Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 15, 2007 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 51 of 60 Parsons: Also when I researched these other parcels for what we had approved, that the -- excuse me -- the street that they are proposing here will connect in the future with those preapproved -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, excellent. Parsons: Already approved subdivision. Newton-Huckabay: Thanks, Bill. There is not anybody that is signed up to speak to this application., but if anyone would like to, now is that time to come forward. It doesn't look like we have anyone that has any objections. This is good. Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Moe.: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-013 and PP 07-017. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Boy. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, would you like to make the motion? Newton-Huckabay: Sure. After considering all staff, application, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 07-013 and PP 07- 017, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 18, 2007, with no modifications. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-013 and PP 07-017, to include the staff report with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thanks for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 07-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 40.4 acres from RUT to C-C zone (21.3 acres), R-8 zone (6.27 acres) and R-2 (12.87 acres) for Three Corners by David Dean - 6380 N. Locust Grove Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November Y5, 2007 Page 52 of 60 Item 14: Public Hearing,: PP 07-021 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 54 lots including: 33 residential lots, 11 commercial lots and 10 common lots on 40.4 acres in the proposed C-C, R-8 and R-2 zoning districts for Three Corners by David Dean - 6380 N. Locust Grove Road: Rohm: Last item on our agenda tonight. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 07-017 and PP 07-021 and both related to Three Corners and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications before you are an annexation and zoning of 40.4 acres to a community business -- C-C community business district, R-8, medium density residential, and R-2, low density residential and preliminary plat approval of 54 lots, consisting of 33 residential lots, 11 commercial lots, and ten common lots for the Three Corners project. The site is located on the southeast corner of Chinden Boulevard and North Locust Grove. The property is bordered on the north by Banbury Subdivision, zoned R-1-P, city of Eagle, which is located north here. To the east -- excuse me. To the south is the Dunwoody Subdivision, zoned RUT, Ada County. To the west is a church site and Central Academy High School, zoned RUT, Ada County, and R-4 here. And to the east is the Fuller Ranchette Subdivision, zoned R-1, Ada County. On November -- oh. Currently there is an existing barn on the site that the applicant is proposing to retain. Because the existing barn is considered an accessory structure and it's not accompanied by a main living structure, it should be removed prior the city engineer's signature on the final plat. It's kind of hard to see on the aerial, but you can kind of make out the existing barn on the site. On November 1st, 2007, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment for this property to change the future land use designation from medium density residential to mixed use community. Staff is hoping that this application will catch up with that Comprehensive Plan amendment, so City Council can review the project as a whole concurrently when this -- if this gets forwarded for a recommendation of approval. The applicant is requesting approval of 54 lots consisting of 33 residential lots, 11 commercial lots, including a private school site and ten common lots. In addition to the preliminary plat, the applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan of how this site may be developed with a mix of retail and office uses, a private school, patio homes, and three-quarter acre estate lots. The site is expected to develop with office and retail uses, with total square footages between 40,000 and 80,000 square feet along Chinden Boulevard and a private K-12 school adjacent to Locust Grove Road is expected to have an enrollment of 300 students. The proposed residential portion of the development will transition from higher density residential patio homes located internally, to three-quarter acres estate lots adjacent to existing county subdivisions located along the southern and eastern property boundaries. The applicant is proposing one full access driveway to Locust Grove from the school site and one public access for the remainder of the development. There are a total of three public roads. One street provides full access to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 45, 2007 Page 53 of 60 Locust Grove into the proposed development and provides internal connectivity with the proposed commercial and residential developments and is stubbed in the southeast corner for future connectivity. The other two public streets are looped -- are a loop roadway providing access to the patio homes and a cul-de-sac roadway to additional estate lots. The applicant has not proposed access to Chinden Boulevard with this application. So, here is where the applicant's proposing the school site. Here is where you'll have your commercial along Chinden Boulevard. Patio homes. Access to the school site will be here. And, then., access to the development will be here. With adding the access for connectivity to the residential and the commercial portion of the project. Here is the other private street with the cul-de-sac and, then, this is stubbed for future connectivity. The parcel to the southeast there comes in for development. The applicant has provided several amenities for the site. The concept plan shows an entryway feature into the development and multi-use pathway around the perimeter and internal to the site. A pond, landscape street medians, tot lot, abundant grassy open space, and picnic shelters with barbecues for future residents. Staff is generally supportive of these amenities and is requiring such a provision in the DA. Staff believes that the applicant has done a great job providing amenities to this development. However, a central plaza with seating benches and a water feature should be required within the commercial portion of the development along Chinden. So, here is where all their amenities -- and I'll try to remember here if I can. This is where they are proposing kind of the center medians here. This is the open space with the barbecue and picnic area. Entryway feature in that median. Entryway feature there. Applicant's proposing the pond here. The tot lot and open grassy area here. And, then, of course, you have the pedestrian path -- multi-use pathway that goes around the entire site and runs through the pafiio home development and also comes up through the estate lot development into the -- providing excellent pedestrian connectivity into the development. The applicant has provided 13 percent of landscape usable open space, meeting the ten percent minimum required by code. With the above-mentioned amenities and staffs recommendation of adding a plaza to the commercial portion of the development, staff finds the applicant is in substantial compliance with the UDC. The applicant is also proposing to phase the .project based on market demand. Phase one is to include the development of the school site. Phase two will be the commercial portion of the development. And phase three and four is to include the residential portions of the proposed development. Staff is supportive of the phasing plan proposed by the applicant. Again, here is how the school site is intended to develop. Here also is proposing a phasing plan. So, this is what they are considering a phase 1A, which is the initial school structure, school building, the 1 B being an addition to it. And, then, of course, phase two here being a third addition to the school. Also parking lot for the area and, then, here is where they are proposing their playground and their playing fields. This is an existing Dunwoody Subdivision to the south of the site. The site is adjacent to two entryway corridors. Code requires a 35 foot landscape buffer adjacent to entryway corridors. The applicant has provided a 35 foot wide buffer along both Locust Grove and Chinden Boulevard, but needs to include a ten foot multi-use pathway along Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 1S, 2007 Page 54 of 60 the entire length of Chinden. Twenty-five foot wide buffers are also proposed to buffer the existing and proposed residential uses from the commercial district. The applicant is also proposing trees to be planted within the 25 foot sewer and irrigation easement along the south and east side of the school site, here and here. City code requires any additional -- requires an additional five foot buffer width where the buffer is encumbered by easements or other restriction. An additional buffer -- five foot buffer should be required to allow the planting of trees along the southern and eastern boundary of the school site. The applicant has also requested alternative compliance to allow the center median to serve as the required landscape adjacent to local streets. This request is approved at the discretion of the planning director. So, if we were to go to the plat, it indicates a 25 foot landscape easement here and here. The landscape plan does show trees within that easement, so that's why staff has kind of conditioned them to add an additional five feet and plant those trees outside of that easement. Also with this -- one thing I didn't mention -- and I wanted to clarify -- is the applicant, as part of the alternative compliance, they are doing these nine foot medians, but one thing they are also having six foot landscaping here adjacent to the -- the commercial project and an additional six to ten feet here. I think it's six feet. To buffer the residential as well from the street noise. So, when you look at this site -- when you look at the total buffering here between the commercial and the residential, it substantially exceeds what code requires, which is 25 feet. So, that's why staff was supportive of the alternative compliance. As stated earlier, there are 11 commercial lots, including the private school lot proposed for this site. The applicant has submitted conceptual streetscape plans for the commercial portion of the site and front elevations for the private school site, but .does not call out building materials. The commercial buildings and the private school for the proposed subdivision will require design review. So, here is kind of the conceptual elevations that were provided to staff for the school site. I wish I could have -- I wish we had a colored scanner, but we don't. There is -- so it looks like stucco and some brick accents on it. Again, the city has -- city code requires -- there are certain guidelines that we have that -- for buildings that are adjacent to entryway corridors and those provisions have been incorporated into the DA -- development agreement for the project. So, here we have the school site. Moving on. Here are kind of the conceptual elevations for the office complex. Again, no building materials, but you can see -- it looks like a composite roofing stone or brick accent, stucco, could be some wood accents, too. I'll let the applicant kind of clarify that tonight. Front and rear building elevations were submitted for the patio homes. Building permit -- building materials for the proposed homes include a stucco, a fiber cement siding, concrete tile, or architectural composition shingles and brick or stone accents painted in earth tone colors. All residential buildings are -- on this site should substantially comply with the above-mentioned residential building materials and colors in all commercial buildings, including the private schools, should be subject to full compliance with future design review and as a provision of the development agreement. So, here is -- here is what they -- the applicant's provided the staff, kind of your front elevations and your rear elevations. It's kind of a unique project that they are proposing. If I could just go up to Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 55 of 60 the -- the plat really quick. The applicant wants to, basically -- we are going to require -- code -- the R-8 zoning requires that there is a five foot side setback and the applicant wanted to kind of allow the house to sit on that, not having side setback requirements, so -- they had originally requested a variance, but with this innovative idea we have had -- we have done in the past, we have had the applicant, basically, face the houses where the backyards would be along that five foot easement. So, it gives it an appearance of there is no lot line and so that -- actually, the -- the person's patio home, their backyard will actually be on the -- the adjacent lot -- on the side yard. So, it's kind of a unique --anew -- not really a new concept, but kind of unique to this development. So, I wanted to point that out to the Commission as well. And with that staff is recommending approval -- recommending approval of this project and I stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, Bill. Questions of staff? Will the applicant -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I'm not really following what you're saying regarding the side setback. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I'll try to explain, although it's hard without having a diagram. Essentially, if you have got two lots that are side by side, like Bill mentioned, our code would require each building be set back five feet off of the property line. That's the case for this development. What they are going to do is provide a five foot public use easement on the other side of the lot, in favor of the lot owner on this side, creating a private patio, really, on someone else's property that goes right up to the side of their house, but it creates their private patio on -- half of it on someone else's property. And., then, that's reciprocated on the next lot over. So, there their patio area is kind of screened by the side of someone's house. Now, there are not any windows or anything like that at eye level on the house where your patio area is, your barbecuing whatever, those types of things. So, the windows have to be up higher, you know, so people aren't looking down on your kind of private space, but that's the idea. The buildings are -- there is still separation between buildings, it's just your yard there, your five foot setback, isn't really your setback, it's your neighbor's -- it's your neighbor's yard and, then, again, that just kind of goes down the line and it's offset. So, if you can kind of just forget that there is a lot line there, it looks pretty normal, other than there is no separation between property line and the building, essentially. If it were -- if the building were on the property line. It's a way, like B-ill mentioned., to get away from a variance, a zero line setback -- zero side setback without doing a variance. It's another way that we can just put that easement on the plat in favor of this lot for this guy to use. Does that make sense? I wish I had a diagram and maybe the applicant does have something that we can show, but -- Newton-Huckabay: That makes -- that makes sense. I understand it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 56 of 60 Hood.: And your fence, then, wouldn't be on the property line. Your fence would be in align with the -- any structure over there, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Or the structure would be -- Hood: Sort of added the fence. Yes. Newton-Huckabay: You can go on. Sorry. Rohrn: Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Mokwa: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Tim Mokwa with Toothman-Orton Engineering, 9777 Chinden Boulevard, Boise, for the -- for the applications, the owners, Dave and Luann Dean. I really don't have a lot to add beyond what staff reports -- the staff has already reported on. I do have a couple of comments I'd like to make on their request on the conditions. I don't know if you would like for me to stand for questions first or go over which conditions I'd like to have a little bit of modification to or request a little modification to. Rohm: Let's go with that first. Mokwa: I don't know if you all received a copy of the a-mail I sent to staff. That's it. So, those are the conditions I'd like to -- and I can give you some additional explanation on that. The first was condition 1.1.2. You know, we do show a water feature and it's labeled as a water feature in this concept for this entry into the higher density R-8 area. It may very well end up being a water feature. We don't know that at this time. We prefer not to be quite that specific in our condition. We'd like to make it something that works well with the other entry feature. Those issues aren't worked out at this time. It's more of a final design. So, we plan on doing something .nice, obviously, above these two entry points, so we'd just like to have a little more flexibility and not be quite that specific with that water feature language in that. The second one Bill talked a little bit about. One thing I would like to mention, you know, we are proposing this as a boulevard, sort of a commercial street section with a boulevard, all the way up to this last commercial lot in this area. At that point we transition down to more of a residential, more narrow street. But even through here we are proposing detached sidewalks with planter strip along both sides of the street. In this area here, in lieu of the ten foot -- I guess you would call it the ten foot landscape buffer that's required in the -- in this zone up next to the sidewalk, we are proposing this alternative compliance for the nine foot median and our thinking was that the nine foot was a good trade off when you consider that we have got -- and the city -- the city minimum is eight feet. We have got a six foot strip between the sidewalk on either side of the road, plus the nine feet, plus we have a ten foot common area lot along the backs of all of these lots, so they don't have double frontage. So, they are backing up directly to this more commercial street. And the Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 57 offi0 reason for -- that this was important to the overall concept of the project was that the goal for this commercial area through here, is that all of these lots be up close to the -- to the proposed six foot sidewalk on this boulevard and present more of a pedestrian type -- urban pedestrian type look to this portion of the -- of the development. This larger lot back here is intended to be a common area lot that will be in favor of all of the other lots for ingress-egress and shared parking and utilities. So, you know, when you consider that we have got six feet -- six foot planter strip, the nine foot island, a six foot planter strip, and a ten foot common area lot down here, we feel like it more than makes up for our alternative compliance request of the ten foot landscape buffer. And, then, the last one is we would just request that this be something -- this is the -- the location for the existing barn. We show that on a platted lot that's a lot of an area of .93 acres. We would like to have some flexibility to keep that. You know, when staff showed our proposed phasing plan and the school -- with the school being the first phase, the proposed commercial being in the second phase, the R-8 area the third phase and the R-4 area the final phase, one thing we know for sure, the schools the -- the first phase. Some of the rest of this is going to be market driven, so we would like to have some flexibility in what goes first and along with that, you know, this is a fairly new barn that the owners have put up. They would like that to be able to remain until this portion of the project goes. We don't know at this time when that phase would come up. If it does come in the sequence that we have shown, you know, it could be several years for that. The owners and the developers of this project, they live right down here and they currently use that as an accessory structure to their -- to their home down here. So, you know, if somehow that condition could be worded such that it could be something that's worked out at either the development agreement or that -- you know, the city engineer won't sign the final plat for which this barn is located in or this lot is located in -- you know, we would be fine with that. We just don't want to -- we don't want to -- to have the city engineer's signature on phase one of the final plat, which is the school help up, because there is a barn on a lot here that's going to be platted in two years, so -- with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Rohm: Thank you. I think the first question I'd ask of staff, what -- how do you feel about their proposal to leave the barn there until they get to that phase and at that time remove it? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, staff is fine with that. The barn can exist there until they were to come in for a final plat for phase four or whatever phase they would call that at that time. Then, the barn would have to be removed. Rohm: Seems reasonable. Moe: Mr. Chairman, along those same lines, Bill, in regards to the alternative compliance in regards to the -- the planter area and whatnot, that can be worked out? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 58 of 60 Parsons: Yes. Staff is in agreement. We can change that. Change to nine foot wide, rather than -- like the applicant said, it's -- code requires eight feet and they are exceeding that, so that's acceptable. Moe: And I guess the next question I'd ask, do you have a problem calling it an entry feature, as opposed to a water feature? Parsons: Yeah. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- yeah. No issues. I mean if they -- if they do some kind of water feature up here like we are proposing with the plaza, we are, essentially, getting the same thing. So, we are fine with that. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. John Gridley -- or -- and Patricia Gridley? Either one of you need to speak -- want to speak? They are gone? Oh. All right. Oh, well, they are out of here. There is nobody else that has signed up for this project, but now is the time to come forward, if anyone would like to speak. Newton-Huckabay: You sat here all night and you have nothing to say? Mokwa: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I do want to mention that we do have some folks here with the school tonight and we also have the architect that's worked on some of the renderings that you have looked at and I know those folks would be happy if you have got any questions on -- on any of that. Rohm: I think you have done a pretty good job presenting it. Thank you. Mokwa: Thank you. Rohm: I'm pretty happy with that presentation and -- both by staff and the applicant. Is there any final comment from the balance of the Commission? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 07-017, PP 07- 021,and the ALT 07-015. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 07-017 and PP 07-02'1. The third item was -- Moe: ALT. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 59 of 60 Rohm: Yeah. That one's not open, so it's been moved and seconded to close these two public hearings. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: That's the alternate compliance that -- Rohm: Yeah. We don't -- not as -- not an item for our -- Moe: So, then, I don't have to deal with that. Rohm: No, you don't. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may clarify real quick. You don't have to deal with it. It's approved at the staff level. If you have comments or want to modify the approval, that one modification that the applicant requested that staff concurred to, is effectively you acting on the alternative compliance, so -- but it's not a noticed Public Hearing. Moe: Don't need to mess with it, then. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 07-017 and PP 07-021, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 15, 2007, with the following modifications: Under -- let's see here. Well, that would be under the annexation and zoning under 1.1.2, the first bullet point, and, then, the fourth arrow under the third line where it speaks of picnic shelters with barbecues and water features, I would like to strike water and put entry feature on that item, please. I'm stumped here, but we will try this. Under item 2.7 in regards to the barn, do I need to make reference that I do want staff to work with the applicant to change the development agreement to let the barn stay until it's developed or what? Hood: We will make it state just that. We don't need to work with them. It's just that until that's platted. Moe: So noted. In that case, end of my motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second.. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-017 and PP 07-021, to include the staff report with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission November 15, 2007 Page 60 of 60 Motion carried.. MOTION CARRfED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Newton-Huckabay: Second. O'Brien: Second.. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARREED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: We are out of here. MEET[NG ADJOURNED AT 10:13'P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED MICHAEL ROHM -CHAIRMAN ATTESTED: DATE APPROVED WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK