Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 7, 2008 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 22 of 61 Newton-Huckabay: And you can apply for that step up on the short plat -- or you have to come back before us. Hood: It's done with annexation. Newton-Huckabay: With your annexation. That's right. Okay. Boy. I still think I -- I don't disagree that potentially residential is a good use here, but I think approving this just as a Comprehensive -- or a Comprehensive Plan designation, without a development agreement, I think is a risk I'm not willing to recommend to City Council. Moe: Any other comments before we need a motion? Mr. Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, move that we close the public hearing on CPA 08-006. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue this CPA 08-006 to the special meeting of August 14th, 2008. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-006 to the special meeting of August the 14th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Public Hearing: CPA 08-001 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation of 15.46 acres of land from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for Janicek Ten Mile /Chinden Property by Janicek Properties, LLC - SWC of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Chinden Boulevard: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-001 for the Janicek Ten Mile /Chinden Property and ask for the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 23 of 61 Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This is my last one for awhile. I'll turn it over Bill after this one. Again, this is Sonya's staff report and I will make the presentation on her behalf. The site is located on the southwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Ten Mile Road. It's a 15 acre property currently zoned RUT in Ada county, as you can see on the map. The adjacent land uses include to the north State Highway 20-26, Chinden Boulevard, and rural residential properties in West Wing Estates. And they are large 75 percent open space that was platted with that subdivision in Ada county. To the east is Ten Mile Road and agricultural property. To the south is agricultural property, zoned RUT in Ada county. To the west is agricultural property zoned RUT in Ada county. I think the next slide -- this slide maybe shows it best. The current city limits for Bainbridge -- the Bainbridge development currently do this. I believe that the developer of this subdivision still owns this property, but has not come into city for -- for annexation or development right through that property. So, that's why it says ag on those sites. But it's under the same ownership as the rest of the Bainbridge development. So, the subject property is currently designated medium density residential on the Comp Plan map. The requested mixed use community designation allows up to 25 acres of nonresidential uses, up to 200,000 square feet of non-residential building area, and residential densities of three to 15 dwelling units per acre. So, the applicant is proposing to change all 15 acres -- approximately 15 acres from the medium density residential designation. The yellow. This is all medium density residential. To the mixed use community.. One of the brown shades on the map. All the land surrounding the subject are, again, designated medium density residential. Staff believes that the map currently depicts appropriate future land uses site for medium density residential designation. As with the last application, the applicant has not submitted any development applications or conceptual building elevations, but they have submitted a conceptual development plan showing how the site may develop in the .future. The plan shows one multi-tenant retail building consisting of 12,808 square feet. One bigger box retail building consisting of 50,180 square feet. Four retail office buildings, each at 2,853 square feet, fronting on Ten Mile Road and 39 multi-family residential units in the southwest quadrant of the property. Access to the site, as you can see, is depicted from one full access point onto state highway at this location and one full access point to and from Ten Mile Road at this location. So, those two access points create this L-shaped road, the two arterials. No stub streets or pedestrian pathways are proposed to adjacent properties. This site is located on the corner of two major arterial streets. However, staff does not believe that the design of the site shown on the concept plan sufficiently demonstrates how the proposed mixed use development will compliment adjacent future residential properties. Again, there is no pedestrian or vehicle access shown to any -- any adjacent properties. Staff believes additional transitional uses are needed at the perimeter boundaries, probably at least one, if not both of these areas more residential should occur, because we are looking at residential, again, when this property comes into the city as well. Further, the UDC specifically prohibits access to State Highway 20-26, a major transportation corridor when a change or increase in intensity of use is proposed. For these reasons, if the map is approved and the site is eventually developed as a mixed use project, staff will not support access to Highway 20-26. ITD also does not support access to 20-26 from this property. You should have a letter from them in your packet. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 24 of 61 Access to the site should solely be provided from Ten Mile. Stub driveways or streets should also be provided to adjacent properties to the west and south for future connectivity. Again, because we try to limit those curb cuts to arterials and collectors, the existing Comp Plan designation for medium density residential makes the most sense. This could develop with medium density and usually medium density subdivisions, although they would probably take it if we gave it to them, it's certainly not contingent upon an access to a state highway. So, the site could develop without that need as residential. If something similar to this -- we do see -- you might as well count on there being an associated variance application with it, because there is the proposed access point to the state facility. So, staff is not supportive of the proposed mixed use designation for the site and does not believe that commercial uses are appropriate, because of the location of the site adjacent to Highway 26 and the associated lack of access and the residential nature of the rest of the surrounding area. Staff is recommending denial of the CPA application and that's the end of my staff report. I will stand for any questions you may have. Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? McKay: Can it get any hotter in here? Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm representing the Janiceks on this particular application for a map amendment. I need to give you a little bit of history on the property, just so you kind of have an understanding of how this particular parcel came into this configuration. Caleb, could you put up the vicinity map? Yes. Thank you. Initially, the Janicek farm consisted of 220 acres. They sold 205 acres to Brighton and that's what you see, a portion of that 205 acres was annexed and approved fora preliminary plat as Bainbridge Subdivision. In their initial negotiations with Brighton they had a provision in their contract that stated that they wanted to retain this 15 acres here at the corner for the possibility of some future commercial development and that Brighton would provide some assistance as far as submitting for this type of commercial activity when they submitted the remainder of the property. Well, at the time it was submitted showing all of the parcels as residential with this commercial corner, the staff was not supportive of it and said, you know, if you don't -- the Comprehensive Plan states that's medium residential, you're asking for commercial designation without a Comp Plan map amendment, we, obviously, could not support the application and we would have to deny the whole application, unless you remove this area. So, they eventually decided that they would just cut the project off of Bainbridge right here at their proposed collector. So, the Janiceks have kind of sat patiently waiting as the utilities were extended out to this area and they came to us and said, you know, we have got -- we have this 15 acres and it's our understanding, based on what staff has indicated, that we need a Comp Plan map amendment in order to develop this in some type of a commercial fashion. In our meeting with the staff, they recommended some type of a mixed use, they didn't want to see solely commercial use, and so we went through kind of an evolution on site plans, coming up with some different types of multi-families and different combinations of retail and office. We did take our site plan and we met with Mr. Wardle and Mr. Turnbull of Brighton Corporation. We showed them our particular Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 25 of 61 plan. I asked them if they would be supportive of our application, since their property adjoins us on the west and on the south, if we requested a mixed use community designation and proposed to develop it in this type of fashion. They indicated that they were still working on their plans for the adjoining area and that they weren't sure what their product was going to be, but it definitely would not be detached single family dwellings. It would most likely be some type of a mixed residential type component, whether it be townhouses or patio homes. So, Mr. Turnbull's recommendation to us -- he said, you know, I'd like to see townhomes adjoining my parcel and he said I'm not opposed to vehicular interconnectivity or pedestrian interconnectivity, but until we come up with a more solidified plan, we don't know where that's going to work best for us. So, we did not show a stub street to that property for that very reason, because, obviously, we are going to need to coordinate with Brighton on that location. As far as pedestrian interconnectivity, we have all of this green space along the south and west, so, therefore, pedestrian access would be very easy. We also made sure that we had good pedestrian interconnectivity between these -- these are townhomes with attached garages. Central common area here, with a splash pad and a gazebo area, play equipment, and, then, we had pedestrian friendly crossings, awider -- like seven foot ped path coming up here and in our transportation we matched up with this future street here in Irvine Subdivision. We went ahead and looped out here. That was at the request of my client. We, obviously, have not submitted to ITD for any particular permit at this time, but it did align with the existing street to the north. Now, when Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Wardle kind of solidified their plan, obviously, this roadway could go on and head westward and create that vehicular interconnectivity. This access here, unless approved by ITD and approved by the Council via a variance, would not be possible. But that's how my client kind of wanted to show the plan. In looking at that, Mr. Janicek said, you know, I had a 220 acre farm. I kept 15 acres. All I'm asking for is just a portion of it. I'm surrounded by, you know, mixed residential. His calculation is I'm seven percent of my total original farm and I believe that is acceptable. One of the things that we also consider is Highway 20-26, they have been working on their corridor study. It's anticipated it will be five lanes. One of the things came to light with ITD -- worked on the Renaissance Apartments years ago at Hobble Creek and that's over there just east of -- or west of Cloverdale. They had to compensate -- ITD, because they had federally matching funds for those improvements through there, they had to compensate the owners of those Renaissance Apartments, because they are a residential use and due to their close proximity to the new improved roadway and I guess they have to look at it from the perspective that there is some type of noise damage to that. In that particular project at the time we put three story buildings there to kind of create some noise abatement to Hobble Creek. So, if this were to stay medium density residential, we are going to have problems, obviously, with some type of a setback, which I think the last time I talked to ITD they were talking 200 feet from the edge of new improvements to the edge of any dwellings. Otherwise, they have to pay damages for that -- the impact. I don't want you to get hung up on the site plan, because it's just -- we are making assumptions. In many instances we submit Comp Plan map amendments and we don't have site plans. The staff encouraged us to come up with some different ideas. They thought it would be a little bit easier for the Commission and themselves to evaluate the project. So, they have been pushing us Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 26 of 61 toward more detailed plans. But, obviously, this is just made up of assumptions. It would have to come back as an annexation with a development agreement. If it is designated mixed use, the Comprehensive Plan mandates that everything comes in as conditional uses. So, there is plenty of opportunity, obviously, to review the internal circulation, interconnectivity, pedestrian access, architectural and the true mixture of these mixed uses. When I look at your Comprehensive Plan, it talks about -- in the purpose statement for mixed uses and that's, obviously, what -- what we focus on. It talks about creating a combination of compatible uses. The purpose is to designate and identify key areas and one of the criteria is that they are situated in a highly visible area. 20-26 is a state highway, a major arterial. Ten Mile, that is a minor arterial. When the Ten Mile interchange change goes in we are going to see, obviously, the number of trips elevate on Ten Mile. So, I guess I'd like the Commission to ask themselves would I want to live in a dwelling at an intersection of two arterials. And I would think that the answer would be not really, unless, you know, that's all that was available to me in a price range or something along that line. We learn from our lessons in the past. One of -- an example I want to give you is Eagle Road. It was a two lane rural state highway. I was working on a subdivision called Madison Park with Boise city. The only thing at the intersection at that time was Lowell Scott Middle School. Boise had that area all designated low density single family. We went ahead and we designed Madison Park, had low density, R-1-B zone, and every time I sit at that intersection I kick myself and I feel bad that those homes back up to McMillan and Eagle Road, because Eagle Road is now five lanes. So, I think from a planning perspective we try not to repeat the mistakes that we have made in the past. We have got to look forward. Obviously, taking into account that Chinden will be five lanes. The Ten Mile interchange is going to happen. Some of the other general guidelines that your Comp Plan talks about is -- it says, you know, where feasible multi-family residential uses are encouraged, especially for projects with a potential to serve employment destination centers and projects adjacent to State Highway 20-26. So, even the Comprehensive Plan promotes this type of -- of a mixed type use. If you look at your current land use map, there are mixed use community designations at Locust Grove and 20-26, Meridian Road and 20-26, Linder and 20-26, Black Cat and 20-26. So, obviously, this is not a preferential treatment of this property. It appears to us to be reasonable and consistent with other designations along this corridor. One of the things that staff brought up in their staff report is the compatibility with the adjoining medium density residential that will take place. Obviously, we don't know exactly what that configuration is going to be. Even your Comp Plan says, you know, where the project developed adjacent to lower medium density residential, transitional use is encouraged. So, that's what we have incorporated here. Now, obviously, if the Comprehensive Plan amendment is successful and we get more information from Brighton and we start, you know, trying to massage this site plan and finalizing it, we may incorporate more residential and, obviously, the Commission and the Council would have to review that at that time and make a determination. The designation does not guarantee you anything. All it does is allow opportunities and we still have to comply with other sections of the policy manual and the ordinance and it is discretionary, what is compatible and what is not. I guess lastly -- I know there is a lot -- a lot of apps behind me. In conclusion, I guess I would like you to recognize the fact that the Comprehensive Plan map is a living document. I Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 27 of 61 mean it's ever changing and the reason that the Commission is allowed to reevaluate it every six months is due to change in condition. You know, this -- the medium density residential, I just don't think that designation is appropriate at this major intersection and I would hope that the Commission would see that and understand that this does make sense. Thank you. Moe: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Well, there is no one that has signed up. If there is anyone that would like to come forward? Seeing none, any comments, Commissioners? Marshall: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: My thoughts? Moe: Yes. Marshall: A little bit. First, I'm not going to really make any comments about this conceptual plan. My comments are based on the CPA. Looking at this area, I know that in the past we have traditionally placed all commercial at major intersections. That's been very traditional. That changed -- we changed that with this Comprehensive Plan, with this land use map, for a reason. We found that the accesses to commercial areas at corners slow traffic down. They -- the traffic moves through the intersections slower. There has been a lot of time and effort put into those studies and that's why you see commercial areas at the half mile points where they can offer up slow down lanes, get people off the major thoroughfare and get them into these half mile points and the studies have shown that by placing commercial at the half mile points, not at the major arterial intersections, allows for better traffic flow and that's why the land use map was placed this way. I can't account for sins of the past. I -- you know, yeah, that's the way we always did it. To me that's not how we should do it in the future. This was marked medium density residential. We have been doing that just fine all along Chinden. We have been requiring very large berms and fences and noise abatement along that area and as far as I know there has not been a lot of complaints about noise and the like when -- when these large berms and fences have been placed up and -- and I -- to be honest, I don't see a problem. I think the developer would be wise if they are going to place medium density residential here, to continue that along Ten Mile, because Ten Mile will expand and be large and I would continue the large berms and fences for noise abatement to the residential areas to keep my property values up so I can sell those homes. But, to be honest, I'm not excited about changing everything we have worked on on the Comprehensive Plan to move the commercial to the half mile points. There was a good reason for doing that and now we are talking about going back to the way it's always been. Those are my thoughts. Moe: Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 28 of 61 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: None of the developments that are along Chinden right now that are developed -- developed out, because Irvine isn't built out yet; am I correct? It's still just a plat. Lochsa Falls, Paramount, all of those are set south. The homes are substantially south of the intersection. None of them butt up to Chinden. You have the commercial area north of Lochsa Falls, it's just starting to build out there, with -- recently. You have Paramount, is almost solely surrounded by light office, to insulate their development. I am going way back in the file cabinet of my brain, but it seems to me like when Bainbridge came through, that Brighton was talking at that time -- we are discussing mixed use and I almost want to think that there was a potential school site or a private. Am I -- Moe: I don't remember. Newton-Huckabay: Seems to me like -- I would have liked to have seen, actually, where that collector is supposed to go -- that entire portion come through with -- I think I -- my personal opinion is -- and I think that Becky made a great argument in that favor that mixed use community out here is a good designation for this area. I think the location as far as between Boise and Nampa -- I agree that if it were to -- it would need to interconnect into the Bainbridge property, so you could take and leverage those collectors and I think some -- you know, there is employment opportunities close to home again. I know that development at the half mile, neighborhood centers, is -- all of that was put into our Comprehensive Plan and in the years I have been on this Commission I have yet to see a neighbor center develop out the way that -- the textbook says that they are going to be so brilliant and the closest we are coming is there on Ustick with that -- there by the park. And I -- I think that -- I don't think that mixed use -- Ilike that. Of course, I like that land designation in general anyway, because I think it adds -- it gives a potential for a lot of quality of life things for those people who live around it. You get a ton of variety in there that you can -- in a mixed use community. would be in favor of that. Again, I'm not in favor to access to 20-26, but that's a burden the applicant's going to have to push that through. I don't like your site plan. I would like to see something better. But, again, seeing a lot of work and I know that something could be done better and I know that Brighton Corporation would work in concert with that. So, I would be in support of it, myself. Marshall: May I -- Moe: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: -- for just a minute? Again, I -- Paramount was approved with their commercial site and Lochsa was approved with their commercial sites out against Chinden prior to the implementation of the land use map as it sits today. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 29 of 61 Newton-Huckabay: I believe the current Comprehensive Plan land use map in that area was -- wasn't it '04? Marshall: The last it was approved -- the last I read it was '06, but -- Newton-Huckabay: In that area. Well, I can't argue with you on that, because I don't know the date. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I don't know exactly which properties changed and when we did the Comp Plan map amendment, north Meridian in 2006. Obviously, Paramount was done before the north Meridian map changes were made, but Idon't -- we did go -- if you look -- and I know it's kind of far away. There is a hard copy of the entire Comp Plan future land use map just be{ow the screen there. We did diverge from more of the circle and half circle neighborhood centers that were shown on Chinden in 2002 to more of the linear neighborhood mixed use designations and we did, if you will, clean up some of those areas -- the Lochsa Falls offices, we did clean those up to give them I think a mixed use designation. Well, it could have been office. I don't -- mixed use. So, we did -- we did kind of diverge on Chinden a little bit from that, but there is one a few more miles to the east that is developing out that has some of the situations that were brought up recently. The Hightower development is at the mid mile between Locust Grove and Meridian. It has core commercial at the center. It's located at the mid mile with the mid mile access point. I will talk about that a little bit later in another application. And they do have residential as well that abuts their -- now, you may have seen their nice berm and they have the -- it's a faux wall -- a faux rock looking fence, but there is six foot or so tall fence on a berm. So, ITD, as well as the city, does require, if we do put residential up to Chinden, you can't put a chain link fence up there, it needs to be at least ten foot tall to mitigate for some of that. We do have setbacks and Becky's right, ITD is looking at a 200 foot total right of way, so we get a hundred foot from center line and, then, you'd have your landscape buffer with the wall on it. So, we are setting those residences back. But there are -- there are cases of both up and down Chinden. I mean you see a mixture of the old and some of the new. So, just -- I don't recall when the changes were made or exactly what properties either, but we do have some of both. Moe: Thank you, Caleb. Newton-Huckabay: I don't know if we want to get me started on that Hightower and Jericho area, because I think we all know how I feel about that. Moe: Well, that's not what we are discussing tonight, so -- Newton-Huckabay: No. You're all very lucky. Moe: Mr. Rohm, do you have any comments? Rohm: My only comments are, really, that as Ten Mile redevelops and they are putting in the interchange and that's going to be a major north-south roadway and just from the Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 30 of 61 other roads that have redeveloped and have that same designation at Chinden, that seems appropriate to have some mixed use on -- at Ten Mile and, obviously, you're not going to be able to take access off of Chinden without a fight. But just because they will have to take that battle, I don't think the change -- I think it's appropriate to change this land use designation at this time and, then, we will battle the rest of the development at such time as they bring a preliminary plat or annexation request. Moe: Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. O'Brien, any comments? O'Brien: Just a little, Mr. Chairman. I think we need to take these type situations on a one-on-one basis, one case at a time. I think that this is one of those situations where I'm in favor of the mixed use designation on this particular site, mainly what previous Commissioners had mentioned, Ten Mile traffic and the build up that's going to happen along Ten Mile, as well as Chinden. So, I'm in favor of the mixed use as that. So, thank you. Moe: Thank you. Well, I have gone both ways on this property here. I think, basically, the biggest concern I have is, in fact, when the surrounding area develops with it and we decide how we are going to have access in and out of the parcels and whatnot, are going to be a very big concern of mine to make sure that we do have the connectivity and whatnot, that's going to be required. I also think that any residential in that area, once the -- that Ten Mile widens out and Chinden, that's going to be a very busy area and whatnot and I'm not so sure that medium residential is what should be in that area, so -- Newton-Huckabay: My bigger concern with these is that none of them have -- I mean we approved Bainbridge three years -- four years ago, it seems like, and it hasn't built out yet and, you know, Imean Ijust -- it just -- it can rack your brain worrying what this is going to actually, eventually, come in as -- you know. Scratch that. I can't enunciate what I'm trying to say. I'm in favor of the mixed use. Moe: I think I knew what you meant. But we will stop you. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Understand what I mean, not what I say. Moe: Absolutely. Mr. Rohm? Rohm: I think we are ready. Moe: You were getting ready to do something, I believe. Rohm: Yes. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearing on CPA 08-001. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 31 of 61 O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue Item No. CPA 08-001 to the special meeting of August 14th, 2008. Marshall: Second. Rohm: Yeah. End of motion. Marshall: Second. Moe: That's what I was waiting for. It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08- 001, to the special meeting of August 14th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Before we get going on the next hearing, we are going to go ahead and take a ten minute break right now and we'll be back at 9:00 p.m. (Recess.) Item 8: Public Hearing: CPA Amendment to modify the designation from Medium for approximately 94 ac Investment Group, LLC - McMillan Road: 08-003 Request for Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map by changing the land use Density Residential to Mixed Use-Community res for Volterra Commercial by Primeland crest of North Ten Mile Road and north of West Moe: All right. At this time I'd like to reconvene the public hearing on CPA 08-003 for Volterra Commercial and start with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the Volterra project. If you recall, in 2005 this site was approved as the Volterra Subdivision. It was approved as a PD under a mixed use development, so to speak. They proposed their commercial here at the intersection of McMillan and Ten Mile, transition to an L-O