Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 7, 2008 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 3 of 61 Moe: It has been moved and second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Now, if we could just keep going with that speed we would be in good shape tonight, but I don't think that's going to happen. As a matter of fact, before I open the hearings, number one, I would like to let you know as far as on the record this evening we will not open any hearings beyond 11:00 p.m. tonight. When we get to that point we will probably hear the one we are at and, then, we will call it a night, basically, and staff is going to explain a little bit more about tonight when we get over there, but I just want to make that known right now, so we are not all here until the a.m. hours. Okay. The next thing on the -- what I'd like to do is just kind of give you a description format how tonight will go. I will open the public hearing and, then, the staff will give an overview of the hearing. After which they are done, the applicant will have 15 minutes to review the project as well, giving additional testimony in regard to some of the findings of the staff report. After that time there are sign-up sheets in the back for any of the public that would like to speak tonight. Each person will be given three minutes to, basically, give their testimony. After all the signatures have been taken care of, I will ask, then, one more time if there is anyone else that would like to speak. If there is anyone else, just raise your hand and you will be more than welcome to come up and have your three minutes. After that the applicant will, then, be given an opportunity to come back up and rebut any testimony and give further explanation from the public comments. Item 4: Public Hearing: CPA 08-005 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation on 33.59 acres of land from Industrial to Commercial for Kennedy Commercial Genter /Western Electronics by DBSI Meridian 184 LLC and Herman- Treasure Valley Business Park ILLC - 1250 W. Overland Road: Item 5: Public Hearing: RZ 08-003 Request for Rezone of 27.17 acres from I-L to C-G zone for Kennedy Commercial Center by DBSI Meridian 184 LLC - 1250 W. Overland Road: Moe: Having said that, then, I would like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-005 for the Kennedy Commercial Center /Western Electronics and for the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Before I get into the details on the subject applications, I did just want to remind you it's in all the staff reports for this evening, but just a quick refresher on state code and these Comp Plan map amendments. You are only able to forward on a recommendation to the City Council once every six months. So, if you're ready to forward one on tonight, you need to be ready to forward on a recommendation for them all on to -- at the end of tonight. We just received two late letters from folks that are later on in the agenda, Items 13 and 15 just asking to be continued to the 14th. So, if you accept those letters, there is no way we are going to make it through all of the items on the agenda this evening. So, I guess Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 4 of 61 we will go ahead and have the hearings, you can certainly deliberate, ask questions. I would just ask you to not make a final recommendation on the projects, you can even close the public hearings if you don't need anymore information, but, please, don't make a final recommendation, because if we do, again, we have to be prepared to make recommendations on them all, so -- Moe: Caleb, before you start, should I go ahead, then, and open the other RZ 08-003 as well? Hood: Sure. Moe: In that case, then, I will open the public hearing for RZ 08-003 as well. Thank you. Hood: So, the subject property is -- contains 33.5 acres of land. The property does not include all of the area proposed for rezoning. I'll get to that in a second. The subject property is everything in gray here, with the 45 slashes through it. The area that's in this area is proposed for rezone as well. It's all currently zoned I-L, but there is an existing Western Electronics building on this site, which no rezone is proposed for at this time. It's located, as you can see, on the north side of Overland Road between -84, Meridian Road -- Meridian Road would be here. Linder Road is here. So, approximately halfway between those two arterials. To the north of the subject property, again, is the interstate. To the east, as I mentioned, Western Electronics and, then, Mountain View Equipment also has the property further to the east. To the south Overland Road and there are existing rural residential properties. You can also see the Freedom Storage facility located south of the subject site. To the west are vacant properties, zoned industrial at this time. .The large property there is zoned industrial. The applicant is requesting approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map, to change the land use designation on 33.5 acres of land from industrial to commercial. So, as you can see on this slide, it's currently all shown as industrial. This is, if approved, what that same area would look like, the red commercial. A rezone is also requested to amend the zoning designation on a portion of that area. 27.17 is the area contained, again, on the undeveloped area around Western Electronics. And that request is, again, to C-G. So, general retail and service commercial. The rezone, of course, is contingent upon the Comp Plan amendment being approved as the zoning is -- hinges on the change on the future land use map to the new designation. The applicant states in their application letter that if approved they intend to develop a portion of the property with a 35,000 square foot adult education and office facility and rent it to the University of Phoenix. The current I-L zoning of the property and industrial land use designations do not allow for education institutions in the UDC. Just a real quick history, too. This site was approved for Western Electronics and other future uses in 2001. It did allow some non-industrial uses with that approval, such as day cares and offices, but did not specify education facilities. A preliminary plat was mostly recently approved by the City Council and this Planning and Zoning Commission forwarded on a recommendation for that in 2007 for 11 commercial lots. So, this site plan should look real familiar. You all looked at this preliminary plat here less than a year ago now. The Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 5 of 61 site plan that the applicant has submitted shows one access point to Overland Road at the east -- at the east property boundary. So, there is an access to the existing Western Electronics business. And there is another access proposed with the subdivision near the west property boundary. Also, there is a private street -- I think it's Tech Lane -- that, basically, is in the middle of this property that was approved previously by the city. The conceptual site plan shows how the property proposed to be rezoned may develop in the future. Two three story office buildings, consisting of 66,000 square feet each, along with a two story office building, consisting of 45,000 square feet, and a two story education facility consisting of 35,000 square feet for the University of Phoenix are depicted along the frontage of Interstate 84. Four office buildings, consisting 39,475 square feet. One bank building, one restaurant building, and one retail building are also depicted internally adjacent to Overland Road. Total square footage of commercial uses shown on the site plan is 270,475 square feet. The total number of structures shown is 11. The applicant has submitted conceptual building elevations for the north proposed two story education facility. One, two and three story office buildings. Single story restaurant buildings. Retail buildings. And the single story bank. All the building materials depicted on structures consist of brick and stucco, with a variety of accent materials, such as stone, CMU, timber and metal. Staff has reviewed the proposed elevations and building materials and believes they represent high quality design and materials. Staff is supportive of the building elevations as proposed and has included that as a DA provision, which I will touch on here in just a second. Staff believes that a development agreement is necessary for this project to insure that the site is developed substantially in accordance with the proposed conceptual site plan and building elevations. A couple of the DA provisions proposed by staff in the staff report include -- and Iwill just read this. This is provision number two that currently says: The detailed site plan and building elevations submitted with any CUP and/or CZC application for the site shall substantially comply with the conceptual site plan and building elevations submitted to the city and with a requirement of a subject development agreement. Construct a minimum of eight and a maximum of 14 buildings on the site. No footprint for a building shall exceed 20 percent of the square footage shown on the conceptual site plan. Further, no building shall exceed three stories in height. The applicant shall comply -- and onto number five. It is a pretty standard one. It says the applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions -- previous conditions of approval for the site for the CUP from '01, the preliminary plat from 2007, and the final plat from 2007. The reason I read that DA provision is on Tuesday, August 5th, the applicant submitted a written response to the staff report. The applicant is proposing to change the language in DA item number two regarding the site plan and elevations. I want to just pause real quick and make sure that everyone did receive a copy of that a-mail. Okay. Basically, the applicant is requesting greater flexibility in the number of buildings. Where the DA talks about a maximum of 14 buildings, they have proposed up to 35 and a maximum of total square footage allowed. They put in a number where staff didn't have one before at 324,570 square feet total for the development. And they have also added a restriction that no -- no single building exceed 80,000 square feet. So, those are changes to that -- that DA provision number two. Staff is generally supportive of the applicant's proposal to modify that DA provision. I do want to make the Commission aware, though, that the -- the 35 building request is substantially different than the site plan that was submitted Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 6 of 61 and reviewed. So, if there is up to 35 buildings on the site, it certainly isn't going to look like the site plan you see in front of you. So, it's hard for me to envision that. Generally, our main concern is that it's not a bunch of big boxes. So, I'm not overly concerned that they may all be 5,000 square foot buildings, but I did want that -- to call that out to your attention that it's a pretty substantial change from what they have shown to what they are requesting in the develop agreement modification. The highly visible location of this property on Interstate 84 makes this property a good candidate for commercial use, rather than industrial uses as currently shown on the Comp Plan future land use map. Staff believes that the location of the property is optimal for commercial and not industrial uses and as such will provide a more attractive building facade adjacent to a major transportation corridor into the city than buildings likely would. Additionally, the commercial use and zoning that already exists on several of the properties to the east, would help provide for a contiguous string of commercial uses along this section of Overland Road along the interstate. So, let me go back to that map real quick and .just show you -- again, we are here with the industrial. It really does group together some more commercial properties that currently exist farther to the east. So, staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit -- excuse me -- the Comprehensive Plan map amendment and rezone as presented in the staff report with the changes proposed by the applicant in the a-mail dated August 5th. However, staff is recommending that these applications be continued to the hearing date of August 14th, as we discussed earlier, so we can forward on a recommendation on all of these at the same time. That is the end of staffs presentation. I'll stand for any questions you may have. Moe: Any questions of staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. And, please, come up and state your name and address for us, please. Andrus: Richard Andrus at 251 East Front, Boise, Idaho. I'm also here with a couple of the representatives from DBSI, the applicant in this matter, Russ Merrill and Allen Durrant and we will also have some representatives from Metro Commercial Properties and the University of Phoenix if there is questions that could be directed at them. That's, really, the element of the project that kind of got the ball rolling on this application. Oh. And just so you're aware, I'm not going to take the 15 minutes. agree whole heartedly with what staff has said up to this point. I think they did a great job on it. And just a couple points of clarification if I could. The property here was -- as Caleb had mentioned, was Comp Plan for -- zoned for industrial and there is a unique set of circumstances with a Conditional Use Permit that didn't allow the University of Phoenix to come in in the industrial zone and looking at what kind of Comp Plan changes have occurred within the past six, seven years, in addition to what Caleb had mentioned to the east -- to the west of this project the Ten Mile plan was just completed and there is a significant portion of commercial just to the west also that was included within that area plan. So, it just makes sense for this entire area through here to be changed to commercial. Just to highly -- quickly highlight those changes that we discussed in that a-mail, DBSI doesn't have a problem with design review. We support that. As far as the development agreement, we are fine with that. We understand the Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 7 of 61 city's looking for high quality development here and that would allow the city to make sure that that interest is protected. We would ask that we -- that the Commission consider those -- those changes and recommend them to the Council. If I could just explain a little bit kind of what's envisioned here and why the 35 buildings was used. Something similar to what's been done with the EI Dorado business park where we have these small individual units with -- with ownership within the --within each of those small units. That's kind of what's envisioned here. We realize that's a departure from what was done with the earlier subdivision and in dealing with the square footage, in talking with staff it was indicated that, really, the city's concern is that there would be a large format building that would come in and there wouldn't be any oversight and so we actually proposed this square footage language. I believe the prior language had tied it to each individual building and the reason why we have proposed a total is because even with the numbers of the buildings that staff had proposed, the eight to 14, if there is any change in -- between eight to 14, we could quickly run askew of that 20 percent change that staff was recommending. So, we went with a total number and, then, a limit on the largest size of each building and that's really an explanation for why we felt that language could work for both DBSI and the city. With that I think I'll stand for any questions, but -- Moe: Well, I guess I do have a question for you. In fact, before the 14th or at the 14th, I guess, I would like to see -- can you give us a site plan showing us 35 buildings of what that would look like? We are going to want to have some idea of kind of what you guys were thinking to put 35 buildings on that site. I would at least, anyway. Andrus: Maybe that's a question I could actually direct it to one of the representatives for DBSI and maybe we could discuss the number, why 35 was used. Merrill: Regarding the -- Moe: Name and address also. Merrill: My name is Russ Merrill. I'm with DBSI. And my address is 8330 Dorado -- Emerald Drive, Boise, Idaho. Moe: Thank you. Merrill: And the general thought on that -- we are -- currently want to have the flexibility on this plan to address market conditions. This was a preliminary site plan we had drawn up and we have been in discussions with a partner here in Boise about developing more of an EI Dorado type site where we have the small 2,500, 5,000 square foot individually owned office buildings that you see being used by professional firms and such and what we envision on that is where you see the four central buildings lined up in the center is reconfiguring that with those smaller buildings. The 35 is somewhat of an arbitrary number, because we haven't drawn up the site plan that would show that. I imagine it's going to be considerably less than that. Probably somewhere in the range of maybe 12 to 15 of the smaller office buildings in that location -- in that Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 8 of 61 area, while maintaining the larger, more high profile office buildings along the frontage of I-84. So, that's what we envision with that change. Moe: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Well, at this time there is no one signed up to speak. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to come forward? No takers. Okay. Any comments, Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one. Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: In the proposed language that the developer has here it says that the developer shall apply for a Conditional Use Permit to construct less than eight and greater than 35 buildings on the site. I would rather see that since they don't have a site plan and they have even said it's an arbitrary number, you're talking about a substantially large amount of buildings on there. I'd rather see that, that they would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit similar -- I'd feel comfortable maybe up to 15 to 20 buildings going that route and anything other than that I'd like see a Conditional Use Permit, because I think you're going to start to have traffic flow issues. I mean EI Dorado has public streets running all through it. So, I'm a little concerned about this as we don't have any public streets running through this property to what there is and such to move people between that many buildings. And so I'd like to see that at -- comprised at 20 or under. Moe: I think that's a fair compromise, as opposed to trying to have a moving site plan and whatnot. I think as long as we can regulate it a little bit, that would probably be the way to go. Newton-Huckabay: Generally supportive of the idea of the total square footage for the entire development, though. I think that's probably a more appropriate way to address that. Any other comments, Commissioners? O'Brien: I agree with what you say. I was going to mention that, too. I think that 35 is -- is abig number I think to go into without really seeing any kind of a site plan. I don't know if they mentioned what type of businesses would be going in there -- in that. Is that important to consider? Newton-Huckabay: Well, you're going to see anything that would be approved -- it's a C-G. Moe: Yeah. O'Brien: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: So, you could see any kind of commercial. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 9 of 61 O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. I don't have anything further. Moe: Okay. If there is no other comments, can we get a motion to continue? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, shall we state our changes as if we were making a motion and continue? It's -- it's been six months. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, you have some options here as I see them. I mean I'm not quite sure if you totally want to pull back off the table the applicant coming with a site plan that showed 35 and if you guys bought off on that saying, okay, this is how it could happen and we are satisfied that traffic flows aren't impeded by 35 buildings or if you just want to change it now, you certainly could close the public hearing, make -- you know, make it clear that's where you're going with your motion, but you can't make that motion until we are ready to move all these forward. So, I hope that made sense. So, you could leave it open and have them come back and address that. The only thing you could come back and anyone could testify again -- you do have options. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, my preference would be to agree on the number of 20 or less and close the public hearing and continue it. Rohm: If we just close the public hearing, you can put that in your motion at such time that we move all of them forward. That works for me. Marshall: Agree to that. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I recommend we close the public hearing on CUP 08-005 and RZ 08-003. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on CPA 08-005 and RZ 08-003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I recommend we continue CPA 08-005 and RZ 08-003 for the Kennedy Commercial Center to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 14th, 2000 -- Moe: That will, actually, be a special meeting on August 14th. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 7, 2008 Page 10 of 61 Newton-Huckabay: Oh. A specially scheduled meeting for August 14th, 2008. Rohm: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue CPA 08-00 and RZ 08-003 to the special meeting of the Planning and Zoning on August 14th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: CPA 08-006 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the future land use designation on 11 acres of land from Mixed Use -Waste Water Treatment Plan to Office (2+/- acres) and Low Density Residential (9+/- acres) for Kartchner by Richard Kartchner - 4325 and 4315 N. Ten Mile Road: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on CPA 08-006 for Kartchner and ask the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I should have mentioned last time, these first three agenda items -- I'm, actually, filling in for Sonya tonight, so I particularly wanted to mention that with this one, because there is a pretty in-depth noise and odor study that was analyzed by Sonya when she wrote the staff report and I did not have the time to -- I read through her analysis in the staff report, but I didn't go through that document and try to make heads or tails of it. So, Scott Steckline, I believe, is a little more familiar with that, so any questions you may have regarding that study, I think he's more prepared to tackle those than I am. But I did just want to put that disclaimer out there that I'm familiar with these, but not as intimately as Sonya is, so -- Kartchner -- this application varies from the last application in that it is only a Comp Plan map amendment. There are no annexation, preliminary plats, development applications submitted concurrently. So, it is only a change to the -- a proposed change to the Comp Plan map. The subject property consists of two tax parcels located at 4315 and 4325 North Ten Mile Road on the west side of Ten Mile, approximately a third of a mile south of McMillan. The parcels contain approximately 11 acres and are currently zoned RUT in Ada county. To the north of the subject site are some single family residential properties zoned RUT and R-2. The R-2 is city subdivision, Drawbridge Subdivision. To the east is Ten Mile Road and commercial offices and Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. They are kind of cut off that area. You really can't see them. Zoned L-O and some R-4. To the south are rural residential properties, zoned RUT in Ada county. To the west are -- is agricultural property zoned RUT also in Ada county. The applicant is requesting approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map by changing the land use designation on the subject 11 acres of land from mixed use wastewater treatment plant to office and low density residential. The office request is for approximately two acres along the frontage of the property and the low density residential would be, then, the remaining approximately nine acres behind the proposed office. This property, as I mentioned, is currently designated mixed use wastewater