighted and I like for things not to move. I want them to be where I'm familiar with them and I could certainly be sympathetic with somebody who doesn't see. In looking at the picture that you passed up and down, I hope she's able to live there for years and years and years. Thinking future beyond that, it seems like this is a large enough lot that when she no longer is using it, it would be probably subdivided again I would think. In the zoning that you're asking for you could probably get three or four more lots out of it and where I'm going with that is also the landscape buffer. I agree with for now making the landscape buffer a variation so that it can go around the house and leave where it is. I do feel there should be a way to work out -- without making any change in the house or the garage, at least having the driveway come out Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21,2006 Page 27 of 65 sideways, that that shouldn't impact her that much, because somebody else probably is driving her and they will be able to see that. But where I was going with it is even allowing the alternate to the street buffer now and your offer to bond at least to close up the driveway later, my thinking would be that we need to discuss bonding to eventually make that buffer 35 feet all the way along. Your comments probably are not favorable to that, but you're at least smiling. Sargent: Yeah. The comment I would have to that is that the -- as you can see from the photograph it's a brick house, it's an older home, but it's been there and it's well constructed. I guess we had not anticipated ever tearing that home down. I guess when Mrs. Buckley no longer lives there our anticipation is that we just turn around and sell the home at that time and there is a couple of issues -- one is you can see from the photographs the front door, the front living room window, and a couple of the bedroom windows face McMillan Road and what we are a little bit concerned about is that because there is a sidewalk along McMillan people would -- if the buffer -- if the buffer went to 35 feet it would go within inches of that existing home, people would be able to walk up and look into the front window of the living room, which we don't think is probably appropriate. By putting that buffer in there and fencing it, it at least creates somewhat of a privacy. So, I guess our -- you know, the second issue is if we don't ask for a variance and the house remains, we are not in compliance with UDC code, because we only have a few inches as a setback, which I think probably by the time we get done that would be considered a sideyard setback, as opposed to a front yard, because I think the -- the front of the house would be on Beethoven and not face McMillan in the long run. So, that's -- so those are some of the reasons that we are requesting the variance to be as it is. I guess if at sometime we were to tear down the house, then, that would maybe make sense than to go to a 35 foot wide buffer at some point in time. Zaremba: We may be saying the same thing. I'm very supportive of not messing with her house at the moment. Sargent: Yeah. Zaremba: And not having the landscape buffer or sidewalk come right up to her house. The way you're planning it for the moment I'm supportive of with a discussion about which way the driveway goes. Sargent: Right. Zaremba: I'm siding with staff on that. But I guess maybe I have a question with staff. Is there a way to condition this one lot so that if this structure is ever remodeled or significantly rebuilt, it has to move -- while she lives there I don't see any reason to make any change, but future if -- I mean some day even a brick house is going to have to be rebuilt and whether that's another 50 years from now -- the ability to gain back that full 35 foot buffer, plus the setback for whatever new building, if there is some way to Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 28 of 65 stipulate that if changes -- it can stay the way it is, but if changes are ever made, then, it has to actually move, the house. Watters: Commissioner Zaremba, I believe we could put that as a condition in a development agreement. Zaremba: Okay. Is that something that would be acceptable? I hope we are talking a long way down the road, but -- Sargent: Yeah. I'm assuming that -- we would anticipate if Mrs. Buckley moves, is that we turn around and sell the house. The responsibility would maybe fall on future owners, because we wouldn't anticipate that we would still be owner and -- Zaremba: Well -- and under my scenario the house would be able to remain even if it changed hands. Sargent: Right. As it is -- Zaremba: The trigger would be if somebody tried to modify the house. Sargent: Okay. Zaremba: And at that point the structure can't be modified, it's got to be moved, whether it's the current owner or a future owner or whatever. Sargent: When you use the term modified, is it possible that -- I mean somebody may want to remodel the north side away from McMillan. I mean is there some modification to the house? Would that -- Zaremba: I basically mean any other than normal day-to-day maintenance. Sargent: Oh. Okay. So, any modification. But, then, that would, then -- Borup: Then you couldn't add the garage doors. Sargent: Right. Zaremba: I don't necessarily see the need for moving them. I thought I saw a drawing where -- Moe: If you don't mind, I'm kind of curious -- and can you put up on the screen the drawing that's showing the proposed secondary access from Beethoven? I guess I'm a little bit -- Sargent: I think it shows on the plat. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21,2006 Page 29 of 65 Zaremba: I think what you were referring to is a drawing that didn't appear to need the garage doors to move. Sargent: Yeah. Right there is the access and, then, the west side of the house is located approximately in this location, so if this access goes away, we would anticipate moving the garage doors to the west side of the home. Rohm: From our drawing it looks like you could, actually, access from the west and, then, circle around and still enter the garage from the -- Sargent: That would only be ten feet wide and if a car is, you know, 15, 18 feet long, there is not enough room to maneuver to get in there. Moe: Not even the Ferrari? Sargent: Yeah. Maybe she could get a motor cycle in there. I don't know. So, any normal size car -- they could -- because we looked at that of whether or not we could -- you know, somebody could drive down towards McMillan and back -- or back into the garage and in the end we just -- there is just not enough room. Ten feet isn't enough room to get a car in there, maneuvered into the garage from the south side, so we -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, how big -- Sargent: Excuse me. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a -- is that with the 35 foot landscape buffer or the 25 foot landscape buffer or no landscape buffer? Sargent: Yeah. So, we are stubbing it down from a 35 foot buffer to a 25 foot buffer where -- in the location of where the house is located on the south side of the house. Zaremba: Well, my personal opinion, if there is going to be a result -- if there is going to be a resolution sometime in the future, I wouldn't even mind a ten or a 15 foot landscape buffer now that would allow enough turning room without moving the garage door. Newton-Huckabay: That's what I was thinking. Zaremba: Given at some point we had a trigger that says this whole house has to move. Moe: On the plat it shows 19 feet. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 30 of 65 Sargent: Which is incorrect. That should read 25 feet. I apologize. That was a mistake on the drawing. Zaremba: But for the purpose of solving her current residency, I don't mind reducing the landscape buffer even more, if someday the landscape buffer is going to be 35 feet. Moe: And I would agree with you. I just -- quite frankly, I'm concerned with the access to McMillan. Newton-Huckabay: Well, had I not been interrupted -- Zaremba: Sorry, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I think if you compromise and reduce the landscape buffer to the amount that you need to get a turning radius into the garage -- so ten, 15 feet -- Borup: Twenty. Newton-Huckabay: You have 20 feet; correct? Borup: You could do a 20, I think. You're still tight. Sargent: Twenty would be tight. What I would recommend -- I guess our preference -- if the access -- direct access to McMillan is denied, I think our preference would be to put the garage doors on the west side and, then, it just -- then, we eliminate that. I guess to address the change, I guess as long as the -- you know, the south side of the house is not modified, then, the reduced landscape buffer would be allowed, but at sometime in the future if the house is removed or the south side is remodeled or changed, then, the landscape buffer would have to go to 35 feet. I think we could make that work. Because, then, it would -- you know, if there is some remodeling that somebody wants to do in the future and it's on the north side and it doesn't affect the landscape buffer, such as moving the garage doors or, you know, adding a patio or something like that, then, we -- you know, that would take place on the side, then, I think that's something that we could -- that's how I could -- that would be our preference at this point in time. Newton-Huckabay: That's the direction I was heading. Zaremba: Well, my feeling is I -- allowing any remodeling -- my goal was not to extend the life of this building. Anything that remodels it or updates -- even if you don't allow the south facade to be changed, extends the life of the building and I was hoping it would -- that we wouldn't perpetuate that. Newton-Huckabay: Why? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 31 of 65 Zaremba: Because we want to get the 35 foot landscape buffer. Newton-Huckabay: Well, he just said they'd put a 35 foot landscape buffer if they modified the building -- Zaremba: Only if they modified the south facade. Newton-Huckabay: And remove the garage doors. Zaremba: I'm not stuck on it, but the distinction between what he's saying and what I'm saying is if they modify the south facade, which is on the part that faces the street, as opposed to what I'm saying if they make any modification on the building. There will come a time -- Newton-Huckabay: So, you're saying if they make any modification on the building, then, they need to remove it. Zaremba: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: How about if they make any modification to the building they need to increase that landscape buffer to 35 feet? Zaremba: That's what I'm saying. Any modification. Newton-Huckabay: You said move the building. Zaremba: No. They would have to, wouldn't they? Let me ask staff. Hood: It looks like it would come right up to the building as it currently sits. I mean it's hard to tell, but it's like right at 35 feet. So, it would be right to the front door with the landscaping. Zaremba: Well -- but, then, if their modification to the building was to put the entrance someplace else, is it all right for the building to stay a foot from the landscape buffer? Hood: It would be a nonconforming structure, because it's a lot and it wouldn't meet setbacks. Sargent: And the other thing, I guess, is that we are doing, as an alternative compliance, planting extra shrubs and trees to thicken up the landscape strip along the whole area, so that I think visually from the street there would be a lot more shrubbery and trees, you know, even with it narrowing down to 25 feet I think it still meets the intent of the city to have, you know, a fairly comprehensive landscaping along McMillan, which is a -- it's not a gateway street, but -- Hood: Entryway. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21,2006 Page 32 of 65 Sargent: Yeah. Entryway street. So, in some ways with the extra landscaping we feel we are going to make that. I guess the reason I -- I'm a little hesitant is like -- I mean if somebody was even to put a patio on the back, is that a modification, do they have to tear down the building and if they go to 35, then, it's not compliant. So, we run into -- Zaremba: To me the purpose is to keep it unchanged for her and it sounds like she's not going to put a patio on the back, she doesn't want those kind of changes. Sargent: Well, I guess maybe I'm thinking of it in two items. One is all she's asking for is that the access to McMillan remain. The narrowing of the landscape buffer is to -- you know, is to keep -- if it's sold to somebody else or -- and, then, they at least have some privacy in their front living room by having that extra -- by having the landscape buffer only 24 feet, rather than having a landscape buffer come within inches of the front of the house. So, we-- Zaremba: And I'm even all right with that. I'm just saying even a brick structure -- some day it's going to fall down. What I'm trying to do is prevent somebody from preventing it from falling down. Some day it needs to fall down. Borup: You need to go back east or in Europe and seen those buildings. Those homes. Zaremba: Well, they keep shoring them up and what I'm saying is don't keep shoring it up. Some day we want the 35 foot landscape buffer. Rohm: I'd like to just weigh in on -- Zaremba: Maybe I'm the only one with that opinion. Rohm: Yeah. I'd like to weigh in here for just a moment. Zaremba: I'll stop. Rohm: I think that to kind of satisfy some of your concerns is if that large lot is redeveloped down the road and they try to put additional homes, I think that to that time make the full 35 foot buffer be a requirement and the house be removed, that makes sense. But to make the house have to go away if there is any upgrades to the house itself might be taking it a step too far and I think if we just say, you know what, we are not going to allow the additional access to McMillan and you put the garage doors on the west and we will go with the reduced buffer for now, but if that lot ever redevelops, the full 35 foot would be a requirement. That seems to address Commissioner Zaremba's concerns, while at the same time eliminating the second access onto McMillan. Zaremba: That sounds like a good suggestion to me. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 33 of 65 Sargent: And I think we could live with that, because if somebody comes in, ourselves or somebody else, to redevelop the lot, the city code is clear that the requirement is a 35 foot buffer. So, the code would -- to be able to redevelop it, add additional lots, the 35 feet would end up being required. Zaremba: It may take a little longer for that to happen than I was hoping, but It's a good compromise. Sargent: Good. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe while Mr. Sargent is still here, I would even go beyond that and maybe leave it up to -- to the applicant or the homeowner to leave the garage doors where it's at, if they would choose -- reduce the setback down to maybe ten feet and allow enough for a turning radius, but I don't know that we need to specify either way, but I would propose one or the other, whichever they would so choose. Sargent: If the access is denied -- Borup: I'm saying eliminate the access. Sargent: Yeah. And if that's the case, we would prefer to put the garage doors on the west side, because as we have looked at it, it just ends up being really tight. Borup: So, you'd just as soon not either/or? Sargent: Yes. We just -- and, then, we put the reduced -- the alternative compliance, we get our landscaping in, we think that the garage doors moving to the west side is -- would make -- would be a good solution. Rohm: Thank you. Any additional questions of this applicant? Borup: No. Let's move on. Rohm: Okay.There is not anybody that is signed up to speak to this application, but if anyone would like to come forward now is the time. Seeing none, are there any questions of staff or the applicant? Okay. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item AZ 06-052 and PP 06-053, both items related to Portico Place Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 34 of 65 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: And staff. The question is if we were to add that condition that should Lot 17 of -- it looks like this is Block 1, Lot 17. Should that ever redevelop or re-subdivide, does that -- does that go into a development agreement or can we make that a preliminary plat comment? Borup: If it was redeveloped it would automatically have to comply with the ordinance and the 35 foot buffer would need to be there, wouldn't it? Zaremba: Well, I think since we have given :.- if we are recommending that the Council give them a variance, we need to make clear that there is a sunset on the variance. Rohm: At such time as redevelopment occurs. Zaremba: My question is where do we -- is that a plat issue or is that an annexation issue? Watters: Commissioner Zaremba, I think we should do it through a development agreement. Zaremba: Okay. Hood: A note to that effect on the plat I don't think would get through Ada County, so the best -- in that case you have to pretty much do a development agreement. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I will attempt a motion. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant testimony, and giving the opportunity to the public to testify, I move that we recommend to City Council approval of AZ 06-052 and PP 06-053, to include all staff comments for the report for the hearing date of December 21 st, 2006, with the following changes: In Exhibit B I would add a paragraph 1 .1.2 that says the applicant will contact the city attorney to write a development agreement. There is some pretty standard things that go into it, but the point that we need to add is that should Block 1, Lot 17, ever redevelop or re-subdivide or have any other modifications to the lot made, at that time a new plat will be drawn that complies with the 35 foot landscape buffer. Does that make sense or get the point across? Rohm: Absolutely. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21,2006 Page 35 of 65 Zaremba: End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-052 and PP 06-053, to include all staff comments with aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: And at this time we are going to take a short break. We will reconvene at 9:00 o'clock. (Recess.) Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 06.054 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.40 acres from R1 zone to an L-O zone for Woodland Springs Professional Park by Morgan Development, Inc. - 1630 E. McMillan Road: Rohm: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to at this time reconvene the Planning and Zoning meeting and begin by opening Public Hearing AZ 06-054 related to Woodland Springs Professional Park and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. We are moving all the way one parcel over to the west of where we were on our previous item. It's located on the northeast corner of Locust Grove and McMillan. It contains 2.4 acres. As you can see on this exhibit it is currently zoned R-1. Sonya did a pretty good job last time of describing the surrounding uses and you can tell by the zoning that there are county zoned properties to the north, back to the west, and, then, south is the Idaho Power sub station, which shows up a little bit better on this aerial view. There are some rural residences in the area. Also evident from this aerial is the developing nature of this vicinity. This is Settler Bridge. This is Sheridan Place. And, the, of course, Portico Place. So, you can see the lots, but there weren't any homes when this was flown in 2005, so it's rapidly developing. The subject application is just an annexation and zoning request. I say just an annexation -- it's the only application they have submitted is for annexation and zoning only, there is not a Conditional Use Permit or a preliminary plat associated with this request. The applicant did submit a conceptual drawing. They are asking for an office zoning designation -- excuse me -- limited office zoning designation. The conceptual plan, as you can see, does show three buildings, parking, landscaping and, in particular, what I'd like to call out as two access points to the arterial -- adjacent arterial roadways. Back to the requested zoning. It is designated medium density. This parcel is designated medium density residential on the future land use map. However, I'm sure you're all familiar with that resolution 04-0454 which states that if you have a parcel that's on an arterial roadway and it's less than three acres, you are