Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 29, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 28, 2004 Page 2 of 100 Zaremba: I would only add that although it is a special meeting all items have been properly noticed. Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: AZ 04-003 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 16.73 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC - 5325 West Ustick Road: Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: PP 04-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 75 residential building lots and 8 common lots on 16.73 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC - 5325 West Ustick Road: Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: CUP 04-004 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, and front yard setbacks for side entry garages for proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC - 5325 West Ustick Road: Borup: Yes. Okay. The first item is Items 4, 5, and 6. All three are continued hearings from our March 18th meeting. AZ 04-003, PP 04-002, and CUP 04-004. All these are concerning the Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC. Again, this hearing has been opened. We are beginning with the continuation and I'd like to start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. As mentioned, this was up on your March 18th hearing date originally. It had been requested for continuance by the applicant so that they could have some time to address some of the issues in the staff report. I will be going over those issues here briefly. The location of the site is -- this is Black Cat and Ustick and Autumn Faire Subdivision sits right in this location. The subject property is outlined in black and sits just west of Autumn Faire on the south side of Ustick Road. You can see the aerial photo. The existing subdivision around two sides of it. The existing farm house in the northwest corner of the property and existing residences across the street. They have submitted a revised Preliminary Plat to address some of the concerns raised in the staff report and you should have a new staff report that's based on that revised plat, which the transmittal date of April 23~d and the April 29th hearing date. That's the one I will be referring to in my presentation. This revised plat that you see in front of you would have a revised date on it of March 23`~ and had a transmittal date from the Clerk's Office of April 5th. The revised report I did focuses only on the special considerations and issues raised in the prior report and I will go over those now. The first issue has to do with a stub street. Within the boundaries of the subdivision, they have a stub street on the south end, this location, and they do have a stub street on the north end. I wander if there is an easier one to see? It's a little easier to see. There is the stub street here and the stub street here. Because this is in the area of the neighborhood center, the neighborhood centerline on Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Apri129, 2004 Page 3 of 100 the Comprehensive Plan cuts across the property in about this location. This -- it's an area intended for smaller blocks, smaller lots, higher densities. We had requested in the prior staff report that they punch through an additional stub street about halfway between the two in this location. The applicant does not wish to do so and has submitted on their revised plat a conceptual layout for how the development to the west could be developed. The same owner owns both properties and they have been doing some preliminary work on this. This is, really, just a judgment call for the Commission tonight on whether there should be a stub street or not. The Comp Plan does allow for some longer blocks in those neighborhood centers to allow for traffic calming and such, so I will let the applicant make their presentation and we will just be looking to the Commission for a determination on that. The second item has to do with planter islands that are located in the middle of the streets here and here and, originally, they were located right in front of a couple of lots and we asked them to shift them to be centered on lot lines and they have done so. The only remaining question is if there is a stub street punched in here, then, that island will need to shift. Item number three deals with side yard setbacks. On the original landscape plan they had very narrow landscape buffers coming in off of Ustick Road, only five feet wide. We asked them to revise that to be at least 15 feet wide, so that the street side setbacks for the adjacent houses would be at least 20 feet and in compliance with the setback requirements. It's too hard to see on this, but they have complied with that request, plus mare. They, actually, added 15 feet on the revised plat for a total of 20. They would like the option, however, to make those 15 feet and so I have proposed some wording for how the condition could be worded to accomplish that. Item number four deals with existing trees on the site. I'm going to go to some of the site photos. Looking from Ustick Road -- let me back up. This site does have an existing historic barn on it and you can see the barn in this photo and the old farmhouse. The existing mature trees. Staff was concerned that those trees would be damaged and have to be removed by the new street, because it was too close to those. We did meet out on the site with the city arborist and the applicant did agree to move their street 15 feet to the north to try to stay out of the drip line of those trees and the revised plat does reflect that shift. Item Number 5 deals with the pressurized irrigation. In the project really no change needed here. It's just raised for more of a discussion point. They have -- they do fall within the Settler's Irrigation District boundary and they are proposing to tie into an existing Nampa-Meridian system in Autumn Faire. We are not sure how that's going to work out, but we feel like the condition that we already have written will address that and just didn't know if there had been any further information on that that the applicant could provide tonight. Item number six deals with the right of way along Ustick Road. ACHD's requiring 48 feet of right of way from centerline. This revised plat does provide the full 48 feet that they require. Typically, however, we see that additional right of way in a separate common lot to be deeded in the future. They have it drawn as if they are deeding it as part of this project and it's my understanding that that may be, but I have asked them to clarify whether they will be deeding it or whether they need the ability to add two more common lots to this plat to accommodate the future right of way. Item number seven deals with sewer. At the time this was written there was still a question as to whether they were able to address the sewer issued raised by Public Works and get the required Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 4 of 100 three feet of fill of the sewer in all places and I'm going to let -- I'm going to turn this over to Bruce for a second to address that. Freckleton: Thanks, Steve. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the applicant has done some redesign in their sewer system and submitted a new plan to us that shows they are going to be bringing in some fill and that they do meet that minimum three foot cover standard for the city. We just need to modify that right? Okay. That condition is taken care of. Siddoway: Okay. Moving on to the final three on Page 4, on the Conditional Use Permit. The first one has to do with reduced standards. The only reduction that wasn't supported in the prior staff report that they had requested is part of their planned development was to reduce the front setback for living areas in the center lots in here from 15 feet to 10 feet for living areas and side entry garages and given the narrowness of the lots, I couldn't see how a side entry garage would really even work on them, but they have submitted this elevation for one of their typical buildings and the site plan with this side entry garages, the road would be out here and you would come in and pull in and, apparently, this would fit on those narrower lots that they are proposing. They are asking that they be granted the ability to have reduced front setbacks for living areas and side entry garages. All front loaded garages would still meet the full 20-foot setback requirement. Borup: Steve, just a clarification. I think that's probably what it -- you had just stated reduced setback on the living area. Do you mean -- was that what you meant to say? Siddoway: Yes. Living area and side yard -- side entry garages. Like if they have a front living room or something, it would be able to project in front of the garage. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Siddoway: I have also included just a couple of their other elevations. This is a -- one of their two story elevations so is this. I thought I had a single story in there. We did ask for elevations, as required by part of the -- by the planned development and these are samples from them. The last one -- the next one has to do with amenities for the project. The amenities are not detailed in the application. Two amenities are required as part of the planned development. The landscape plan that was submitted with the application here, shows that the existing barn is to remain, but I have heard since, then, that they plan to remove the barn, that they have looked at the structural integrity and deemed that it cannot be saved and I have asked the applicant to provide details tonight about the amenities that would be proposed. To my knowledge, they include a swimming pool and a cabana. The last item is fencing and this was already taken care of and will not need any modifications, but since they have widened these two narrow landscape areas coming into the subdivision, we have said that they can place six foot fencing on the backside of those for the back yards of those houses. I have summarized all of this and the proposed changes that would be needed below that, starting on page four and ending on page five. Now, these would be the modifications Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 5 of 100 needed to make the changes talked about and they reference the prior staff report. Other than these change, the conditions would remain the same as the March 18th staff report. And I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay. Zaremba: I would ask one. Steve, in the portion of this that would fall under the Comprehensive Plan's area of the neighbor center, is that anticipated to be mostly residential? I thought neighborhood center was sort of set aside to have local walkable office and businesses. Siddoway: The core of the neighborhood center is intended for the businesses and that is outside of the bounds of this plat. The center would actually be kind off the picture in this area and there would be somewhere in the neighborhood of, you know, ten or 15 acres that could be devoted to nonresidential uses and, then, outside of that the densities would be higher residential densities. The commercial node of the neighborhood center is much smaller than the big half circle that you see on the Comprehensive Plan. Zaremba: And that would fall off of this property? Siddoway: That would fall -- the center of it would fall off of this. This is on the edge of the neighborhood center. Zaremba: The second question, ACHD, of course, has looked at this and has made the determination that the road that actually comes out onto Ustick Road and intersects, they say that it is 170 feet east of the west property. They do not reference where it is in relation to -- wasn't there a roadway in a subdivision approved across the street from this that is somewhere near where this roadway is coming. out? I didn't see them comment on that. Siddoway: It's -- the one that was approved is over here in Birthstone and they meet the offset for that. It's not right across street. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: I would point out that the original version -- the original version of this plat had a strange jog in this road and they have corrected that in compliance with our staff report and ACHD's wishes, so that now the road comes up, makes a bend, and goes straight out and it still complies with ACHD's report. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: Going through the Comp Plan again, I was noticing a couple things I was kind of curious about. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2D04 Page 8 of 100 Siddoway: Okay. Moe: Basically, we are in a mixed-use community area correct along with the neighborhood center area? Did -- was there any discussion in regards to any density bonuses? I mean as far as their amenities and whatnot, there is also in the comp plan a pathway that goes through a portion of this property as well, is there not? Siddoway: The pathway is, actually, off site also. The pathway does run through the neighborhood center and it comes very close to the western edge. It kind of cuts through the center and comes over close to this edge, but they would be looking to accommodate that within the future development. Moe: Oh. Okay. Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Steve, I have a question. I don't know if it's a concern, but in looking at future neighborhood centers, we are looking at increased density, assuming that there is -- that that center is going to go in, what -- what's the results if we have increased residential density around a future center and in the center never goes in? We just have an increased residential area, then. Siddoway: Yes Borup: What assurance is there that -- you know, that it's there for the intended purpose? Siddoway: Well, we'll look for it to be platted for those uses when it comes through, much like we did at Heritage Commons, which also sits in a neighborhood center area, and we have them designate this center portion of that property for -- Borup: Well -- but that had a commercial section as part of the subdivision. Are you saying that will be part of the adjoining subdivision? Siddoway: Yes. I'm saying that when the second one comes through, we will be looking for them to designate -- Borup: Okay. That would be at that point? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: All right. Thank you. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record my name is Steve Arnold and I'm with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road and I'm here representing the developer of Packard -- of the Jaydan Village. You know, a lot of attention has been focused on that property to the west and we would love to submit it as a development, but one of the issues was the -- currently we can't submit, because it Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 7 of 100 will require a lift station to lift the sewer into this portion of Jaydan Village and sewer it east. Again, you know if this Commission wants us to, we would be happy to submit something new within the next week or two. Borup: Well -- but that's -- is that the intended trunk line --future trunk line that it was -- Arnold: Mr. Chairman, actually, a future trunk line will be gravity, I believe, out in this area. Any lift station would be temporary and I'd love to sell you on that tonight, but I don't think you want to hear that. If I can, I will go through some of the issues that were raised. I did ask for this item to be tabled in March. I inherited this project from a coworker at Briggs and there were several issues that I wasn't comfortable with going before you and I know you have got a lot of people here tonight and I don't like wasting your time on something that's just going to be tabled and pulled back, so that was my request, I did ask for it to be tabled. We did go back, we looked at the issues that were raised by the staff by and Steve and I have been working on this and we have tried to pull this plat basically up to what has been requested and I think that -- I'll go through them, but I think we have addressed all the issues and concerns that were brought up. There was some discussion tonight about the Comp Plan and how this all fits in. Briefly, you know, as you go -- the intention of the neighborhood center is to get some commercial and high-density mix around that commercial. I believe at this location is the half mile. In the future we are planning roughly at the half-mile location some commercial sites, along with some higher density housing. I have got some kind of layouts of typical house -- or typical housing that you're going to see in that next section over that allows for the higher density. It also has some of the -- it will be -- a lot of it will be alley loaded and/or private driveway. You will have upwards around eight to ten units per acre. This is kind of how it's going to layout. Basically, as you see there -- there will be a transition from this site into -- if you open it to the first page, there will be small lots, single family. As you can see, there are six units. It's going to be alley loaded. Second page over it's -- you're going to get multiple in town home units. Same thing. Alley-type loaded. There is the single family that's shown on there that will be similar to this that we are proposing along our -- currently our west boundary. The east boundary is a future parcel. This is -- these are, essentially, how we are proposing to bring up the density. We will bring that density up we will put the commercial lots in there at the half mile. As Steve discussed a little bit about tonight, but you need to get that -- in order to support that commercial use there at the half mile, we are going to be required to bring up the roof tops, basically, to get it to -- that it will support. This is how we are intending and as you go back to the Preliminary Plat drawing, this shows it a little bit better, because this is how we are intending to lay out the future portion. Basically, it will have streets that will support it and the middle portions we are going to have the alleys that will be alley loaded and will -- up in this area will be commercial and the office-type use. Anyway, that's the future. That is to the west. I guess that leads to what I'm getting at is, you know, I know staff has kind of left it up to the Commission and what we have to offer is to -- why we don't want an additional stub street. I worked for the highway district for too many years. I was probably the nemesis of many developers by requiring too many stubs. In this case I think we have got, essentially, enough interconnectivity between our parcel -- our eastern half and our western half. I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 8 of 100 think with the future development, I think we can meet the objectives of the Comprehensive, Plan with a denser subdivision with the connections, with the alley-type loading that we are proposing so that we'd ask tonight that the Commission allow us not to require that stub. I think that's the only condition in the staff report that we are asking a relief from is the condition -- I think there is a condition in the old report that's referenced in the new one. They have asked for the stub street to the west. Again, the planter islands, we proposed those to help slow the traffic on those long stretches. They are meeting ACHD requirement. The minimum street lengths are 1,000 feet or just below that. The islands are in there to help slow traffic. We did -- it was an error on our part. We had them in a location that, obviously, would block the driveways into -- in or out of the lots, so we did move them to break them up on the mid -- well, on the lot lines of both adjoining new parcels. Adjacent parcels. As you can see, I didn't think it was possible to do a side entry garage on a 50-foot wide lot. I asked my client so that I could see that. The house is -- it's a nice size house. It's got more architectural value to it, to me, than my own home. I'm surprised they can get something on that size of a lot -- or that size of a house on that size of a lot but it is doable. They do have a mixed type of market that they were going to be putting in there, different type of homes, this just being one of them. Existing trees, as Steve stated, we did move the street -- the street along the northern boundary, the east-west street, we shifted it to the north to try to pick up and safe a few trees and we did save those and -- while maintaining a decent lot depth. The other issue was the right of way. We will comply with ACHD's requirement. What they have, essentially, stated is they want the right of way, but they are not going to pay us for it now. What I'd like to ask for is the ability to -- if we decide to put it into common lots, 1 don't believe that that's a significant change in the Preliminary Plat from the Final Plat. l think that's a staff call. Steve and I had a little bit of discussion about that, but if we decide not to dedicate it at this time, it will go into common lots, which will be dedicated in the future. The amenities that we are providing was not shown on the original landscape plan. We are doing a neighborhood pool with a cabana. I guess this illustrates it better. The pool being situated roughly in the middle of the lot and the cabana will be used as a facility for changing. We are providing parking in excess of what's required for that size of pool. There will be a covered area that will be also utilized by people using the pool as kind of a social gathering area. The amenities that we are providing are the pool, the cabana, and that covered area for the pool. Rohm: Do you have specs on the pool, its dimensions or -- Arnold: At this point, no. I can roughly say that it -- if you're familiar with the Baldwin Park pool, you know, that one, I believe, was -- I worked on that. It was between 15 feet wide, 20 feet in length, with a little kiddy area, wading area. Rohm: Okay. Arnold: What it scales out to on here is roughly that. Rohm: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 9 of 100 Arnold: So, those are the two amenities that we are providing. The barn we did look at trying to salvage. I had my structural engineers review it. Based on its existing condition and some of the hazards that would be associated with keeping it on the site, it's been determined that it's safest to remove the barn, so the barn will not be remaining. I think we have addressed all the concerns that were brought up in the original report. We have modified the plat on all concerns regarding the issue that was raised in the original staff report. We think we have got a good product here and we are requesting approval. And stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I guess I would like to revisit the side entry garage on the narrow lot and just -- if we are talking about lots that are 50 feet wide, if you started at one property line -- one side or the other, you have a five foot setback until you get to the foundation, do you assume the garage needs to be 20 feet or 24 feet, maybe, outside dimension of the garage? Yes. Thank you. The inside dimension of the garage on is 22 feet. Add a foot or so for the front and back wall of it, we are at about 28 feet, which leaves 22 feet for the driveway and a turn in. In a parking lot, the drive aisles, Steve, how wide does the drive aisle in a parking lot need to be? Is that 19 or 20? Siddoway: Twenty-five is the minimum on a commercial parking lot. Zaremba: And that's so that a car can come in and make a 90-degree turn and get into a parking space. Siddoway: Yes and a back out -- there we go. It was turned off. Zaremba: 50, we are only allowing -- if this were a parking lot, we'd only have a 22-foot drive aisle. What I'm doing is I'm starting at one party line, subtracting a foot setback to the beginning of the building. If the inside measurement of the garage is 22 feet, then, let's say the outside measurement is 23, plus the five is 28. If you subtract that from 50, you have 22 feet left. The drive aisle to get into this garage is 22 and my question is is that workable. Siddoway: It depends on how long your truck is. Zaremba: Clearly the applicant is satisfied that it is, but I wonder whether -- if it doesn't work in a parking lot, is it going to work in a driveway. Siddoway: You can back out, you probably just wouldn't be able to back out and, then, make a -- Zaremba: Back into the street in order to get out? Siddoway: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 10 of 100 Borup: I think it would be, but the difference here, your -- you know, the speed you're going, you got opportunity to back up and pull ahead and adjust if you need to. Rohm: When you don't have the competition for a space. Borup: You don't have other cars, but it's -- yeah, it's not a convenient size, though. Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba -- Zaremba: It is an attractive drawing. I like that. Arnold: You know, I didn't think it was doable. Another thing to keep in mind is, you know, you -- in that five foot setback you can't encroach a building, but you can encroach a driveway if need be, but -- Borup: He took that in consideration. Zaremba: You're doing that on the far side. Arnold: Most residential driveways that I know of are roughly -- I mean a two car garage are a little over 20 feet. They are not quite the -- Zaremba: But on a side entry, if you start from the garage door on a side entry, how far away is the farthest part of the driveway? Arnold: I see what you're -- Zaremba: You have got an L-shaped driveway to get in. Amold: Correct. Zaremba: So -- well, maybe these people have small cars and can make that turn, I guess. I can agree that it's physically doable and you will have to decide if it's marketable. Rohm: I think that's the ultimate point. The marketability is on that developer. Zaremba: In that case, I don't have a problem with that one. Borup: Any other questions? Moe: I have no questions. Borup: Okay. Okay. Nothing else at this time? Do we have any public testimony on this application? We seem to have none. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 11 of 100 Moe: Mr. Chairman? Borup: You want to -- I notice staff didn't address anything on lot size transition to the other subdivision, but I don't know if that's necessarily a concern. Did that change from --did that change between the plats? Siddoway: It did not. Borup: Okay. Siddoway: Would you like me to address that, Mr. Chairman? Borup: Well, actually, the design -- the lot layout did change a little bit, didn't it? Yeah. Yes if it's pertinent. Siddoway: Well, I would just point out that, you know, roughly two-thirds of this project is in the area deemed as medium density residential, as opposed to the area we were talking about that's in the neighborhood center. They have tried to transition from Autumn Faire Subdivision. They backed -- when they -- the lots that they abut Autumn Faire with are closer to the 8,000 square foot range. Some are larger, some are smaller, but the -- they are trying to transition from the existing lot sizes and frontages. They don't have any of the small 5,000 square foot lots that abut Autumn Faire, they are all internal to their own project, and on the edges they have the larger lot sizes. Borup: Well -- and that's what I notice, that the lot sizes on the eastern edge are about the same as the sizes on the western edge. Siddoway: Yes Borup: So, the transition was to the center from both ways, almost, rather than on the south. Okay. Moe: One more question for the applicant. In regard to the property that -- the undeveloped to the west, are you anticipating that you will be putting islands within that stretch of roadway as well on some point? Arnold: It's -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, yes, it's anticipated that we would follow suit with a similar design. Moe: And my biggest concern is is that if we are reviewing whether or not to be a stub street in and we are not going to do that, we'd probably want to have something and I was just curious if that was your plan. Arnold: And that's -- as a heads up, we will certainly entertain -- we will be designing around that type criteria. Meritlian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 12 of 100 Moe: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Good thought. Moe: Thank you very much. Borup: Okay. Someone -- I believe someone was -- was someone ready to make a motion? Moe: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Any discussion from anyone or are we ready for a motion? Newton-Huckabay: I just need a clarification on why the applicant didn't want to put the stub street in. Zaremba: I think the thinking is that in the areas that are in or very close to the neighborhood centers, increased access and cross-access provides for greater walkability, bicycle ability -- Borup: That's why staff wanted it you're saying? Newton-Huckabay: That would be arguments in favor of. Zaremba: Arguments in favor of having the stub street there would be that the ease the access to what we hope will not only be an employment center, but a draw for pedestrians to do their business there and the easier you can make that, the shorter the block lengths are necessary to make that easy. Newton-Huckabay: What was the argument against? Zaremba: The argument against it would be that the developer would lose at least two building lots, probably. One on this project and one on the next project. Borup: More than that if it went all the way through to both streets. Zaremba: Well, the -- this parcel is kind of a regular shape. The next parcel is a triangle, which makes its development much more difficult and I personally can see either side of the argument. I don't really have an opinion either way on whether this Meddian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 13 of 100 should have a stub street. I can see a reason for it, I can see a reason not to. Actually, on this property I don't see a reason not to. Looking at the next property, I can see a reason not to, because its a difficult triangular shape. I don't have an opinion either way on that subject. Rohm: I think that the proposed stub streets that they have got on the plat gives that ingress into the adjacent property and it allows for that new property to develop as they perceive it and it seems like this will work for the both interconnectivity and addressing the developer's concerns, so it seems like it works forme. Borup: Maybe the other thing it may do is address one of the concems from the neighbor to the east and that's traffic coming from this subdivision through Autumn Faire and I don't know that it would, but, you know, the more connectivity into the other, the more chance of that happening. Whereas, in this design it would probably be easier for them to exist out on Ustick in the future. Zaremba: You're saying if you extended the street that currently stubs into Autumn Faire and made that -- Borup: Well, I'm saying adding one more access it's going to increase that. Zaremba: Yes. It would increase traffic through Autumn Faire, probably. Borup: Well, it -- there is a possibility of that and that was one of the concems -- I mean I think that was the only letter we got addressing that. I do feel. we need -- we need to have the connectivity, though. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I have no more questions. Borup: Okay. Mr. Arnold, I don't know if you had any comment on that discussion. You still have the opportunity if you'd like to say something. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, we closed the Public Hearing. Borup: Did we? Moe: Yes, we did. Borup: On, I'm sorry. I -- never mind. I had forgotten we closed the hearing. Zaremba: I believe we did. Moe: Yes, we did. Borup: Okay. Are you ready for a motion? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 14 of 100 Zaremba: All right. Mr. Chairman, I will attempt this. I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our agenda, AZ 04-003, request for Annexation and Zoning of 16.73 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC, 5325 West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their original memo for the hearing date of March 18, 2003, as modified by their second -- staffs second memo for the hearing date of April 29, 2004 -- I'm sorry. I said the original memo was 2003, which it actually says on the memo, but it would have been for the hearing date of March 18, 2004. Modified by the new memo for the hearing date of April 29, 2004, with no annexation changes. Moe: 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 5 on our agenda, PP 04-002, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 23 residential building lots, not 25, and eight common lots on 16.73 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC, 5325 West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their original memo for the hearing date of March 18 -- should be the year 2004 -- as modified by their more recent memo for the hearing date of April 29, 2004, and with the additional changes - I note that we are referencing the plat with a revision date of 3/23/04 and I think I mentioned that it's 23 building lots -- or 73 building lots, not 75. And on page three of the staffs revised notes, the April 29~' notes, paragraph seven on the sewer, the applicant has satisfied that requirement and will supply the sufficient fill -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt Mr. Zaremba. Just so you know, these are not written to be actual conditions of approval. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: And that one notes that Condition Number 7 in the prior staff report already addresses three feet of fill over the sewer and would be fine. In the summary it does line out the issues that would need resolution. Zaremba: Okay. I will jump to Page 4, which is, I think, what you're referring to. Siddoway: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. Near the bottom it says summary of proposed changes, Preliminary Plat conditions. Item Number 2 we are determining that the additional stub street will not be required. Item Number 3 the planter islands are fine as they are. They would have only needed to be moved if we had the additional stub street. Item Number 4, we are changing the verbiage to read: The common lots adjacent to North Christian Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 15 of 100 Avenue near the entrance to the subdivision shall be constructed at least 15 feet wide. Item Number 5 is deleted. On Page 5, Item Number 15, the applicant has stated that they will create the two common lots and we are agreeing that that's a minor change that can be approved at the staff level. Borup: I think they said they thought they might want to, but they weren't sure at this point. Zaremba: I would make that a condition that it -- Siddoway: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. That will be a firm condition, that -- Borup: Well, their other option would be to deed the property to the Highway District right now with no compensation. Zaremba: I would guess that's not the applicant's preference. Borup: Wouldn't that be correct, Steve? That would be the two options? Siddoway: Yes. I would be fine with giving them the option of adding the common lots or not. Zaremba: All right. Borup: And if they don't, then, it would be deeded to the highway -- to ACHD right now. Zaremba: Yes. Okay. In that case, I will rephrase the last statement. We are now on page five, referring to Item Number 15. The applicant will have the choice to be made before this goes to the City Council of whether or not, A, to establish two common lots for the future deeding of right of way to ACHD or, B, deeding the right of way now for no compensation. End of plat motion. Moe: 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 6 on our agenda, CUP 04-004, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development with request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, and front yard setbacks for side entry garages, for proposed Jaydan Village Subdivision by Packard Estates, LLC, 5325 West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their original memo for the hearing date of March 18 --and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 29, 2004 Page 1 fi of 100 it should be 2004, as modified by the staffs memo of -- for the hearing date of April 19, 2004, with the following changes. On Page 5 of the revised staff memo for April 29, Number 2 we have agreed that the reduced front setbacks may be as the applicant has requested. Item 3 the applicant has stated that the two required amenities will now be a community swimming pool and a nearby cabana. End of CUP motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: AZ 04-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 34.6 acres from RUT to I-L, L-O, and C-G zones for proposed McNelis Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC - northwest comer of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road: Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from March 18, 2004: PP 04-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 commercial building lots and 5 common lots on 34.6 acres in proposed I-L, L-O, and C-G zones for proposed McNelis Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC -northwest comer of North Ten Mile Road and West Ustick Road: Borup: Okay. Thank you. That concludes that item. Okay. Our next project is Item Numbers 7 and 8. Again, both continued hearings from March 18w, AZ 04-004 and PP 04-004. Both concerning McNelis Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC, northwest corner of North Ten Mile and West Ustick Road. I'd like to begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As mentioned, the site is on the northwest corner of Ustick and Ten Mile. It's blocked out there in the black. It's currently white. Just south of the wastewater treatment plant, which is right here. This item was deferred to this hearing date mainly because the sewer issues were unresolved. I'm going to let Bruce give you an update on how they have accomplished sewering this site, just real briefly, and, then, I will get back to my staff report. Freckleton: Thanks, Craig. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, this project is similar to the last one you just heard. The applicant did go back to the drawing board a little bit, changed their routing of the sewer. They are going to be doing a little bit of filling, but they have been able to provide the necessary cover over the sewer to make this a viable project, so I'm satisfied with what they are proposing and have no additional problems. Hood: Thanks, Bruce. The requested zoning for this property is split into three different zoning designations. They are asking for 16.64 acres to be zoned L-O, Limited Office, which is in the middle section here in this general area. There is 14.67 acres that will be I-L zoned, Light Industrial, and, then, there is a little piece of C-G, two lots right on the