Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 1, 2003Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 35 of 107 Zaremba: Second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 03-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a reduction of approved 192 unit apartment to 96 units and allow 5,500 square foot office park for Fairview Lakes by Fairview Lakes, LLC - 824 East Fairview Avenue: Borup: I think we took longer on that one than the previous six. Next item is Public Hearing CUP 03-014, a request for Conditional Use Permit for a reduction of approved 192-unit apartment to 96 units and allow a 5,500 square foot office park for Fairview Lakes by Fairview Lakes, LLC, at 824 East Fairview Avenue. We would like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm going to come to the front, so I can make sure I can see all of you. I have got a few things I need to explain to you about this application that may be somewhat confusing, so I wanted to be able to see your eyes, to make sure that you're all on the same page. This is, again, another application concerning Fairview Lakes. We have heard a lot of applications about Fairview Lakes. Commissioners Centers says three before -- I think it's been more, but -- if we can go to the next slide, Wendy. Again, this is just more background concerning the area. It's all well known. At this point, this is where we start seeing some changes with this Site Plan. The central area -- if I could get you to highlight that, Bruce. Right there. Originally, we had 196 apartments included in this area and the applicant wants to revise that at this time to include up to 25 apartment buildings and get rid of the apartments and just leave 96 apartments on the north. Here is where it gets confusing. When the application came in, the applicant submitted the application for a detailed Conditional Use Permit and was charged for a detailed Conditional Use Permit, not a Conceptual Permit. The difference between a conceptual Conditional Use Permit and a detailed Conditional Use Permit is that they would have to come back for a Conditional Use Permit for every use other than residential in the future. Every one of those 25 offices, as they developed, would have been required to come back in for a Conditional Use Permit. There were a few items that were not submitted with the application that would typically be submitted with a detailed Conditional Use Permit and I can see that it's being handed across to you right now. I had an opportunity to talk with the architect prior to this meeting and we found out what the misunderstanding was. The application and the information that was provided led us to believe that this was a conceptual approval, rather than a detailed approval, and one of the items that was missing was a detailed Landscape Plan. We now have a copy of the detailed Landscape Plan. I have reviewed it and it does meet a majority of the landscaping requirements. In fact, there is just one item that needs to be revised on that to make Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mee0ng May 1, 2003 Page 36 of 107 this a detailed Conditional Use Permit. I need to revise the report. If I could have you all open up your report to the first page. In the application summary, everywhere it says conceptual, if you could, please, strike that. In addition, in making your motion tonight, please, change the words conceptual to a detailed Planned Development for Fairview Lakes. That's in reference only to the apartments and the office. Everything else is still conceptual. Zaremba: Let me just clarify for my own sense. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: The plan which I remember seeing, all of this was apartments. McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: And that was the detailed plan right? McKinnon: It was a detailed plan. Zaremba: Supposedly firm and final. McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: It was only this part that was conceptual at that time. McKinnon: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: So, we are still dealing with the same property, including this office area, as part of the detailed Conditional Use Permit approval for this project. Again, the rest of it is still in conceptual phases. They will have to come back for detailed Conditional Uses for these areas. If I could have you turn to page four of the staff report, conditions of approval, item number one. Again, could you, please, strike the word conceptual that's parenthesized? Item Number 1, please, strike the words: The revised conceptual from the Number 1, the final line, so that it will now read as a condition of the approval for this Planned Development. Item Number 5 in the staff report. Please strike that condition of approval in its entirety. That was the condition that required everything to come back as a detailed Conditional Use Permit. Finally, onto Item Number 6 of the conditions of approval please strike the last sentence that currently reads the revised landscaping permit -- the landscaping plan will be required at the time of submittal for Preliminary Plat or upon submittal of the detailed Conditional Use Permit for a future phase. Please, replace that with wording similar to the following that 10 copies of the revised Landscaping Plan, in accordance with the Meridian City Code Landscaping Ordinance, shall submitted to city staff at least ten days prior to the next City Council Meeting. The revision that needs to be required is a very similar revision. There is only one that's Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 37 of 107 addressed in the body of the report. The southwest comer parking got highlighted on the overhead. Currently shows 15 parking spaces linearly arranged, without a landscape buffer placed in between them. As you well know, we do not allow more than 12 parking spaces to be linearly arranged without an island, a landscape island, one tree in that, measuring no less than 50 square feet and no narrower than five feet. That would be the only revision that we would have them make to their detailed Landscape Plan in order make it come into compliance with the Meridian City Code Landscape Ordinance. Centers: But you're fine when you say submit it within 1 ~ days? McKinnon: That's correct. Centers: Then, you will look at it? McKinnon: That's correct. Just so the application knows, that's exactly the only -- that's the one change that we do need to see. Item Number 7 again, the revised concept Development Plan. Please strike the word concept just the revised Development Plan would be sufficient. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, staff is in support of the applicant's request, because this is a Planned Development, to provide mixed-uses. Again, they have actually made the mix more of a mix than it previously was. As you know, this was all apartments. The only office uses were these three small buildings that are now highlighted and the rest was apartments. Now, we have 92 apartment units, up to 25 office and we have some larger box retail stores, bank drive-thrus, and restaurant drive-thrus. The amenities are still being kept in their entirety. As you remember, there is a number of small ponds, the Fairview Lakes, and the pathway that runs up Fairview through the new drive -- the new road that runs up to the north. There is a pathway that runs along the side. Again, catches up with the relocated -- the relocated creek and the pathway are still incomplete in its entirety adjacent to the apartment complex and exits out to the northwest. Staff is in agreement with the applicant's request for this to be a detailed, rather than a conceptual approval at this time, and I would ask if you have any comments. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Freckleton: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. There was just one thing I want to point out, Dave. On the application summary, front page, I think you want to strike the -- on the very last sentence, you have additional detailed Conditional Use Permit shall be required in the future prior to construction. I think you want to scratch that. McKinnon: Thank you. Zaremba: Yes. Let me anticipate what may or may not be some testimony from the audience. When this was going to be apartment buildings, there was a lot of discussion about the setback from the property lines that would be the rear property lines of the people who live on Teare and they seem to be reasonably satisfied that there was like a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 38 of 107 double parking area, adriveway -- any building was going to be a pretty good distance from their property line. We now have the buildings only separated by the walkway, really, and whatever the standard setback is. Can we specify that offices four, five, six, seven and eight, which are these right in here, be limited to single story. To specify their hours of operation, so that it would be -- actually, that might even be a benefit to the neighbors if we say the businesses have to be closed by 10:00 opposed to having apartments there, which could have somebody playing the music 24 hours a day. Can we add those things? McKinnon: Absolutely. Borup: Again, these are office buildings, not retail buildings. Zaremba: I know. Borup: And anything that would be taking place would be inside the building, wouldn't it? Zaremba: And that, actually, is the back of them with no service entrance or anything, but I'm just trying to help the neighbors. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, I think you have a great point there with limiting the hours of operation. I don't remember if that was a condition of approval for the Planned Development initially, but that's a -- Zaremba: Well, when it was apartments you really couldn't do that. McKinnon: Right. Just I'm referring to the rest of the commercial. One point just to address the comments you made. Office uses adjacent to single-family, there is a requirement for a buffer and it's typically a 20-foot buffer between the separate uses, which is the same buffer that's required for an office use as well. The applicant has continued to maintain the same distance of that buffer, in addition to placing the pathway with the trees that we discussed numerous times, plus the fencing that was discussed. The apartment buildings that were originally proposed were, I believe, three stories in height, which would provide the people in the apartments more of a look down into those people's backyard. I believe it would actually be benefit for asingle-story office building to be in someone's backyard, rather than the three-story building. With that, as you know, we have received testimony numerous times in front of this body regarding people not wanting apartments looking down into their backyards. I believe it was actually testified at hearings concerning this project. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Tamura: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Doug Tamura, 499 Main Street, and I'm one of the co-developers on this project. I appreciate the consideration of the staff at such a late hour about changing it from a conceptual to a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 39 of 107 detailed, but our goal is to start construction on the office buildings this summer. One of the things that is going to be coming before City Council as part of this application is we have also applied for a miscellaneous application for a private road section through that portion that we are going to deed to the Highway District, so we can go ahead and treat that as a PUD, start construction of the office buildings, kind of do what we did with the apartments. Our goal is that we want to be under construction on both the stop light and the road by June or July of this summer. We have relocated the ditches at this time and the thing that kind of the light switched on with us was we think there is a real big need for potential owner-occupied office buildings, and in particular a small professional park. One thing that we looked at was the complimentary benefits of having amixed- use project by cutting down a number of residential and creating office buildings that could provide customers for the restaurants, for the bank, so we have got more of a full service type of development. In regards to the setbacks, we proposed a 30-foot setback on the apartments and in the original application we proposed a 25-foot setback from the offices. One is we can go ahead and -- we will go ahead and put in our CC&Rs that we are only going to allow single level. The only question about hours of operation is that our goal is that we are thinking that this would be a professional office complex, you know, doctors, dentists, accountants. Just knowing that accountants or some other professionals have those time periods that, you know, beyond 10:00 o'clock may be something that's necessary, so I'd really hate to limited our tenants in these office buildings, you know, that type thing. One, is we don't have a problem with two story, because we don't have any intention of doing that. We have designed our project -- this potentially could be -- the majority is going to be a design -- we will control all of the designs, we will set up an architectural control committee that reviews everything. We also will have lots for sale that other people can come in and develop office buildings in our project. We have got a design that -- you know, I guess there is one typographical error that I wanted to point out. It's on your cover sheet. It said 5,500 square feet. In our application we paid for 55,000 square feet, so -- Zaremba: Missing a zero? Tamura: Yes. We need to add one zero. What you will see this next month is we are submitting a Preliminary Plat on Devon Park Sub No. 2. What our intent is, is we are only going to subdivide the east half of this from the road on over and depending on how well phase one goes, we could come back in and expand the concept on the west side. The comment that Dave made on that landscaping, we will go ahead and correct that but our intent is that we will, actually, resubmit to you, depending on how well the first phase is received. Borup: Just to -- maybe a clarification on the 55,000. You had them both ways on the application. Tamura: Yes. Borup: One line said 5,500 and the other said 55,000. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 40 of 107 Tamura: Oh. Yes. Borup: So, that's how this -- I think that's how that mistake got in there. Tamura: On our overall Site Plan we had it -- Borup: Right. Tamura: -- we had it at 52,000, so I kind of rounded it up to 55. Borup: No. I mean -- I mean on this. Tamura: Oh, yes. That -- Borup: The first line only had two zeros, the second -- the second time it had three. Tamura: Yes. The intention was 55,000. Which included the second phase of the office portion. All right. It's been our experience that with office buildings, especially, when we have reviewed them with neighborhoods, that typically neighborhoods would much rather see an office building next to their homes, versus an apartment complex, and when we give them the choice between parking lots and buildings, we, typically -- we, typically, pitch a building, just because of what you stated, hours of operation is complimentary to residential. We are providing a 25-foot buffer there now. The other thing is we are going to still continue the pedestrian pathway that David mentioned. One of the things that worked out well is the cul-de-sac turn around that we had in our first phase. We are going create that as kind of a signage amenity there in the center, so we have made the cul-de-sac large enough that we could do something similar to what Meadow Lakes Village is doing, where you can have kind of a signage water amenity that we tied the monument sign to this office complex. Hopkins Financial is -- his building just recently sold, and so as part of this development, we are hoping to start his building in July and it's kind of the first building to get started in this project. That was one of the reasons that was kind of important to us that we could get this detailed approval tonight. Thanks. If there are any questions? Zaremba: If the offices are all for individual sale, is there going to be an office owner association that would be responsible for the common areas and -- Tamura: Commissioner, the way we are setting up the CC&Rs would be more or less like a subdivision association where we will have CC&R's. The way we are going to plat this when you see that is that each -- each lot will just be for the office building with a footprint of the maximum square footage of what they can build on that footprint, then, all the common area, the parks and the sidewalks and the -- will be all under common area association and management wise will be all handled by the association. Borup: So, all the landscaping will be maintained by the one -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 41 of 107 Tamura: The only thing that they will actually own will be the building. I mean they will own the lot, but the control of the maintenance and landscaping will be the association. Centers: Well, if you keep making changes, the city is going to keep taking your money for those. Tamura: You know, we think we are developing a better mousetrap as we go along and part of it has been driven by the economy, but, at the same time, we think there is definitely a need that we can see that -- you know, that started in Boise and we can see it heading this direction. I think that we have got such a prime location for that type of service, that I think that, one is that we can afford something that will be nice, the city will be proud of it. At the same, I think something that will be relatively affordable for those, you know, small business people that would want to own their own buildings and particularly with -- you know, the other reason that we are pressing real hard is with the interest rates being where they are at. I think there is a lot of people that could take advantage of that financial situation we are in right now, so I appreciate -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission -- while you're still up there, Doug, just one comment on limiting hours of operation. If you wanted to limit that, you may want to limit that just to customer hours, rather than office hours, so that they could work passed a certain time in the office, but not have any additional customers coming to the office. Zaremba: Well, since I was the one that brought that up, I -- being reminded by you, that this is office, not retail. I can see the situation where one of these people might be a tax consultant that through the early part of April needs to have customers coming in at 2:00 in the morning, but they would be very quiet. As I say, there is no back entrance to these, apparently, and so I'm not sure the homeowners would be disturbed by somebody coming to a tax consultant for a couple of weeks out of the year and I would drop my original discussion about the time restraints. McKinnon: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? We have got the buffering and a lot of the other stuff that was discussed last time are staying in place and -- Centers: Well, it's -- Borup: -- it's a less intensive use than -- if we are going from a three story to one story. Centers: I can see why they are not here. They love it. I would if I was the neighbor. Borup: Did you still want to come up, ma'am? Ewing: I just need to ask -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 42 of 107 Borup: Come on up. Ewing: I didn't make the last meeting. I'm sorry, but I -- Borup: We need to go ahead and get your -- you want to wait and get it on the -- Ewing: My name is Glenrose Ewing and my home is 983 Tammy Street. I was just curious up here, you know, we are coming in on Teare now and what is this dark there behind those -- you know, there is my house on the corner, then, the other one on Teare and, then, the -- what kind of a buffer is that there? No down by the park right along here. Because this office -- or the buildings and stuff comes -- you know, there is the two lots -- this is -- my home is there. There is another lot there. This is all park here. Okay. What is that right there? What kind of a buffer are you putting in? Borup: You mean the distance, how many feet it is? Ewing: Well, I just want to know what it is. Is it a wall? Is it -- Borup: Okay. We will have to maybe look at that, because that was part of the project that was approved last year or -- Ewing: Last -- well, I missed the last meeting. Borup: Or however long ago right. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I can address that just briefly. As you know, this was a conceptual approval for the remainder of the property. This portion right here was approved conceptually and we were basically looking at distances and the trees, but as far as types of trees, nothing specifically has been worked out. As far as getting you a scale and showing you how much landscaping there will be there, I can provide that, but as far as the plan, there has not been a plan approved there at this time, because it was only approved conceptually by the Council. Borup: And that will be coming back? McKinnon: That's correct. It will come back as a Conditional Use Permit. Zaremba: So, it would be a noticed Public Hearing? Ewing: So, we will get another notice? McKinnon: You will receive another notice. Ewing: Do we have any idea what's going in behind -- right down there, those lots that are right below us? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 43 of 107 Borup: Not at this point. Ewing: So, again, we wait? Okay just curious. Borup: So, yes, at this point it would the office buildings and the apartments are already approved, half the apartment buildings have been eliminated and the office is going in. Ewing: No. I can see why my neighbors are very happy. Borup: Yes. Centers: This is the detail. That's set. This is future. Ewing: And it even makes me happier, too. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Centers: That's what we like to hear. Borup: Okay. Was there anyone else come forward? Aseguinolaza: Marie Aseguinolaza, 885 East Willowbrook in Meridian, and I just had a question. Are the apartment buildings still three story? My understanding is that they are, but -- the apartment buildings in the front. Borup: No, there aren't any in the front. Aseguinolaza: I'm sorry in the back. Borup: Yes. That was --this application didn't affect those at all. Aseguinolaza: Okay. That's what I wanted to clarify. Thank you. Centers: Well, excuse me, Mr. Chairman. They reduced the number of apartments -- Borup: Right. Centers: -- to 96. They are still three story. Aseguinolaza: Okay. That was my question. Centers: Correct? Aseguinolaza: And a total of how many buildings? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 44 of 107 Centers: Ninety-six units. Borup: Instead of-- Centers: And it was previously 192 units. Aseguinolaza: So -- but the buildings -- Borup: No. Units. Centers: Number of apartments. Aseguinolaza: Do you know how many buildings? Centers: I guess staff --one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight six, seven? McKinnon: It looks like there are seven buildings and one clubhouse. Aseguinolaza: All right. Thank you. Borup: Was there anyone else? Thank you. Commissioners, do we -- any discussion? I think in my mind the only thing that came up was the hours of operation. As far as single story office building, I don't see a need. Zaremba: Yes. I'd give up the hours of operation. I would still like to specify single story on the -- four, five, six, seven and eight. Borup: Mr. Tamura said that was their intention anyway. Zaremba: Yes. Other than that, I think it's a fine project. Centers: Yes. I would agree. Maybe we will see it again. Borup: Well, yes, I think that's kind of an exiting concept that Meridian hasn't really seen yet. Zaremba: I think there is a need for individually sold small office buildings. I can see that. Centers: I think more of a need for those than apartment dwellers nowadays. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed. Centers: I second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 45 of 107 _ Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, CUP 03-014. Request for a Conditional Use Permit for reduction of approved 192-unit apartment to 96 units and to allow 55,000 -- not 5,500, 55,000 square foot office park for Fairview Lakes by Fairview Lakes, LLC, 824 East Fairview Avenue. To include all staff comments of the staff memo of -- dated May 1St and received by the clerk on April 22"d, with the following changes: Where ever the word conceptual appears, it's changed to the word detailed. One incident of that is on the description at the top of the first page of the memorandum. On Page 4, under conditions of approval, Item 1, the very last line, delete the words revised conceptual, so that it reads as a condition of the approval for this Planned Development. Item 5, delete the first five words this approval is only conceptual. That paragraph starts with pursuant. Centers: Strike the whole thing. Zaremba: I'm sorry. We are striking the whole paragraph? I'm sorry. Strike Paragraph 5 Paragraph 6. The first sentence stands. The second sentence is deleted and add a new sentence that says 10 copies of the Landscape Plan, in accordance with Meridian City Code, will be submitted 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. Item 7 delete the third word concept. We will add an Item 8 that says the height of office buildings identified as four, five, six, seven, and eight shall be limited to one story. I believe I -- and we did make note of the fact that the application is fora 55,000 square feet office park, not 5,500. I'm done. Centers: Dave, would we want to add the detailed plan applies to the apartment and office complex as submitted? McKinnon: It won't hurt to add that. Zaremba: Yes. Centers: All else is conceptual. Zaremba: Yes. This is only modifying what were originally apartments and not addressing the southerly portion, which remains conceptual. Centers: Second. Mathes: Do we need to mention the landscaped island above Buildings 23, 24, and 25 in that parking -- and 15 without a landscape -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting May 1, 2003 Page 46 of 107 Borup: That was the only landscape detail plan change that was needed, per staff testimony. McKinnon: I think we have got it covered. Doug and I can work that out. Borup: Okay. Okay. Motion. Did we have a second? Centers: Yes. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Commissioners, would we like a short break? Okay. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 11. Public Hearing: RZ 03-006 Request for a Rezone of 3.41 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for Bear Creek No. 6 by Westpark Company -west of South Meridian Road and south of West Overland Road: Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 03-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and 2 other lots on 10.49 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek No. 6 by Bear Creek, LLC -west of South Meridian Road and south of West Overland Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting this evening. Start with our next item, which is, on the original agenda, Item Numbers 11 and 12, Public Hearing RZ 03-006, request for a rezone of 3.14 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for Bear Creek No. 6 by Westpark Company. Public Hearing PP 03-004, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and two other lots on 10.49 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek No. 6 by Bear Creek, LLC. Open this -- both these Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Again, I want to speak from in front of you, rather than beside you, because there are a couple of interesting things with this project as well. On the overhead, if I can direct your attention over there really quick, just to give you a brief overview of what we are talking about tonight on how this is very different from everything else we have discussed concerning Kodiak and Bear Creek and even the Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church property. When Bear Creek was originally approved, Bear Creek had taken this area that I have highlighted. It's kind of a triangular shaped area, and placed a cul-de-sac there and they placed some very large lots -- I believe one of the lots in that cul-de-sac was 33,600 some odd square feet, just under three-quarters of an acre -- just over three- quarters of an acre. The original proposal for Kodiak was this long narrow piece in the