Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 7, 2008 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 44 of 61 Moe: To September the 4th. Newton-Huckabay: 4th. Okay. I recommend -- or open AZ 08-005 for the Meridian and Amity property for the sole purpose of continuing it to September 4th, 2008. End of motion. Moe: That would be a regularly scheduled meeting. Newton-Huckabay: Regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting September 4th, 2008. O'Brien: Second. Moe: Could I get. a second, please? O'Brien: Second. Moe: Thank you very much. It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 08-005 for Meridian and Amity to the regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of September the 4th, 2008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: CPA 08-009 Request fora Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the designation of approximately 9 acres from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential for Biskay by Greg Johnson -south side of Harris Street, west of S. Meridian Road (SH 69) and north of W. Amity Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-009 for Biskay and start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you just heard on the last public hearing item, this is where that current CPA is proposed. The applicant's coming in, their site here. It's roughly 52 acres, but the Comp Plan really is approximately on -- it changed on a nine acre portion of it. To the -- again, to the north is Harris Street. Again, it does tie in with this proposed development here along Amity and Meridian Road. Here is the other site. Again, it is pretty underdeveloped out there, pretty much agricultural land. The only subdivision that's in the vicinity at this time that's somewhat built out is Meridian Heights northeast of this site. Here, again, what we have planned for -- under today's standards, mixed medium density residential and, then, here is what -- this is a little skewed on here on -- GIS tech kind of got that off a little bit. It actually runs along the pipe line. You can see that green line there, that's actually, the Comp Plan amendment and it's just kind of a little sewed, but that would connect up to Harris there. So, just to put that out there for you guys. Again, the Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 45 of 61 applicant doesn't have any subsequent applications -- development applications with this. At this time they are not even contiguous with city limits, so they can't even request annexation, but when we met with the applicant we -- they were -- they knew what would happen on that section of the road, Meridian -Amity, and they thought, well, if they were coming in with a denser mixed use development, why not try to come in and get something changed for their property as well. As Commissioner Marshall mentioned, it is appropriate to have office slash mixed use -- or, excuse me, multi-family development buffering commercial development. So, anyways, here is what the applicant has proposed. Here is their concept plan. Again, it's -- this is -- it's tough for staff to make a recommendation for approval on this, just because this site is -- is a little premature. We don't know how this is going to develop. There is really nothing developed out in that area at this time. We have questions with future connectivity here, based on what happens with the adjacent property, so there is a lot of variables out there that are hard to tell at this time. The other issue I bring up -- and I go back to the Comp Plan map, is you see this little node right here on that -- on the subject site and that really references from the parks department standpoint a community park. I know in the staff report I have referenced that they were looking for a regional park, but after speaking with Steve Siddoway and getting some comments from him today, he's informed me that the city and the comp -- the parks comp plan actually calls for a community park -- a 30 acre park is what they are looking for. If we go back to the concept plan here, you can see the applicant has proposed roughly 3.5 acres. And it's my understanding that they intentionally dipped down Harris Street to allow development of that part for these four corners with the dividing parcels. Which makes sense. In the parks department's comments they had referenced that three and a half acres would not be sufficient and they would encourage the applicant to come in and sit down and work with them to see what they could do to get additional acreage for that community park. Again, the applicant is proposing to go from a high density residential to more of your traditional four-plexes type R-15 zoning district, a medium high density residential area, down to your detached R-8 lots. Staff would like to see better connectivity with this parcel to the west of it. I mean they stub to the southern parcel, but -- and have Harris come into that at that point, but if you look at their submitted concept plan, you do see some roadways that come in here that have the potential to add some additional connectivity there. And without realizing this is a concept plan, it is important to connect our neighborhood, so any future development came in, I'm sure the applicant would be more than willing to add some additional amenities to connect to that as far as vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, but at this point there just aren't enough to evaluate. They really wanted to demonstrate how this portion of the comp -- what they were proposing with the Comp Plan would develop. So, I would anticipate with annexation, plat, they would probably have more of those details. Sorry. So, with that, again, staff is recommending denial of this Comp Plan and I would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have regarding the project. Moe: Thank you. Any questions of staff at this time? Would the applicant like to come forward? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 46 of 61 McKay: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario. I'm representing Mr. Johnson, the applicant, on this particular application. Mr. Johnson came to me with a copy of the Hawkins bubble plan and, then, a more specific site plan. He indicated that he's chatted with them and they had informed him they were submitting the Comp Plan map amendment to increase that mixed use regional further north. So, he, obviously, had an interest in providing some type of a transition on his property, since the intensity of the uses along his eastern boundary were going to increase. He did want me to go on the record that he is supportive of the Hawkins application. He had chatted with them. I have met with their representative. We have exchanged plans and information. Obviously, you know, there -- what's proposed there, a big box user with other complimentary retail uses. We will kind of change these -- the character out here, so we thought that it would be prudent on our part to come up with some type of a way to transition our use and come up with some uses that would compliment theirs. So, we looked at it, let's integrate our uses and what would be served best, being adjoining a large retail facility, would be apartments. If I could use the board. The black and white doesn't quite do it justice. So, one of the things that we looked at, the Williams pipe line, as Bill indicated, traverses through here. That is something you just don't mess with. They have very strict restrictions on what they allow. The depth of those pipe lines deviates, so the other thing that we look at when we are dealing with it is minimizing our street crossings, because typically we end up having to hump up over it. This pipe line, at 75 feet wide, is their current easement. It continues in a northwesterly direction. In my previous meetings with staff I said, you know, that would be an awesome pathway. You know, you could put a big multi-use pathway in there and we have met Doug Strong, who was the parks director at the time, and he said, you know, a neighborhood park out here would be awesome along that pipe line and, then, they would, obviously, have a destination as people biked and walked along -- along that new greenbelt. So, I was also working with Mr. Centers, who owns the property on the north. boundary, and he also owns the property on the west boundary. So, when we were kind of sketching out some different ideas and at the time the single family residential market was very hot, we kind of got together and said, you know, if everybody gave, you know, three, three and a half acres, a couple acres, whatever, we could make a great park and, then, this will be a signalized intersection at Meridian Road, because that is the half mile at Harris. The neighbors to the north in Meridian Heights were supportive. They want a signal really bad, because it is difficult for them to enter and cross three lanes to go northbound. We drop that collector in and, then, you have all of this nice collector frontage on a neighborhood park and excellent pedestrian interconnectivity. So, the way we looked at it when evaluating this site and figuring out our transitioning, this is a natural barrier. I'm crossing it once with the collector, only, obviously, out of necessity. It creates a partition in this property that we had struggled with when we were looking at it from a single family residential standpoint. So, Mr. Centers wanted single family detached dwellings adjoining him, because he anticipates in the future single family development. Mrs. Laidlaw owns on the south boundary. She came to our neighborhood meeting. She said, you know, if you put single family detached next to me that would be acceptable. I just don't want the multi-family, because that's not what I thought -- how the property was going to develop when I initially sold it. So, we do have this kind of L shape here of the single family, then, we transition to like a multi- Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 47 of 61 family. Here we show kind for afour-plex type facility with a great loop connection and we have got linkages to the greenbelt. We have got internal pocket parks. And it just made for an awesome -- what we thought transition. We spoke with Hawkins about this -- this backage collector road. We are in support of it. We think, you know, obviously, that would create a transition between the two uses also. Mr. Johnson was, you know, supportive of, you know, like parking. His primary concern is, obviously, the loading docks. But, you know, with the proper landscaping, the proper transitional residential uses, it, obviously, can take advantage of that commercial. We think that this -- this, obviously, makes sense. And, you know, depending on how their residential component were to develop, obviously, interconnectivity between those linkages to the greenbelt through us and other pathways would be incorporated. And, obviously, this is just an idea. So, we are asking for -- out of the 52 acres -- out of the 52 acres, we are asking for nine acres, which you see there with that apartment component, be redesignated to high density residential. What we proposed there -- there are about 24 units per acre. So, obviously, like an R-15 designation, would not work for this. I think -- you know, from a planning perspective, if we could get people to walk over to -- if it's Wal-Mart or Target or whoever, walk to the dentist, walk over to other essential commercial facilities, I think that would be great and I think that's what we are looking for. As far as the long-term planning, keep these people off the arterials, try to keep them in the internal sections. Shoot these collectors, make a continuous collector, so that we minimize the impact on the intersections. So, we felt, when looking at the big picture, what's being proposed, that this makes sense and compliments the Hawkin application. I'd like to address the -- the parks issue. My client wanted me to state that he owns 40 acres at the corner of Victory and Linder. He did talk with the parks department about if they were interested in acquisition of that and I don't think the discussions went very far. Initially, you know, what we proposed here for the neighborhood parks, those are a donation. All the neighborhood parks that I have proposed in projects have been donated sites. But when the staff starts talking about 40 percent of the site, I mean that's what we -- from aplanning -- in the planning world call an exaction, that, obviously, our impact on parks is not that significant. Mr. Johnson donated the Bear Creek park. We did get some impact fee credits on that and so I was quite surprised where Bear Creek is just due north on Stoddard and it is a community park, 18.4 acres. I worked with Mr. Johnson and the city on that one. So, that kind of services that area. Typically, when you look at the parks plan, it references a park, but it states that park would be located at Meridian Road and Amity. And it has on here a little asterisk and it, basically, just kind of straddles three different property lines. Now, when the city came up with these different proposed parks, they always qualified it. We are not designating that park on any particular piece of property, it is just stating that we want a park within that section somewhere. It calls out not a regional park, but it calls out a community park. Now, in all of our experiences with different municipal parks departments, the regional parks, the community parks, we locate on arterials. We don't typically put them within the interior of a section, because of the high volumes of traffic, you know, they have all the little soccer kids and the football kids and baseball kids and so they -- they really generate a lot of traffic and plus the cities want them visible, so they can be seen, because, obviously, it is a wonderful amenity. So, if the city is -- parks department is looking at the community or regional park, the interior of the section Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 48 of 61 -- I don't know, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The staff has recommended that we meet with the new parks director and, obviously, discuss this and we would definitely do that prior to submitting any subsequent applications on this. But right now we are just asking for a designation of just this portion the nine acres constitutes, about 17.3 percent of the property. The rest of the property would remain in medium density residential, which would be consistent with what you find to the north and to the west. I think that's all that I need to cover. Do you have any questions? Moe: Any questions of the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Well, there is no one signed up. If there is anyone that would like to come forward, now would be the time. We have someone coming up. Overy: Jason Overy. 6537 North Brigadoon Avenue, Meridian. As you are aware, we are the applicant adjacent to this property and we are in support of the proposed amendment as Becky alluded and we also think that by understanding the bigger picture of the proposed uses adjacent to ours that it does help created the buffer that was referenced in our application. But I did want to go on the record that we confirm her statements that we are in support of their application. Moe: Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Any comments, Commissioners? Mr. Marshall, any? Marshall: Right now I like the idea that it's a buffer up against the large commercial projects. Worry also that our infrastructure is set up to hold so many cars and I don't know how that balances things out. I don't know -- it's a small piece of area. I don't know how many properties that's increasing. It's not an exceptionally large piece of property. But I have to agree it is kind of what I was looking for on -- on a buffer against those larger residences, as in multi-family. I still would like to see something between those big box stores and even this, a little lower intensity from the big box store, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I, generally, when I think of the mixed use -- the mixed use community -- it's community; right? Marshall: Regional. Mixed use regional. Newton-Huckabay: Mixed use regional. Oh. Okay. Never mind. Never mind. Moe: Okay. Mr. Rohm, any comments? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 49 of 61 Rohm: No, sir. Moe: Okay. I really don't have much of a problem with the development at all. The only concern I still have is that I would have liked to have seen a little bit more dialogue, possibly, with the parks department to discuss this park issue. You know, I'm not so sure that it wouldn't be a good idea to at least have a little bit more discussion on that. This thing is not going to develop any time soon and so whether or not you took the time to go through -- I guess there is a couple things that I'm interested in. It would be, basically, dealing with parks and, basically, what we also see coming back with their neighbor as well, so I'm not just sure how to feel totally on this one, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Just to me, to put a high density land use designation in this area just -- it seems a little odd to me. And I kind of -- when I look at mixed use -- you know, the mixed use regional or the mixed use neighborhood designation, part of that whole idea of that is to create a transition in and of itself and so I'm not sure that you need a high density residential transition from a transition. Does that -- Moe: I understand what you're saying. Newton-Huckabay: And Bill made a comment earlier on the previous application, this is going to be one of the first -- this area is a big deal, I guess, and I -- it has -- we can -- we can mess it up or we can support it and I'm just not sure I'm comfortable with the high density there and I don't have a use problem with the development. As always, I think it's, you know, innovative, but I'm just not comfortable with high density right there. think it's premature at this point for me. Moe: Commissioners, any other comments? If not, can we get a motion? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the public hearing on CPA 08-09 for. the Biskay Comprehensive Plan amendment. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-009 for Biskay. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we continue CPA 08-009 for the Biskay Comprehensive Plan amendment to the specially scheduled P&Z meeting of August 14th, 2008. End of motion. Marshall: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 50 of 61 Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-009 for Biskay to the special meeting of August 14th, 2008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: CPA 08-007 Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to modify the Future Land Use Map by changing the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use -Community for approximately 10 acres for Zamzows Chinden by JR, LLC -south side of Chinden Boulevard, approximately'/ mile east of Meridian Road: Moe: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing for CPA 08-007 for Zamzows on Chinden and start with the staff report, please. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The CPA 08-007 is for Zamzows on Chinden. It's located on the south side of State Highway 20-26, approximately a half mile east of Meridian Road. The mailing address is 545 East Chinden Boulevard. This ten acre parcel, shown here, is currently zoned RUT in Ada county. It is within the city's area of impact boundary, which you can see right in the light blue teal color there along 20-26 and our urban service planning area, but as you can tell from this map, it's not currently contiguous to Meridian city corporate boundaries. So, therefore, not currently eligible for annexation. To the north, obviously, is the state highway. On the other side of the state highway is Castlebury Subdivision. It is an Ada subdivision, zoned R-1. To the east is a Lutheran church. To the south are some agricultural properties. There is an estate home on that ten acres there, zoned RUT in Ada county. To the west is a Catholic church, also zoned RUT in Ada county. The applicant is requesting approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map by changing the land use designation on approximately ten acres of land from medium density residential to mixed use community. Part of the property is currently being used as a commercial business, the Zamzows, obviously, and, then, there is a safe barbecue dealer -- I don't know if you can really make it out on this site plan, but it's somewhere in that location right near the state highway. The applicant has owned this property for approximately four years. In 2006 the city amended the Comprehensive Plan map, the one I mentioned earlier, for all of north Meridian, so from McDermott over to Eagle, Ustick, up to Chinden, there was a study done and we changed some of the land use designations in north Meridian. That map includes several changes, one of which was to move the mixed use community neighborhood center designation within this center. So, here is -- and, pardon me, this got skewed a little bit. You can see it's a little bit wider than it is tall, so it's a little bit out of whack. But here is -- here is the one arterial, here is another, and your mid mile half moon, if you will, with mixed use neighborhood center. And the Zamzows site is right here. You can see there is a small portion of it that was medium density residential even, then. Here is the current designation. The parcel lines do not show up on this, so cut this into fourths, basically. Zamzows would be right about in there. And, again, there is your fourth. So, there is what the map would look like if you act favorably on this. It should be noted that