Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 4, 2004 P&Z Minutes/Meritlian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 66 of 83 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 03-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2. 8 acres from R-6 to L-O and C-G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by The Land Group, Inc. -south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 03-036 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 commercial building lots on 2.8 acres in proposed L-O and C-G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by The Land Group, Inc. -south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road: Borup: Thank you. The next item is Items No. 9 and 10, Public Hearing AZ 03-030, request for annexation and zoning of 2.8 acres from R-6 to L-O and C-G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by the Land Group. Accompanying that is PP 03- 036, request for preliminary plat approval of five commercial building lots on the same 2. 8 acres. I'd like to open both Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This -- Item Nd. 9 is the annexation and zoning request. The acreage is identical to the next item. Annexation and zoning and plat are the same. Southern Springs No. 1, the City Council approved just a couple of months ago. That's zoned C-G to the west. The Ten Mile Creek runs here along this east boundary and if you recall, a pathway, a public multi- use pathway, was quite a big part of the discussion on this project, running along the creek and so that does not affect this parcel. That was all contained on Southern Springs No. 1. The project is surrounded with Country Terrace Subdivision and Running Brook Estates. There are six or seven lots that, actually, touch the parcel. Gold's Gym, as you know, is located across the street. Here off of I-84 ACHD has a new storm water lot. This is an existing house in Ada County immediately across the street on several acres that has not been annexed and, of course, Meridian Ford is in the area. So, they have requested a rezone to two different zones. They are proposing to split zone the property. This is their boundaries on their legal description fortheir rezone, essentially, L-O adjacentto existing residential and C-G adjacentto Southern Springs No. 1, which is also C-G. Staff is recommending approval of the annexation. As I outlined in the staff report, it is designated for medium residential on the future land use map, so we do feel that even though the map doesn't explicitly support the proposed zone change, there are text policies that support a movement of the commercial, nonresidential uses, into this -area. Probably two of the main ones are the fact that they do have the existing commercial uses immediately adjacent and it is the same developer, Mitchner Investments, and the Overland Road really is not conducive to single family detached housing, particularly adjacent to the future retail here in Silver Springs One, so, we -- or Southern Springs One. I'm sorry. So, we feel like there are adequate policies in the Comp Plan to support it. As I pointed out, there Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 67 of B3 are two other instances in the last couple of years where the city. has approved similar situations. Hark's Corner on Linder and Franklin, as well as Office Jet Subdivision on Locust Grove were both designated for residential and they were approved for Comp Plan -- I'm sorry, they were approved for offices without a Comp Plan amendment. So, we don't take these lightly. We do look closely to whether or not it's justified and to not require a Comp Plan amendment. Unlike Stapleton Subdivision near the wastewater treatment plant, which, if you recall, that -- that's still -- we did required a Comp Plan amendment on that. So, we really just try to look at all the surrounding area to make that determination. So, we have recommended approval on that Item No. 9. On Item No. 10, the preliminary plat, they are requesting five different commercial building lots. Again, the L-O lots here on the east and south and, then, there are two commercial C-G lots. All of the thoughts in the subdivision are -- they range in size from .41i acres to 62, so they are all below two-thirds of an acre in size. Their application projects about 7,600 square feet of new commercial retail on these two lots and, then, about 15,000 square feet of office on these three L-O lots. They are proposing a private street that wquld extend from Overland Road and curve toward Southern Springs No. 1. They are proposing to construct a bridge across the Ten Mile Creek that would connect into their private commercial driveway system. Private streets are required to be approved by the City Council. Other than that, the code really gives us very I ittle guidance as to when and where private streets are allowed. I pointed out what I think is the only other instance in the entire ordinance where private streets are talks about and it's really not even explicit, it just states at the beginning of the subdivision ordinance that generally all new streets in Meridian should be dedicated as public. So, really, these private street issues come up when -- usually the street's self contained within a single project and there is no existing stub streets around to use, as well as where they possibly want to have a little more control over the use of the street, the maintenance of the street. In this case it would clearly provide a -- really carry quite a bit of traffic, so we have made recommendations to you that the street be designed carefully and no parking, but provide curb, gutter, sidewalk, so it would, essentially, function as a public street. The right of way proposed is 29 feet. I mean a 42-foot right of way, a 29-foot street section. Borup: Was that the reason for the private street request, because of the right of way width? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, no reason was given in the application specifically, but -- Borup: Maybe we will find out later. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: The bridge across the canal would include sidewalks? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Yeah. It would connect to the future pathway that we hope goes somewhere someday. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 68 of 83 Zaremba: Well -- and, of course, it connects to Overland, but on that other end of it it connects to private property anyhow, owned by the same applicant, but that's justification for this being private, because it goes to private. Hawkins-Clark: There is also a question of street frontage and the -- well, Iguess -- I take that back. They really could -- they could meet the minimum street frontage in the L-O. The C-G does not have a minimum street frontage in the zoning ordinance. The L-O does. So, if they just did a common driveway through here, they would have to flag these L-O lots out to Overland in order to get frontage on a street. W e have considered frontage to be deemed acceptable on a private street in the past. So, I think there is --the Commission and later Council, you know, really, should review these on a case-by-case basis in terms of the private street request and make the finding that you think that it is a situation where a private street is acceptable. The highway district simply stated their -- you know, their standard condition that you got to provide 30 feet of improved surface, you know, back from their Overland Road right of way and they have to, obviously, provide the sidewalk and curb and gutter on Overland Road, which, actually, I believe is already completed as part of the Overland Road widening project. We have received in the record two letters from adjacent property owners, Jeffrey Rowe and I believe the last name Gauge, stating that they are in support of the project. We did ask the applicant to contact all of the adjacent property owners, since this does -- this was designated for medium density residential, asking them to get the specific support of the adjacent property owners. I think Mr. Koga, the applicant, can address that further in terms of where he's at with those contacts. Other than that, I think the standard conditions are -- have all been discussed with the applicant, I think in general agreement with them. There is -- we have asked for a temporary turnaround to be constructed if Southern Springs No. 1, the northern portion is not constructed. When this bridge is built, we would, obviously, need the emergency turnarounds on the east side ofTen Mile Creek for emergency services and I will just show you a slide that shows both projects together and how they connect. The one comment that we got from a special consideration from the highway district was they had concern about the alignment of this bridge coming across the Ten Mile that it should not be in direct alignment with the drive -- with the driveway curb cut onto Meridian Road, State Highway 69. They had a lot of concern about cut-through traffic through this private street going out onto Meridian Road. You know, they are backed up on Overload Road westbound and they would use this to cut through a subdivision, so they did send an e- mail today stating that as long as the city's comfortable, basically, with the placement of these buildings and us working with the applicant when these come through to make sure that there is not scut-through opportunity, that they are less concerned with that. I don't believe that the Idaho Transportation Department has made a final decision on Southern Springs No. 1 and where their curb cuts would be. If you recall, that was somewhat up in the air when it came through and it's still undecided. Borup: But that configuration showing here and here right now? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 69 of 83 Borup: The two -- Zaremba: It looks like the proposed -- what's proposed by the application wouldn't align anyhow. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: We h ave a sked t hat t he private s treet i nclude a I eft t urning b ay o nto Overland Road to -- it might require a little bit of a flair for -- to provide a reasonable stacking depth there, probably of 100 feet or so, for -- so it doesn't back up eastbound traffic and we have also recommended that the street be signed for no parking. We did ask for a site plan to be submitted for this L-O lot, which is -- has somewhat of a strange configuration, but here is the proposed layout that they submitted that shows putting the office building in this flag portion of that lot number three, taking access here. There is a hundred foot wide easement from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation on this and so they have unbuildable 50 feet and as you can see they have just shown parking in this Nampa-Meridian Irrigation easement, so the structure is well outside of that. I think that's all I have at this point. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Staff is recommending approval, so I think we would be interested in anything that you have got that concerns that. Koga: Will do. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is David Koga with the Land Group at 128 South Eagle Road. I'm going to try to not be redundant on what Brad already went over on the project. I think he did a really good job explaining some of the good reasons why this site should be annexed and rezoned. The project -- I'd like to explain, in general, though, the intent on this -- this project was -- number one, is for providing access and improvement of access from Overland Road to Southern Springs No. 1. The reason why for a private street on there versus a public is per ACHD is that street, if it is a public street, it does not connect to any other public roads, so the other option is we'd have to provide a cul-de-sac which didn't make sense to provide a public street and a cul-de-sac, plus a bridge. So, instead of that, we decided it would make more sense to ask for -- through City Council for a private street to provide access to the bridge to Southern Springs No. 1. That was basically our reason for -- Borup: And was one of my questions. So, you're saying if that were a public street, you would have to cross the bridge and, then, have a cul-de-sac? Koga: There would be a cul-de-sac before you go over the bridge. Borup: Oh, before the bridge. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4. 2003 Page 7D of 83 Koga: Yeah. Borup: So, then, it would be private from the cul-de-sac on if you crossed the bridge. Koga: Correct. Yeah. For example, Mr. Chairman, if we do not have a bridge, it makes sense to have a public road with a cul-de-sac there. But with some type of bridge to continue down there, it just didn't make sense, so that's why our request is for the private road. Borup: Okay. Koga: Secondly, the rhyme and reason far the split rezoning for L-O and C-G, because of the small site, it doesn't make sense to do any type of development for single family. The other option could be something like apartments, but we are trying to be sensitive with the neighbors, so we thought the best use for the land for some type of buffer is having an L-O zone and use the L-O for office single -- or single level office buildings as a buffer for the neighbors. Up to the northwest with the C-G we feel that ties better with the other Southern Springs No. 1 and with the good buffer from the L-O zone we feel it's -- have enough mitigation buffer to the neighbors. Regard to the neighbors, I'd like to talk a little bit further. You do have two letters from John Gauge and from Jeff Rowe, who do support the project. Since, then, we have -- early we put together a community -- asked for a neighborhood meeting. Excuse me. Only two people came. And so we were kind of disappointed. Just recently we went back -- I went from house to house along both -- along Country Terrace Road and put additional letters into their mailbox and I d id receive two more phone calls this morning. Excuse me. One from Mrs. Voss and the other one from Mr. Harmon and they live -- Mr. Harmon lives right here, Mrs. Voss lives right here. Excuse me. Mr. Gauge lives right here. Both Mrs. Voss and Mr. Harmon on the phone have supported this development. They felt it was a good use of the land. They understand that housing -- or typical housing would not work and at the same time they do not care for any type of apartments or that type of development. So, they support the project. As a matter of fact, they thought it was a good idea, because they wanted to get some type of development to that land, it's somewhat -- it does not match with the environment, that area. And the other letter you have is from Jeff Rowe -- Jeff Rowe in this area right here. I also have a letter right now I'd like to submit to you from John Bolvet and we have -- let's see if I can -- these two particular lots are somewhat special. Case in point, all of these lots along here are higher in elevation than our development over here, so everybody -- all the neighbors here feel pretty comfortable with a requirement of a fence and landscape will take care of the buffer for them. These two residences are lower -- a lower area and so they look up north towards Southern Springs area. So, we spent an extra time on site with those few owners to come up with an agreement to improve the buffer and, Brad, do you have that one section? We came up with an agreement -- and you will notice on both of those letters that they do support that we put together a berm and this berm would be anywhere from five to seven feet tall. We are limited on the height by the width of our landscape buffer, but we feel comfortable we can get anywhere from five to seven feet Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 71 of B3 height on the berm and on top of our berm we will also provide a six foot vinyl fence. So, from the neighbor's site, they basically have 11 to 12 foot buffer on their side. So, we will provide this berm, we will come with an agreement between the developer and the owners to encroach and provide the berm on their side also, provide the fence, and the conifers. And, like I said, in the letter they support development and that -- that buffer. Zaremba: While you're on that subject, we have a copy of Jeffrey Rowe's letter Koga: Yes. Zaremba: -- in which he identifies five things that you have agreed to. You're in agreement that he states those correctly? Koga: Yeah. The developers and the owners are negotiating privately on improvements on their side and Mr. Oldfield is very similar to that. The bottom line is the developers agreed to provide the berm and the finish grade and, then, they do all -- whatever they damage on their side, such as sod or sprinklers, that they will provide material for replacing. I guess the only other option I'd like to consider, we have, basically, complied with all the site specifics. There was a list at the very end that staff has put together, called recommendations to discussion. The first one regard to annexation per Comprehensive Plan, I think we have already talked about that. The second one has to do about whether a development agreement is needed on this project. My client feels that the development -- they really kind of question if a development agreement is needed for this project, particularly because of the uniqueness of the site. If there was a development agreement, it's probably -- discussion probably about the C-G zone, but the buildable area on that is so small we basically have -- between the two of those lots less than a half an acre of buildable area. Most cases, because we are restricted because, once again, the 50 foot irrigation easement from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. So, we feel that the site and the restriction of the site will dictate what will be -- could be built in the area. I think we have covered all the other specifics on recommendations. I'd answer any questions that you might have. Borup: Would you anticipate that this would develop after number one? Koga: I think what will happen is this road will be built at the same time. Borup: At the same time. Okay. And that answers the questions on the turnaround, if that wasn't -- Koga: Right. I just want to mention one other item that Brad had mentioned about ITD. We just received a letter from ITD yesterday where District Three has just forwarded our application to the headquarters with no -- no specifics on their letter. So, I contacted District No. 3 yesterday what their recommendations are to headquarters and they, for some reason, would not let us know exactly what their recommendations are to headquarters and so since, then, we have fired letter to them specifically asking for Meritlian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 72 of 83 what direction they are going and as of right now we have not. received anything from ITD. Borup: But you would have no problem with requiring a turnaround if this did develop before -- Koga: Correct. Borup: -- number one. Koga: Correct. Correct. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. I think you have done good with a difficult site. Koga: Appreciate that. Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify here? Come on up. I'm assuming that's what you waited all night for. Thacker: Mr. Chairman, Commissiohers, I own that piece of property. My wife and I have lived there for 18 years. We raised kids there. When we first moved there, we were surrounded mostly by cornfields, other than Couhtry Terrace. Powell: Chairman Borup, we need the gentleman's name. Borup: Oh. I'm sorry. Yes. Thacker: Oh, excuse me, my name is Pat Thacker. Borup: Okay, Pat. Thacker: Sorry. I'm not used to these -- Borup: I should have caught that -- Thacker: Sorry about that. Rohm: Address? Thacker: I live at 4560 Willow Creek Road now in Eagle and this land -- that house is currently -- has been a rental, which the neighbors haven't liked and I don't blame them. And since we have lived there, this place has evolved beyond residential property and it's just not -- it's not a good place to live anymore and I know all the neighbors and I know they are supportive of it, because it will give them a permanent buffer. If you ever spent a night in that house, now that the road has been improved and that intersection Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 73 of 83 is going to get busier and since the high school and everything else has gone in, there is really no other suitable use for it, other than something commercial. And I know the neighbors don't want a bunch of four-plexes there either. So, I think it's a great project, I think it's a good use for that, and if you were in my shoes I don't know that you would see any other alternative for it either. I think it will beautify the neighborhood. It will clean t he p lace u p. It's r Bally n of s omething you'd w ant t o t ry and r ebuilt o r f ix u p either, because it's not going to be resalable as a residential property. So, anyway, if you have any questions or -- Borup: Thank you. I think that makes sense. Thacker: Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Are you, sir, for --okay. That concludes the testimony. Zaremba: I think the applicant has made a good case that this should never be residential and staff has provided their support for that theory. Borup: And the only residential would be multi-family and we have heard many, many times how neighbors feel about that. They'd much rather have office buildings. Zaremba: Well, I'm certainly in favor of multi-family housing some places, but I think the C-G with the L-O buffer around it is perfect for this particular location and application. I'm not sure I even would have supported multi-family there myself. So, I'm in favor of their idea and in favor of the bridge over the canal to connect the two projects and I commend the applicant for spending time with the neighbors that makes life so much easier for us when you do that. I think that's great. Borup: Okay. Are we ready to close the hearing? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close public hearings on Items 9 and 10. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Let's see. Staff has asked us to make a couple discussions. I think we are substantially in agreement with what lies behind the Comprehensive Plan for this area, even if the Comprehensive Plan does say residential. I would find that this complies with any sensible development for that area. Borup: Yeah. And staff did a good job on that. A couple things I underlined was the Comprehensive Plan says it's a guide, a general way. It's how the community may develop. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 74 of 83 Zaremba: I don't think we are -- I'm actually looking at page 12, whether or not a development is agreeable -- I think the applicant has shown that they have no intention to do negative land uses and their cooperation with neighbors, but I would be comfortable with no development agreement if staff can go along with it. Do we have any real issues that need to be put into a development agreement? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the only reason we typically r aise t his i s on, frankly, C -G p roperty t hat d oesn't h ave a ny p roposed u ses, which is the case that's here, and -- Zaremba: But the C-G is buffered by the L-O, plus landscape buffers, so -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: Plus size restriction. Hawkins-Clark: And size. And I think that's probably the main -- yeah. You know, the potential negative use. You're just not going to see those go on to a 6-acre lot, such as a truck stop or something like that, so we just simply wanted to raise it for your discussion. Zaremba: Okay. I, personally, am comfortable without the DA there. The preliminary plat, the proposed private street, I think that's a good solution and with the bridge connecting to the other section, as long as there is a sidewalk along all of it, including the bridge, I see no problem for it being private. Configuration of buildable area of Lot 3. The only comment I have on that is whenever something comes before us there needs to be across-access agreement with what I think was Lot 2, since it does show Lot 2 using Lot 3. I realize it's a conceptual, but Lot 2's only access is through Lot 3, so just a reminder that at some point there needs to be across-access agreement. Does that need to be on the plat? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it would. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Potential temporary turnaround. I see no need for a permanent turnaround and the only reason for a temporary would be if there is no connection through subdivision one. I'm sorry. Was it ACHD that asked for the temporary turnaround? Hawkins-Clark: It would be us, but I think if you just accept as written, it states that if Southern Springs One does not provide, you know, a fire rated base, then, they are going to have to provide it on that side. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 4, 2003 Page 75 of 83 Zaremba: Okay. And they have stated their intention to provide a fire rated base on the subdivision. Okay. I think those are all the issues. In that case -- we did already close the Public Hearing? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 9 on our agenda, AZ 03-030, request for annexation and zoning of 2. 8 acres from R-6 to L-O and C-G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by the Land Group, Incorporated, south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of December 4, 2003, received by the clerk November 26, 2003. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, PP 03-036, request for preliminary plat approval of five commercial building lots on 2.8 acres in proposed L-O and C-G zones for Southern Springs Subdivision No. 2 by the Land Group, Incorporated, south of East Overland Road and east of South Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date December 4, 2003, received by the clerk November 26, 2003, and adding on page 12, at paragraph 11 that says there will be across-access agreement between Lots 2 and 3. Does that need to be shown on the face of the plat? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. And, also, if I could add the two commercial lots show a shared access as well. So, that's Lots 4 and 5. Zaremba: Okay. And that there be cross-access -- also be across-access agreement between Lots 4 and 5, both to be shown on the plat. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any apposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 03-026 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5. 11 acres from RT to C-G and I-L zones for Cortabitarte Annexation by Jack Cortabitarte - south of East Fairview Avenue, and west of North Eagle Road: