Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 2, 2003 P & Z CommMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 23 of 71 Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Centers: Well, I made some notes, so I will continue on and would recommend approval of item six on our agenda, it's RZ 03-010, it's a request for a rezone of 4.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for proposed Woodside Creek by Woodside Properties, LLC, 1115 North Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments from their memo dated -- date stamped August 22nd: What am I looking at? That's not the right page. That was from Nampa-Meridian. Cancel that. From our memo -- the staff's memo dated -- hearing date October 2nd, received September 29th. End of motion on the rezone. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Centers: Would also like to recommend approval of item seven on our agenda, it's PP 03-025, it's a request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots and five other lots on 4.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Woodside Creek by Woodside Properties, LLC, at 1115 North Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments and with the following amendments. Page six, item one, simply add: Unless sewer access changes. Then, of course, that paragraph would not be applicable. I guess let's make it item 10 on page seven, all streets to be 33 feet minimum width. Let's just make it item 11, the Fire Department's requirement for two accesses to the subdivision shall be resolved prior to City Council Meeting, otherwise, two accesses are required, unless the Fire Department signs off and agrees to waive that requirement. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 03-026 Request for Preliminarly Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 by Properties West, Inc. -west of North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Next item is PP -- Public Hearing PP 03-026, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 by Properties West. Like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 24 of 71 Siddoway: One moment, Commissioners, while I change the slides. Thank you. Chairman, members of the Commission, the project before you now is Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2. It is a replat of four existing lots in the existing Stokesberry Subdivision. That project is also known as Carol Professional Center. It's on Eagle Road just in front of River Valley Elementary, which is right on the half mile between Fairview and Ustick Roads on Eagle Road. You should have a staff report with a transmittal date of September 25th and the October 2nd hearing date. The applicant is proposing to take the four existing lots and resubdivide them into 15 building lots. That area is 4.15 acres. The original plat had seven building lots and the four building lots on the west side would remain untouched. This would resubdivide the front three large ones, plus the front landscape buffer, which I will talk more about in a moment. It's already been annexed into the city as L-O. The lot sizes that they are proposing do conform to the L-O zone. This aerial photo was before the development was done. In Stokesberry Subdivision there are existing businesses on the back three lots. They are anticipating a fourth one. You can see the River Valley Elementary behind it. This is the proposed Preliminary Plat, which is a little difficult to read at this scale. The site plan itself helps to pop things out a little more, showing the different pad sites and the parking, so I will use that one to speak from, but we also have the plat available for reference. Just for the record, there is a revised plat from the original one that was submitted with the application. That revised plat has an engineer's stamp on it of September 8th and that's the one that the staff report has reviewed. We have gone through the Preliminary Plat findings and, in general, find that they do meet the requirements of the ordinance in those regards. There are three special considerations, which I would like to go over at this time. The first one is the landscape setbacks. The landscape area along Eagle Road has already been landscaped and planted as part of the original subdivision improvements. A condition of that original plat was to put that landscape buffer in a common lot, which was done. If we go back to the aerial photo and the lot lines, you can see there is a separate line in the front for the landscape buffer. Current ordinances in the landscape ordinance also require the street buffers to be on a common lot for consistent maintenance purposes. The proposed plat does show a 35 foot landscape setback as an easement. It's note 13 on the plat. But it is not a separate common lot. Without that, if this were a common lot, these lots would not be able to meet the frontage requirement as well. So, we have noted in the report that other subdivisions, such Silverstone that was before you tonight, as well as others like EI Dorado, Mystery View, Boyd, and others, has successfully petitioned the Commission and Council to waive the requirement for the common lot and to meet the intent of that ordinance by agreeing to common maintenance of those landscape areas in the easement and staff does not object to that arrangement given the precedent that's already been set by other recent plats. So, you may wish to discuss that and consider whether you feel it should be or not, but I guess we are just saying that we are fine with it as proposed. Number two, the parking area, as a plat we don't usually give detailed comments on parking. There are no conditions of approval related to parking, but I did get -- provide some feedback, since this does significantly affect the original layout, which was only three building lots, it seemed apropos to consider it -- the effect that this would have on the parking. I did total up the number of -- the total square footage proposed in office space and calculated the number of parking spaces that would be Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 25 of 71 required and came up with 109 spaces. They are actually depicting 190 spaces on here, so it seems to be amble for the uses that would likely move in there. I did also note some -- there are some modifications to this layout that would need to be done, which can't be handled with certificate of zoning compliance applications in the future, as well as the handicapped parking would need to be refiried per the Americans With Disabilities Act. Item number three deals with building elevations. The applicant has submitted the elevations of existing buildings on those back three lots, Specialty Homes building the one north of it that currently I don't believe has a tenant and there is also the day care that's on the site. The building elevations gat quite a bit of discussion in the original Stokesberry plat or the Conditional Use Permit, anyway, and they were -- at the time there was discussion about whether every lot in the subdivision should be required to come back for a separate CUP. At that time the Commission and Council steered away from that requirement in this subdivision. and, instead, went the route of just requiring some tight building standards for buildings to be built in the subdivision and did not require each one to come through with a CUP. So, I would just ask the applicant address how they will maintain the same quality and care through buildings as required by their CC and R's and the Development Agreement on these smaller lots and I would just ask them to address that tonight. With that said, the conditions of approval are contained in the staff report, we would recommend approval upon some closure to these last few remaining items and would stand for any questions. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Steve, you really didn't put the buffer common lot in your conditions of approval, did you? Siddoway: No. Centers: I didn't see it. Okay. Siddoway: Because it -- as written it would just be allowed to stay as proposed. Centers: Right. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, thank you, I'm Doren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant in this matter. I appreciate your indulgence in taking this application before the next item, not that I don't love the public process, I'm just ready to get on this. We will just make it brief. This is -- should fall under the category of the best laid plans. We had three larger lots here and they are just not going anywhere. It's been determined by the applicant that smaller pads would work much better, given the current market conditions, and so that's what we are trying to accomplish with this. We meet all the standards with these lots. We have plenty of parking. We will have no problem redesigning the pop outs and we will still be over-parked by a considerable amount. With regards to the issues that Steve brought up, we are in agreement with the landscape easement. It's really, you know, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 26 of 77 half of one, six dozen of the other, it's -- we get frontage from Eagle Road, but all the access is coming off the internal roadway, so there will be cross-access easements far all of these lots to use all of that -- those drive aisles and parking places. So, we think that's a good common sense approach. And with regard to the building elevations and the required sort of design of the buildings, we are perfectly fine with the condition of approval that says that the previous approval is still in effect, along with all the conditional of approval. The buildings will look like --just like the ones you see, which comply with the current CC and R's, they will just be smaller, use the same building materials and the same basic design, the buildings will just be a little bit narrower and not as deep, so we fully intend on complying with it, it's in the developer's best interest to have nice looking buildings in there. The CC and R's that the city originally bought off on will be in full force and effect for this development and we don't have any problem with a condition to that effect. So, I'll leave it at that and if the Commission had questions, I would be happy to take those now.' Borup: Any questions? Centers: He covered it. Borup: Okay. Thank you, Doren. Fluke: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else here to -- come forward, sir. Kane: My name is Ray Kane, I live at 3047 East Leslie Drive, which is directly behind the fourth lot to the north. Originally, when this came up it came before the Planning and Zoning and were guaranteed that this would be a professional development for doctors, dentists, that type of thing. We agreed to that. Most of us in that -- in fact, all of us but one family that abuts this property, are retired or semi-retired. So, the noise issue from Eagle Road and additional traffic in and out of that place bothers us. It seems to me that when you take four lots that aren't very big to start with and, then, you divide them up into 15 and compare those to the four that are already there, there is no comparison. We have gone from something that looked very nice and in Mr. Barnes presentation here before -- you all are not the same ones. I think Mr. Borup is the only one here that was here at that time -- he equated these to look like those professional buildings that were on corner of Maple Grove and Ustick Road. Now, none of these look like that, but they are acceptable the way they are now. Those were all brick buildings, if you're familiar with them. St. Luke's is in one of them now, there is a dentist, and there is several others. None of these have been built to compare to those, but they are nice, good-looking buildings, and acceptable. We just don't -- I don't think that throwing in a bunch of little cracker box buildings is what we were promised and so I'm very much against it. Borup: Questions from any Commissioners? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 27 of 71 Centers: No. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Come forward. White: I'm Robert White, I live at 2995 East Leslie. I have got the same sentiments that Mr. Kane expressed. We -- between Eagle Road and the school behind us, four more or three more -- really, we are talking three lots the way I look at it, because the one lot is already bermed, that's the buffer to Eagle Road. But three more professional buildings in there I don't think hurt the area and I don't think creates too much more noise, but my concern is 15 small buildings probably are going to be very hard to get professional people in there and if there is a 190 parking spaces involved and the type of businesses that are going to bring 190 potential cars, we are going to have a little bit of a traffic problem on that -- in front of that grade school also exiting out onto Eagle, so I would be opposed to it. Serino: My name is Louis Serino, I live at 3109 Leslie Drive, which is adjacent to the -- backs up the cul-de-sac. Unless I missed something, I'd like to ask the staff if they have addressed Riverside egress and ingress, the existing situation, at all. Borup: Well, you need to address the Commission, and, then, we can address the -- Serino: Well I didn't hearing anything. I guess I'm wondering -- Borup: What was your question on -- Serino: If there has been any change to the egress and ingress at River Valley. Borup: What do you mean by -- Serino: Is that going to change? Is that going to be improved? Is it going to be expanded? Are they going to run more roads through the berm? Is there any plans for additional egress and ingress. That's what I'm asking. Borup: Okay. Well, we'll get an answer to that. Serino: Okay. My point, I guess, that I'm leading up to is the existing egress and ingress just seems to be being ignored. It was ignored initially in this initial proposal, it certainly hasn't improved any, and I can tell you from a business man's perspective, I can understand why these lots are not selling. Furthermore, it's going to be exacerbated by 190 more cars and I can speak to you from experience, because I drive a school bus for the Meridian School District and I'm in and out of that place eight times a day. I can tell you it's a nightmare trying to get in and out with the existing situation. So, I just can't imagine 190 more cars trying to get in and out of that situation, so to sum it up, definitely I'm dead set against it. By the way, I do not speak for the Meridian School District, I'm speaking as a neighbor. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 28 of 71 Centers: Would you point out where you live, sir? There is a pointer right there. At least there was. Yes. Serino: Right there. Centers: Okay. And the other two gentlemen are -- Serino: Ray Kane lives there. Bob White lives right there. Centers: And, then, someone lives down here? Serino: No. Centers: Oh. Okay. So, all three live right up in here? Serino: Correct. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Serino, question on the improvement for the access. Are you saying it needs to be wider or are you saying it needs -- Serino: Who is speaking? Borup: I am. Serino: By access do you mean the River Valley Road? Borup. Right. You just said it needs -- something needs to happen, but you didn't say what you felt needs to happen. Serino: We have a single road with no traffic control going into that facility. As it stands how, the school parking is overloaded. They are already parking in the streets, they are parking on the aprons to these -- Borup: Well, that's a separate issue. Serino: Okay. Borup My question was -- it sounds like you're saying you think it needs a traffic light there. Serino: Certainly a traffic light would help, although Ijust -- I just can't see Eagle Road being stopped and grid locked with a traffic light there. I know, ultimately, it's going to happen, but my concern here is that we are going to have too much activity in this subdivision to the point where even a traffic light is going to greatly diminish the viability Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 29 of 71 of any use for this lot. Quite frankly, I think, rather than increasing density, this subdivision should be reducing density. And, by the way, the original two story building that was going to be Mr. Barnes' office building was never built. That's been replaced by all this. Borup: You'd rather see a two story building there? Serino: Pardon me? Borup: You'd rather see the two story building you mean? Serino: Do I need to see it? Borup: No. You'd rather see that there? Serino: I'd rather see lower density than higher density. I really think you should hold them to the plan at the very least. Borup: By density you mean the number of people that would work or -- Serino: The existing road is overburdened by the school alone. That's why those lots are not selling. There isn't any businessman that's going to want to go in there, because he knows that his clients are not going to want to go in and out of that nightmare. Borup: Well, I'm trying to understand your definition of lower density. I assume you mean less -- less people using -- I mean smaller lots doesn't necessarily change the number of people that would be accessing this site. Serino: Well, 190 parking spaces does. Borup: Well, 109 is what the buildings would -- Serino: He's got 190. Borup: Right. So, he's got extra. Serino: Right. Borup: You're saying if they build it they will come. Serino: I don't believe they will come, quite frankly. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 30 of 71 Serino: What will happen -- what I'm afraid of is that there is going to be another go around and it's going to be further watered down than what it is now. My feeling is that you should hold them to the existing plan, at the very least, if not reduce it. I mean those -- you got my sentiments. I really don't think it's a viable situation. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Does the applicant -- Mr. Fluke, do you have any final -- any final comments? Maybe while you're coming up, I don't -- Steve -- Siddoway: On the road issue -- Borup: No. On the first project, what the number of parking spaces that would have been required as the original project was designed. Siddoway: That's a fair question. I don't have the answer. I don't know if Doren knows. Because there was a significant amount of parking for the three buildings, because they have a large square footage, just about -- Borup: Well -- and that's what I'm wondering. You get large two story buildings, it's going to have a bigger capacity than smaller single story buildings. Fluke: Right Borup: Can you comment on that? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Doren Fluke, again, JUB Engineers. Thank you. The parking ordinance is set up as a ratio and for office, Steve, it's one for 250 -- Siddoway: It's one for 400 for professional and sales offices and one per 200 of specific areas if it's medical, dental, or clinics. Fluke: So, the ratio goes up with the square footage and the buildings -- larger buildings means more parking. The ratio is going to be about the same. With regard to their not being professional offices in there now, that's because, you know, a single dentist or two dentists or orthodonists don't need that much space and that's exactly why my client's asking for this is they are asking for a smaller amount of space. They only need in the neighborhood of 2,500 square feet or even less in many situations and so that's exactly -- this is in response to those varied requests. With regard to access to the site, the existing River Valley Way is the one and only access in. That is at the request of the Ada County Highway District when it went through originally. That road does lie at the half mile and so there is the potential it will be signalized in the future. Now, of course, it's wrapped up in a bunch of larger issues with Eagle Road and the amount of trips that it's currently carrying, but, you know, I can tell you that if they do allow signals on Eagle Road, they would be at the mile and half mile is where they are planned to go, to enhance -- or to help with the operational aspects of the road. With Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 31 of 71 regard to the noise, I just simply don't see how this will be any noisier than what you have got out there now. I mean there may be more people coming and going to the site, but they come there to do their business and they leave. You know, much as with the previous plan, whenever you have commercial or office uses abutting residential uses, we try to buffer those and be sensitive to those other land uses and we will carry through with exactly what was approved previously with regard to buffering and landscaping and separation of those uses, and so, really, the intensity of use isn't that much greater than what was previously approved. The Ada County Highway District has reviewed the application and has approved it, it's not required any particular improvements to the road system and so I'm not sure, you know, what the issue is there. If -- you know, if the replat doesn't work and these don't sell, well, too bad for the applicant, you know, but I think that it's in the city's best interest to give him this opportunity to try something different, so that we don't have the vacant land sitting there and I guess the market will answer that question about whether or not Eagle Road is too busy to have anymore land uses on it and I don't know the answer to that, but I'm sure we will find out when we go through. So, I think that's all I had. If the Commission has questions, I'll take those. Centers: If you could, Mr. Fluke, kind of with your pointer there, show me how the original seven lots looked, especially on the north side there right -- yes. On the north side. Fluke: The north side was, essentially, as it is not, except for you had a lot line coming across like. There was another lot line coming across there. Centers: So, you -- and I guess my point is you were going to have how many buildings on the north side originally? Up in here. Fluke: One. Two. Three. Centers: And how many are we going to have now? Fluke: Four. Centers: Thank you. That was my point. I don't think you have increased the density next to the residential area. I don't think you have increased the traffic with the smaller lots. I think you can have larger -- larger buildings, you were going to have two story buildings, which were previously allowed, you're now going to have single story; correct? Fluke: Correct. Centers: With the same uses, dentist offices, anything that applies to the L-O. Fluke: It would apply to the L-0 zone. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeSng October 2, 2003 Page 32 of 71 - Centers: Right. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Any comments from any Commissioners? Centers: I would move that we close the Public Hearing. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Centers: I'm open here. I mean any other discussion? Rohm: The only comment that I would make is it appears as if the number of parking lots is going to remain pretty constant based upon square footage and, you know, as it is from the previous approved plat, they would have had at least many parking spaces as they are going to have. with the proposed change, so I don't see that as a huge difference and I would say we should just go ahead and move forward with it. Centers: Yes. And I think the applicant made a good point, this owner has sat there I don't know how long, maybe four years now, or three. Borup: Probably right before you came. Centers: Okay. And I think he should be given the opportunity to market his product and if he wants to go to the expense of hiring this engineer to redo it, which was probably considerable, on the gamble that he's going to be able to sell smaller parcels, then, let's give him the chance, so I would recommend approval of item -- actually, it's item eight on our agenda, moved up from previous No. 12 and it's the PP 03-026, request Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 by Properties West, Incorporated, west of North Eagle Road and north of east Fairview Avenue, including all staff comments with a transmittal date of September 25th and our hearing date of October 2nd. It should be noted that the applicant will have to convince the Council that a common lot for the landscape buffer is not required and I didn't see anything else. Anyone else see anything? End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, are we ready to move on or would someone like a break? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting October 2, 2003 Page 33 of 77 Centers: I'd like a break. Borup: We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 03-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 03-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 59 building lots and 8 other lots on 11 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 03-043 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a mix of single-family detached residential lot sizes and amenities for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. - 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road: Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and start with the next project, three items, Public Hearing AZ 03-023, PP 03-027, and CUP 03-043. All these pertain to proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises. I'd like to open these three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, this is an application for a Preliminary Plat for 59 building lots, annexation and zoning of 11 acres. They are a proposing a rezone to R-8 and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned Development, to allow reduced lot sizes, frontage, and setbacks from the dimensional standards for the R-8 zone. Now, before I get into my preparation, I wanted to make a couple of corrections. The applicant will not be asking for reduced home sizes, they will be meeting the home sizes required through the ordinance. I want to go through and correct the setbacks that the applicant is asking for. If you want to go to that page in your staff report. For front setbacks they are asking fora 15 foot setback for all home types. For the rear setback they are asking for nine feet far the garages in the alleys and 15 feet for all of the other home types. For side setbacks they are asking for five feet for all home types. For street side setback they are asking for five feet for all home types. For lot size they are asking fora 3,500 square foot minimum and for lot frontage they are asking fora 34 foot minimum. Centers: Excuse me. Wendy. Are you reading from page two of your report? Because it didn't balance with what I'm reading. Kirkpatrick: Oh. Okay. I have been reading from a fax that the planner working on this project had sent me.