Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAug. 19, 2004 P & Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 26 of 82 between all the lots, add a sentence in that bullet that says: Until such time as the current use as residential changes, the current access to Cherry Lane is acceptable, End of motion, Moe: Second, Borup: Motion and second, All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES, Borup: We have had a request from the Commissioners for a short break at this time, so we'd like to take a short break, (Recess,) Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 04-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.4 acres from RUT to R-B zone for Chatsworth Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - west of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 04-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 77 single-family residential building lots and 4 common lots on 19.4 acres in a proposed R-B zone for Chatsworth Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - west of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road: Borup: Okay, Ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to reconvene our hearing for this evening and continue with Items 12 and 13, Public Hearing AZ 04-01B, request for annexation and zoning of 19.4 acres from RUT to R-B zone for Chatsworth Subdivision by Dyver Development and also Public Hearing PP 04-025, a request for preliminary plat approval of 77 single family residential building lots -- or common lots on the same project. Again, we'd like to open both of these hearings and start with the staff report, Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, This application, as you stated, is for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat on 19.4 acres, located on the west side of Locust Grove Road about a third of a mile south of the Victory Road, The land is designated as medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map and the applicant has requested all the property be zoned R-B, You can see the subject site there outlined in black, To the north of that is the recently approved Roseleaf Subdivision, a single-family residential development, zoned R-B, To the west is an agricultural piece of property, an 1B-acre parcel zoned RUT in Ada County, Tuscany Lakes Subdivision, the single-family residential development, zoned R-4, you can see one of the phases has been platted and shows up on this map, There is a five- acre parcel to the south currently zoned RUT and a 25-acre parcel to the south, also zoned RUT in Ada County, There is currently a single-family home near Locust Grove Road and some outbuildings there, You can kind of see the stuff that isn't green within the black outline are the single-family homes and the outbuildings that the applicant is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 27 of 82 proposing to remove all those buildings. The preliminary plat includes 77 build-able lots and four other lots, common lots. The gross density is 3.97 dwelling units per acre. This density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use designation of medium density residential, which has a target density of three to eight dwelling units per acre, The 77 proposed build-able lots range in size from 6,500 square feet to 10,562 square feet is the largest lot they have in here. Largest build-able lot. All housing types are proposed single family residential. The plat contains approximately six percent open space. There are no variances, exceptions, or reductions to the city adopted dimensional standards or uses requested with this preliminary plat application. I did just want to touch on a couple of things that ACHD required. They are requiring two forms of traffic calming devices to be installed in the main entrances. The main entrance to Locust Grove they want one somewhere mid block here or at the intersection and one between these two streets, I believe, somewhere in this location, or at the intersection. They are also requesting this stub street move about central between this street and this street to provide access to the west. Staff is definitely supportive of the conditions as they -- as does become a racetrack, especially if that's extended in the future in a straight direction. So, moving this stub street seems to make sense. I'll leave the traffic calming up to ACHD. Staff has provided the analysis and recommended conditions of approval. We are recommending approval of the applications. I did just want to make one note. Just when we were taking the break I had the property owner come over to the desk, these five acres here, she had a concern about access to the back-side of her property. With this stub street we did talk about the applicant is proposing a five foot wide -- or five-foot tall perimeter fence around the subdivision. She would like to have a gate, rather than the straight fence, so she can use this as access to the backside of her property, so a gate with a sign stating that this road will be extended in the future and, then, she puts a lock or whoever owns it puts a lot, if they so chose, on that gate for access to the back side. I will let the applicant address that concern by the applicant, but she had to go to work, so I thought I would pass that along to the Commission. With that, I will stand for any questions. Oh, I did get an e-mail. I hope you all did. It's got Jessica Johnson's name at the top of it. It's in e-mail form. I responded -- Borup: We've got it. Hood: Okay. The applicant doesn't happen to have any concerns, but I'll let you hear from them. Thank you. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners for Mr. Hood? Zaremba: I do have two, if I may, Mr. Chairman, and Craig. The version of the preliminary plat that I'm looking at, the alignment across this street and across this intersection, is slightly different. It's actually better on what I'm looking at than what is displayed up there. i i Borup: I think that was the two pieces pieced togethe~. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 28 of 82 Zaremba: Is this a -- oh, that's at a fold line? Oh, I can see that. Okay. Well, I like the version that's here better. Second question. Are you able -- let's see. Go back to a wider view that shows some of the property surrounding it, if you would, please. That's good enough. Do you remember -- well, first off, Ros~leaf has already been approved? I Hood: Correct. Zaremba: By the City Council? Hood: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Zaremba: Do you remember where their access to Lo~ust Grove is? Hood: The applicant would -- if I can look at the pléit real quick. It does state in the ACHD staff report, I believe, too, they are approximately 300 feet north of Palarmo Drive across Locust Grove, the main access into Tusdany, so they are going to be somewhere near their north property boundary, co~ect, somewhere in that location hre. I i I i I Hood: On the same side of the street. They are ~Oing to have almost 600 feet of separation. I I i I , , Hood: With one on the other side about 300 feet away! so-- Zaremba: So, it's far enough from this access -- Zaremba: Kind of a stair step, which is all that great. i Hood: Exactly. Exactly. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Hood, you had mentioned the property owner and their comment about the gate. Had she talked to the developer on this at all? Oh, she's still here, so we will get a chance. Okay. I thought you said she had left. Okay. Would the applicant -- anything else they'd like to add? We do have your letter saying you accept everything. Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle. And I'm not going to delay this. The staff did a good job of explaining the details of the development. I did provide Anna -- if she could put that up. It does show the Roseleaf development to the north and how we attach to that and also that access point for your reference. And you are correct, the 600 feet separation with the 300 feet on the other side, so it does meet the highway district standards for separation. We did hold a neighborhood meeting on this development and any issues that were brought up Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 29 of 82 we tried to address with the neighborhoods at that time and I don't believe there is any outstanding issues. We are in agreement with all staff's findings and conditions of approval. Regarding the gate along the boundary right there, that's fine with the developer to include that. There will be a sign per ACHD's requirements stating that that road will extend in the future and we will provide that in addition to the gate. One other thing. We do have six percent open space -- usable open space within the development. We are going to provide a pathway along this area and also some playground equipment for children in that open space. We are in agreement with ACHD regarding the traffic calming and the relocation of that stub street to the west. With that I stand for questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? And they -- you will have the redesign back to staff in plenty of time? Nickel: We will have that prior to City Council, yes, sir. Borup: Ten days prior. Nickel: Ten days prior. Borup: Thank you. Nickel: Thanks. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. Did you want to testify, ma'am? Bee: Hi. I'm Lori Bee, I live next door on the property -- the big square right there with five acres. Borup: And the address is? Bee: 3B93 South Locust Grove. Borup: Okay. Bee: Meridian, Idaho. B3642. My question is on this property, the gate, great, thank you for doing that. I appreciate that to developer and staff, because I'm going to still be able to access my property from the back. But also on the north side of the property, that line right there, there is an easement right there. That whole line is an easement and the person who sold the property to the developer stated that that easement can just go away. I don't want it to go away. The easement is 15 -- it's right in the middle. The fence, built a fence there, and it's right in the middle. I've got 15 feet of that easement and so does he on the other side and it's right in the middle. Borup: What type of easement? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 30 of 82 Bee: Honestly, I can't tell you. I know that there is an easement there. Rohm: Access easement? Bee: Thank you. Access to my property to the back, going back, and I wanted to keep that easement, so that the houses aren't in my backyard, plus I can still access my property from the side, because we have a gate -- I mean I have some -- where I can get back there and I don't want to lose that. I mean I want to be able to access from the gate also, but I don't want to lose that side either. Zaremba: The current 15 feet that's on your side of the fence -- Bee: Yes. Zaremba: - I don't think he can give that up, but -- Bee: I just want to be sure, because I don't want them to say that's going away and, then, I -- Borup: You're saying it's on your side of a fence or on the property line? Bee: No. There is a fence right through the middle of the easement. Borup: But that -- the question here is where is the property line? Bee: My property line -- they have got a fence built there and there is the easement, 15 feet on my side and, then, my property. Rohm: So, it's a 30-foot easement, 15 on each side of center? Bee: Correct. Borup: And it's your understanding the fence is on the property line? That's not necessarily the case. Bee: Okay. Yes, the fence is on the property line. Borup: Okay. Bee: I'm still learning. I haven't owned this for a long time, but I just wanted to keep my property, I don't want it slowly chopped away and -- Borup: Well, someone can't take your property. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 31 of 82 Bee: Right. But you know what I'm saying. I don't want my easement gone. That's alii ask. Borup: Okay. We'll get some clarification. Zaremba: We'll get a clarification, because that's -- Bee: I appreciate that. Zaremba: I don't mean to interrupt if you have more -- Bee: Please. Zaremba: On the gate that you and the developer are agreeing on, I'm just curious how big a gate. Do you want that for personal access or do you have equipment that you need to get through it? Bee: I've got a backhoe and -- I have pretty good equipment that I want to be able to get through that and so if they have got a street there, it should be wide enough for like big dump trucks. Borup: It's just a man -- Bee: Oh, no, it's a gate. Zaremba: It's the full width of the street. Bee: Yes. Yes. Absolutely. Zaremba: Just wanted to make sure that was clear to everybody. Bee: Thank you very much. Rohm: Just curious. The fence that has been placed down the middle of the existing easement, is that -- is that preventing you from getting in and out of your property at all? Bee: Currently right now? Rohm: Currently. Bee: I can still drive back. Rohm: Cool. That's-- Bee: And I just need to be able to get back there. I don't want to be restricted to just one entrance. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 32 of 82 Rohm: Got YOU. Thank you. Bee: Thank you so much. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Okay. Mr. Bailey, did you have some information on the easement? Bailey: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is David Bailey. Office address is 1500 East Iron Eagle Drive in Eagle. And to address the easement issue on that -- and that is shown on the preliminary plat and there is a note on there that says the -- and I think you can see it kind of in the middle there, it's hard to read. Easement to be vacated. As you can see, where we are showing from our survey, that she's correct that that fence is on her north property boundary and that easement -- there is about five feet of that easement, from what I show there, that's on her side of the property. We cannot and don't have any intention of vacating any easements that are on her property, unless she chooses to do that. I mean -- and one of your conditions of approval -- and I'm looking through the report here, I know it's either yours or Ada County Highway District's condition of approval, is that we vacate that easement prior signature on the final plat. I'm pretty sure it's Ada County Highway District, now that I'm standing here, that we vacate that easement, because I remember just reading this thing the other day again. Hood: Chair, Commissioners, Dave, I do have it as site specific condition number four on page ten, so prior to signature you have to vacate that easement, because it runs -- it takes up 25 feet of the backside of those lots, so that does need to be vacated. It's a condition of approval. Bailey: Right. And that will go through your vacation process for that easement bMore we do that, so I'd stand for any -- Rohm: If it's an ingress-egress easement and -- doesn't it have to have a certain recipient of that or is it just cart blanche, anybody can get in and out on that easement? Is it issued to a specific individual? Bailey: Commissioner Rohm, I'm not recalling in my head right now what the specific terms of that -- the easement that are on there are, but you're correct in that that easement is not -- it's not public right of way as far as it's access for everybody, it's an easement for a specific use for access for some specific property. So, the vacation of that easement has to be with the signature -- your process requires it to be with the signature of all affected parties prior to -- prior to vacating that easement. So, we would have to get that in writing before we bring it to you or to the Commission -- actually, it goes to City Council, I believe. Rohm: That was my exact point. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 33 of 82 Bailey: So, we'd have to have their permission in writing to do it. Rohm: Thank you. Moe: But your comment was that you anticipated that was -- hers was not 15 feet, but just five foot on her side? Bailey: Commissioner Moe, what I'm showing on the preliminary plat here -- and this is what my surveyor -- when they surveyed this site and showed me where that easement is on the site, because we did, you know, of course, an actual boundary survey of it, that's where they are showing that easement to be located according to record, where we are showing it on plat there. Zaremba: Are you satisfied where the existing fence is? Who put the fence in? Did you put the fence in? Bailey: We did not. Borup: It's been there awhile. Bailey: The fence has been there for a while and, actually, I looked real hard at this. It's hard to see, but there is a little X you can see underneath the boundary line there, we did locate that fence in our topography survey and it's shown on the preliminary plat. So, it's there. Zaremba: She seems to be satisfied with her access south of that fence and knows where the fence is, so I don't see that as being a problem. Borup: Your survey shows that that's right on the -- Bailey: Yes. Exactly on the property line. Borup: That's the first time I think we have seen that. Zaremba: Well, she knows where the fence is, so -- all right. Bailey: Thank you. Zaremba: Thanks. Borup: Okay. I believe that concludes -- there was no other public testimony, so -- Moe: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 19, 2004 Page 34 of 82 Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-01B, request for annexation and zoning of 19.4 acres from RUT to R-B zone for Chatsworth Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC, west of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road, to include all the staff comments and conditions for the hearing date of August 19th, 2004, received by city clerk's office August 16th, 2004, with one change -- I take that back. That would take care of the annexation. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 04-025, request for preliminary plat approval for 77 single family residential building lots and four common lots on 19.4 acres in a proposed R-B zone for Chatsworth Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC, west of the South Locust Grove Road and south of East Victory Road, to include all staff comments and conditions of the hearing date of August 19th, 2004, received by the city clerk's office August 16th, 2004, with one comment. On page eleven, item eight, we'd like to extend that in the fencing that the -- it would require a gate at the stub street, East Pisa Street, be installed full width of the street. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 04-027 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for up to 150 children in a CoG zone for Primary Colors Daycare by Primary Colors, Inc. - east of South Eagle Road and south of East Overland Road: Borup: Next item is Public Hearing CUP 04-027, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for up to 150 children in a CoG zone for Primary Colors Daycare by Primary Colors. South Eagle and south of East Overland. We'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is a Conditional Use Permit for a child care center. The application is a Conditional Use Permit, because they are proposing to serve 150 children. The subject property is