Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 16, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 34 of 72 Borup: But we will need -- if we are going to continue it -- so you're saying we should continue it? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: Continue -- it sounds like it's going to go to like November 18th. That's two months. Hawkins-Clark: They did not submit a requested date. I don't know if anybody is here representing them tonight, but -- Zaremba: Yeah. There is nothing on the note that requests -- Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Borup: Is there a representative for this application here? Don't see any. Zaremba: Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue PFP 04-007, to our regularly scheduled meeting of November 18th, 2004. Newton-Huckabay: I second that motion. Borup: Motion and second to continue the hearing. All in favor? . Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, do we have a request for a break? Newton-Huckabay: Yes, I would like a break. Borup: Okay. Okay. We will take a short recess -- a break at this time. (Recess.) Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 04-024 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 47.66 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 04-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 143 single-family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 47.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 04-033 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of a school lot and single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Septamber 16. 2004 Page 35 of 72 and street frontage for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 2683 West Chinden Boulevard: Borup: Okay. We'd like to open the next public hearings, Public Hearing AZ 04-024, request for annexation and zoning of 47.66 acres -- am I disturbing anyone out there? Thank you. From RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, and Public Hearing PP 04-031, request for preliminary plat approval of 143 single family residential lots, 19 common lots, on the same property. And Public Hearing CUP 04-033, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development, consisting of a school lot, single family residential lots, and reductions of the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage, all this for Silverleaf Subdivision. Again, we would open these three hearings and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject 47.66 acre site is located on the south side of Chinden and on the east side of Ten Mile Road. I'm going to breeze through the staff in the interest of time. There are only a couple of issues -- I guess let me give you the bearings a little bit better first. Lochsa Falls is to the south and to the east of the subject site shown in bold black there. And here is the aerial view from 2003. Obviously, some more lots in Lochsa Falls have been developed since this area was flown. To the north there are three undeveloped parcels. One of them, the large one, being a 37.6-acre site right on the southeast corner of Ten Mile and Chinden, currently zoned RUT in the county. Spur Wing Subdivision is across Chinden Boulevard and to the west are agricultural properties. This submitted preliminary plat, there are 143 single family residential building lots, 18 common lots, and a large school lot on the west side there -- or, excuse me, on the east side of the plat, about ten acres. The applicant is proposing to construct one public street entrance to Ten Mile Road. That will serve the nine acre parcel and, eventually, feed through the Lochsa development when those final plats -- plat and feed the northeastern portion of the development, providing interconnectivity. They are seeking a temporary access to Chinden Boulevard should Lochsa Falls stall, that would be located in this -- generally in the alignment with this road here out to Chinden. There are conditions in the staff report stating that if ITD approves it, staff is supportive. It needs to go away when one or all of the other stub streets to Lochsa Falls are provided to this portion and access can be granted to that site. The gross density of the subdivision is 3.0 dwelling units per acre. This density is in accord with both the proposed R-4 zone and the Comp Plan, which designates a low density residential near Chinden Boulevard and medium density residential further south. Basically, the Comprehensive Plan designation bisects this property north-south, half of it, approximately, is medium, half of it is low density. The applicant is requesting, as noted in the description, reduced lot .frontages and reduced lot sizes. There are 89 lots that are below the 80-foot street frontage requirement in the R-4 zone. There are 85 lots that are below the 8,000 square foot minimum lot size of the R-4 zone. The proposed amenities for this development include a tot lot area with playground equipment and a gathering area with picnic tables and barbecue equipment on Lot 8, Block 5, which is right here. This is Lot 8, Block 5, this large common lot. There is the tot lot and, then, the associated amenities around it. I did want to point out, as I noted in the staff report, that there are 4.59 acres or 9.65 percent of the site set Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 36 of 72 aside for open space that the applicant calls out. City code does require that if you want to count open space as an amenity, you need to provide ten percent. There are some other amenities that the applicant hasn't called out in their submittal letter I thought that were pretty important just to note. There is a micro-path type pathway -- it's a micro- path when it's a lot or two in depth. This would just be a pathway internal that feeds up to the future school site, as well as connecting in an east-west direction to this future school site. That, in conjunction with the sidewalk system, creates a pretty good pathway system, so I did just want to call that out, and also ask the applicant to clarify here at the meeting tonight the amenities and how they came up with that open space percentage. I was a little bit shy of their -- what they were proposing as open space. Just to further expand on that just for a second, is this pump station drainage lot here, there is an access road that goes back and that definition in city code of landscaped open space is green and so any -- if it's not green or is paved it, obviously, couldn't be counted in that requirement, as well as any required street buffers are not counted in that landscape open space requirement. Just real quick, I'm going to show you some of the elevations that the applicant submitted. They did submit ten; I think I scanned in two or three of them. That's that. I did want to make note that the applicant did write a response letter to the staff report dated 9/14/04 and just confirm that you all have that. I had one on my desk, so I think you should probably all have that. They didn't have any issues. They said they will clarify. One other thing has come up is the -- actually, two things have come up. The sidewalk on Chinden Boulevard, the Comprehensive Plan states that all arterial streets shall have detached sidewalks. Speaking with the applicant before the hearing, they wanted to know if they could either keep their 35 foot wide landscape buffer or if we were requiring sidewalk. We don't have any correspondence from ITD, so I don't know what their standard requirement is. The Comprehensive Plan appears to require that on all arterial streets. I'm not quite sure what Lochsa Falls did. The applicant may clarify that they had a 25-foot wide landscape buffer, but I did want to make that note there. They were showing a sidewalk. The other thing was the one-acre parcel located in this area here. This is kind of right in the heart of the development. There is an existing home on it. My understanding is that that homeowner is going to retain that one acre lot and they do have a waterfall right here that would be within the ten foot wide public utilities and drainage easement, so they are wondering if that can go away. I talked to Mr. Freckleton before this hearing; he seemed to infer that anything is possible with the right amount of coaxing and money with the joint trenching people. So, I'll let that person testify if they'd like to, but I just did want to call that out. With that I will stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Zaremba: Would you put up the aerial view again for a minute? Just to refresh my memory -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- this area just south of this portion is an eventual public park, because of Lochsa Falls; is that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16,2004 Page 37 of 72 Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, that is correct. There is a one acre -- 1.4 acres, I believe it is, church site right here, but, yeah, Lochsa Falls' large city park is right here. Zaremba: And, then, is this the entire school site or is a portion of it into Lochsa Falls? A recollection was that a portion of this is, actually, going to come out of Lochsa Falls and, then, their permanent roadway is roughly in this area; is that -- Hood: No. Actually, the permanent roadway for Lochsa Falls is just on the other side of this black line, which is the school site almost bisecting -- Zaremba: That's the entire school site; there is no more to it? Hood: Correct. And, then, that residential collector street will be not right adjacent to, because they are constructing a landscape buffer, but there is a stub street here to the school and, then, that residential collector comes in like this and feeds down into Lochsa. Zaremba: Then, my recollection is discussing landscape and sidewalk, that this, actually, was going to be either a commercial or L-O, I forget the zoning, but it's not residential in Lochsa Falls, I don't believe, is it? Hood: I do not recall and, I'm sorry, I didn't look further into that matter, it just came up before the hearing. It is zoned R-4. They may have requested a use exception as part of that, so -- Zaremba: I think that's true. Hood: Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. The question I had is on the zoning designation. Was R-4 to stay in compliance with the Comp Plan or -- or was that a necessity? Hood: The Comprehensive Plan -- Borup: You mentioned the low density and medium density. Hood: Yeah. Low density on Chinden and medium density further south and out towards Ten Mile. The requested PD, actually, is -- will establish those lot sizes and setbacks, et cetera, if required more than just an underlying zoning district. When you have a PD, you know -- you know, you take those lot sizes and frontages and you can basically throw them out the window and propose something, but their density is 3.0 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the R-4 zone. Or low density -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 38 of 72 Borup: Right. I understood that that is, but the subdivision as proposed wouldn't even comply with an R-8. It would still need -- it would still need the requested changes, even in an R-8 zone, so I wondered why the request was even for an R-4. Hood: You may ask the applicant that question. I'm not quite sure. Borup: Okay. Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Amar: Good evening. For the record, my name is Kevin Amar, address is 114 East Idaho in Meridian, here representing the Silverleaf Subdivision. I will also try to be brief. I know there is a lot of neighbors here that probably could care less about this subdivision, so we will try to get through it quickly. With respect to the staff report, we are generally in agreement with all of the conditions within the staff report. There are a couple items, as Craig indicated, that -- more clarification than anything and I will also talk about the open space and the amenities within the open space. This project, as you are aware, is 132 lots on 43 acres. We have been working with the school district, had a meeting as recently as yesterday with them in finalizing our agreements with them for the school site on this property. We understand the school is experiencing significant growth. I believe that's what their letter says. This will allow, similar to the project we did in Birchstone, an additional school site for the school to maintain the ability to keep up with the growth or keep no further behind with the same amount of growth, maybe, is the way Wendell would rather have that. But we are willing to work with the school and, as a matter of fact, we are working with the school. We have a layout of the school if you'd like to see it, but we have worked with their architect for, generally, conceptual matters to make sure that the school site that we provided works for their building plans. With respect to our temporary access, that is in the event -- could I have the preliminary plat? Thank you. That -- the access -- and I spoke with Lochsa development, Farwest Development, should be built this winter. We have requested a temporary access and have received permission -- I have given a copy of the letter to Craig from Idaho Transportation Department for that. We will comply with all the conditions that staff has requested of us for that temporary access. At this time I don't see that that will be necessary. In the event that Lochsa does stall or slow down, I am preparing for that by having the temporary access, but I don't think it is necessary. The school site is on our site completely and they have an additional access -- you can see it here for the -- for them and they will use that as a secondary access or maybe for bus access. So, they are coordinating, if they need to move that, with Lochsa Falls and we will help them out, obviously. With respect to the open space, we are providing ten percent, we just didn't put it on the map. It was always my of intention of putting ten percent open space, so there will be ten percent open space in here, which will be one of the amenities and, as Craig indicated, we will have the playground structure, similar to the ones I have -- we have done in the past and we will also have some sort of gathering area for parents to watch while their kids play. Also, as Craig indicated, we will have the pathway through the subdivision leading down to this city park. We thought that was important for kids to be able to get those, especially since there is a school site. We have located our open space on the property in such a manner that it is directly across from the school, providing an area for the kids to be in case -- it's an Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 39 of 72 elementary school, so they don't let their kids leave without parents showing up, but it does provide a nice open space. We have also put no houses fronting this street. We have tried to keep that off, so the traffic from that won't interfere with any driveways or any houses that are on the street. We are requesting on Chinden, to be consistent with what Lochsa Falls did, they also gave a 35-foot landscape buffer. They do have -- I think your memory is correct; they have some commercial lots shown up there. I don't know if they have sidewalk or not. I know as I drive up and down Chinden a lot of the subdivisions along Chinden do not have sidewalks, no. Meridian hasn't gotten to that point where they have any subdivisions on Chinden yet. Lochsa, I believe, Paramount, but they aren't built. So, we are requesting that that 35-foot be allowed with a sidewalk on there or to be consistent with Lochsa Subdivision. One question that arose in this meeting is why the R-4 zoning. Again, that was simply to be consistent with Lochsa. Lochsa is zoned R-4 PUD, we have a similar density that Lochsa has and we chose the R-4 just simply to be consistent with Lochsa. That's what they were approved under, so we chose the R-4 also. With that -- and I have a copy of the Lochsa Subdivision final plat number 12, which shows this road and also the open space, if you'd like to see it. My engineer is here, who has spoken with Briggs Engineering, they are the company doing Lochsa Subdivision, if you'd like more information with respect to where Lochsa is. He as better information than I do or more up-to-date information than I do. I think with that I have tried to answer all the questions; if you have any others I would be pleased to answer them. Newton-Huckabay: Chinden? You wanted the sidewalk or you don't want the sidewalk on Amar: As I understand it, it's the city's requirement to have sidewalks on all arterials. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Amar: So, I don't have a problem putting the sidewalk there. What I would like to do is have the same landscape width, which is 35 feet, as Lochsa had. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: And, then, the sidewalk is within that; is that correct? Amar: That's what we are showing now. Zaremba: And that's acceptable? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, on page 13, number seven, I did ask the applicant to add an additional five feet, because you weren't -- code doesn't allow sidewalk to be counted in that landscape buffer, so the applicant is just requesting to be approved what they have shown. The second bullet does require five additional feet, because that 35-foot wide landscape buffer is just that, so it would be a 40-foot wide common lot, with a five foot - but it seems to make sense to me that if Lochsa did a 35- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 40 of 72 foot wide total width common lot and included in that was a five foot wide sidewalk, it seems to make sense to me that they be allowed to do the same. Borup: That's also going to a meandering sidewalk? Amar: Yes, sir. It will be held off the right of way, especially on Chinden. I think that's important. Zaremba: Works for me. Newton-Huckabay: I wanted to see with the interconnectivity with Lochsa, if you have that plat. Amar: We have -- I'm going to speak and, then, let my engineer get up and correct me. This portion here, I believe, is called phase nine or ten. They are building that now. In fact, curb, gutter, and sidewalk are going in. This portion in here, the roads have cut in and, as I understand it, will start construction now, that will give us connectivity with the stub road out of this property and also connectivity with the stub road in this location. So, this year those roads should be installed and that's, as I understand it, from Lochsa or Farwest Development. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Amar: Did that answer your question? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Thank you. Amar: Thank you. Borup: Do we have any - you didn't have anything else from the engineer; is that correct? I don't think we had any questions. Right. Do we have any public testimony on this application? Commissioners, seeing none. I don't think Mr. Amar needs a rebuttal. Zaremba: No, I guess not. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that public hearings AZ 04-24, PP 04-031, and CUP 04-033, be closed. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 18, 2004 Page 41 of 72 Zaremba: I think this is appropriate and matches the other things going on around it. Any alternate opinion? Newton-Huckabay: I was just -- Borup: I don't think it does as far as the lot sizes. Newton-Huckabay: Did you want the picture of where the school goes? Did you say you had a picture where the school goes? Zaremba: We closed the Public Hearing, so I'm not sure you can ask him that. Newton-Huckabay: I'll ask the questions and they will correct me. Borup: Your question was if there was a site -- a school site -- Newton-Huckabay: No, it's not -- it's okay. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I was just curious where it was going to go. Borup: Back to your statement that it complies with the surrounding. It doesn't as far as lot sizes. I mean it does as far as zoning and -- Zaremba: But now Lochsa had some smaller lots -- Borup: Did they? Well, I guess it depends on what section. Zaremba: Yeah. It's not right abutting this, but I think some of these over here were -- Borup: Fifty-foot lots? Zaremba: -- quite a bit smaller. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: In the variety. Less than half of these are smaller. Borup: More than half. Zaremba: Or close to half. Yeah. A little over half. And, personally, I find that acceptable. Borup: Okay. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 16, 2004 Page 42 of 72 Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-024, request for annexation and zoning of 47.66 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, 2683 West Chinden Boulevard, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of September 16, 2004, received by the city clerk September 13, 2004, with no changes. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 04-031, request for preliminary plat approval for 143 single family residential building lots and 19 common lots on 47.66 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, 2683 West Chinden Boulevard, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of September 16, 2004, received by the city clerk September 3, 2004, with one change. And that is on page 13, paragraph seven, the second bullet, which starts out depict a minimum 40 foot wide, I would leave that as is, but add at the end of that paragraph an additional sentence that says: If it is shown that the adjoining Lochsa Falls Subdivision has the sidewalk within their 35-foot landscape buffer, this project may match that project, and that needs to be shown before this goes to the City Council hearing. Newton-Huckabay: What about the waterfall? Zaremba: Did we need to make a decision on that? Newton-Huckabay: The waterfall on the one acre lot. Zaremba: Is that an engineering issue or -- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, that's something we can handle when we get closer to the final plat. Zaremba: Okay. In that case, my motion ended with the change to page 13, paragraph seven, second bullet. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Commission September 16. 2004 Page 43 of 72 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-033, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development consisting of a school lot and single family residential lots, with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, 2683 West Chinden Boulevard, to include staff comments from their memo for the hearing date of September 16, 2004, received by the city clerk September 13, 2004, with no changes. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 04-023 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 04-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 237 single-family residential building lots and 21 common lots on 76.72 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Item 18: Public Hearing: CUP 04-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of single-family residential lots with reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and request to exceed the maximum block length. allowed for proposed Kingsbridge Subdivision by Vision First, LLC - 4070 South Eagle Road: Borup: Okay. Thank you. That concludes that application. Our next item is our final project for the evening, Public Hearing AZ 04-023, a request for annexation and zoning of 76.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for the propose Kingsbridge Subdivision by Visions First, LLC. And Public Hearing PP 04-030, request for preliminary plat approval of 237 single family residential lots and 21 common lots by proposed -- well, is that correct? R-8? Get some clarification on that. And Public Hearing CUP 04-032, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development consisting of single-family residential lots with reductions in the minimum requirement for lot size, street frontage, and block length. Again, we will open all three public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. It appears to be a typo on the agenda. Borup: On the preliminary plat? Siddoway: Yes. The requested zone is R-4.