HomeMy WebLinkAboutAlexandria REV AZ 04-011CQ�
r �ullclCfl1 STAFF SUMMARY
s� OF
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
P & Z Commission Date of Recommendation: February 3, 2005
Project Name: Alexandria Subdivision
Case No(s): AZ -04-011, PP -04-017, CUP -04-015 (REVISED)
Applicant: Lonnie Johnson
A. Recommendation: Approve with conditions (all ayes - all applications)
B. Summary of Public Hearing:
1. In favor: Mike Wardle (Applicant's Representative)
2. In opposition: None
3. Commenting: None
4. Staff presenting application: Brad Hawkins -Clark
[Note. On September 21, 2004, a Remand Order was issued by City Council for all three (3) of
the subject applications. For details regarding the P&Z Commission's original Recommendation
to City Council (also for- approval), please see the packet for the August 24, 2004 City Council
meeting.)
C. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission:
1. Reasons for City Council remand (related to previous office uses)
2. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay expressed a general concern about including large,
1 -acre lots in small -lot subdivisions
D. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation:
1. Preliminary Plat —Modified Site Specific Condition #3 to clarify no parking on only
the "tee portion" of N. Heritage View Place.
2. Conditional Use Permit — Modified Site Specific Condition #51 to clarify that there
are two (2) gazebos proposed as project amenities.
E. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:
1. Preliminary Plat — Site Specific Condition #7 required the applicant to either submit a
revised plat or submit an addendum to their CUP/PD application to address what staff
believed to be a sub -standard common driveway. However, it was clarified in Mr.
Wardle's testimony at the P&Z Commission hearing that the common driveway is only
intended to serve two lots, not three, as staff believed the plat to depict. So, staff
recommends this condition be amended as follows:
"2• , The applicant shall eW cr suhmitt R�;sed
plat a«� ��compliesy with MCC 12-4-14 (Common Drive Design) for
Lot 2, Block 4. OR s4fait an addeiiditim te the G P,'PD a"heatien fequesting the
neeessary
A note shall be added to the final plat which
prohibits Lot 3 Block 4 from having direct access to the common driveway on Lot
2, Block 4.
2. Preliminary Plat — Prior to the P&Z Commission hearing, the applicant met with
the Meridian Fire Department to address their Condition #I regarding the proposed
29 -foot street section widths. On February 2, 2005, Deputy Chief Silva approved
stamped an alternative street section that widened the 29 -foot wide streets to 30.5',
back-to-back. So, although the 11-29-04 preliminary plat does not reflect it, the
applicant and Fire Department have agreed to this modification.
3. Conditional Use Permit — Site Specific Condition #2 required the Applicant to
submit a detailed plan for the proposed park and tot lot prior to the City Council
hearing. To date, staff has not received said plan. However, after reviewing the file
for the 2004 CUP/PD application, we found a letter from Mr. Johnson (dated 8-8-
04) proposing different gazebo and tot lot feature designs. The gazebos would be
approx. 16-20 feet in height. The tot lot would include "a swing or two with a small
slide, for ages 3-5." For Planned Developments, the City typically requires
applicants to provide more detail than this to ensure the amenities meet the size and
scale of the development. Staff recommends the City Council have the Ap licant
confirm their intentions for these amenities during the public hearing and provide
details of the gazebo and play structure construction materials.
F. Preliminary Plat/CUP Site Plan
1. Date of Revised Preliminary Plat/Site Plan: November 29, 2004
2. Date of Revised Landscape Plan: December 10, 2004
G. Recommended Conditions of Approval (as amended by Commission, if applicable)
Exhibit A — Legal Description
Exhibit B — Preliminary Plat/Site Plan
Exhibit C — Annexation & Zoning Comments
Exhibit D — Preliminary Plat Conditions of Approval
Exhibit E — Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval
Exhibit F — Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order
Exhibit G — Approved Public Street Sections
EXHIBIT A
Alexandria Subdivision
AZ -O4-011
Legal Description
IV. & �d. f nffl4ne,Om, J~,. 5505 W. Frankan Road • Boise. Idaho 83705-1055
Alexandria Subdivision
Annexation Description
A parcel of land situate in the south half of the northeast quarter of Section 31 of
Township 4 North, Range I East of the Boise Meridian, being Lot 1 I of Crestwood
Subdivision No. 1 as recorded in Book 28 of Plats at Pages 1757 and 1758 in the office of
the Ada County, Idaho, Recorder AND adjoining Right -of -Way of North Iocust Grove
Road lying in said Section 3l, being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a brass cap marking the northeast comer of said Section 31;
thence SOO°0T 15"W, 1,661.98 feet along the east boundary of said Section 31 to the
extension of the northerly boundary of said Lot 11, which is the POINT OF
BEGINNING;
Thence S89°46'32"W, 33.00 feet along said extension to the northeastcomer of
said Lot 11;
Thence continuing S89°46'32"W, 1,284.00 feet along the northerly boundary of
said Lot 1 I to the northwest comer of said Lot 11;
Thence S00009'26"W, 332.24 feet along the westerly boundary of said Lot I I to
the southwest comer of said Lot 11;
Thence N89°47'03"E, 1,284.21 feet along the southerly boundary of said Lot 1 I
to the southeast corner of said Lot 11;
Thence continuing N89047'03"E, 33.00 feet along the extension of said southerly
boundary to the east boundary of said Section 3l;
Thence N00°07' 15"11, 332.44 feet along said east boundary to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The above-described parcel contains 10.05 acres, more or less.
EXHIBIT B
Alexandria Subdivision
(AZ -04-011, CUP -04-015)
Approved Preliminary Plat/Site Plan
(see attached)
EXHIBIT C
Annexation and Zoning Application
Alexandria Subdivision (AZ -04 -011 -revised)
ANNEXATION AND ZONING COMMENTS
1. The legal description submitted with the application (stamped by Joseph Canning, dated 5-4-
04) appears to meet the requirements of the City of Meridian and State Tax Commission and
places the parcel contiguous to existing city limits.
2. The requested zoning designation of R-8 is compatible with the City Comprehensive Plan
and Meridian's Zoning Ordinance.
3. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. Essential City services are
available to the subject property.
4. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be
removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517. Wells may be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation.
EXHIBIT F
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION & ORDER
In the matter of a request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zone
AND Preliminary Plat approval of thirty-three (33) single-family residential and four (4)
common lots on 9.8 acres in a proposed R-8 zone AND Conditional Use Permit approval
for a Planned Development for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot area, rear
building setbacks, street side setbacks and minimum street frontage, for Alexandria
Subdivision, by Lonnie Johnson.
Case No(s): AZ -04-011, PP -04-017, CUP -04-015
For the City Council Hearing Date of: March 8, 2005
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts
a. A notice of a public hearing was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to
the City Council public hearing, the first publication appearing and written notice
mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300')
of the external boundaries of the property. The notice of public hearing before the
City Council was posted upon the property under consideration more than one week
before said hearing. All other noticing was done consistent with Idaho Code §67-
6509.
The matter was duly considered by the City Council at the March 8, 2005, public
hearing(s). The applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions
providing services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian were
given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence.
b. Written and oral testimony was received on this matter, as reflected in the records
of the City Clerk (for written testimony) and in the official meeting minutes (for
oral testimony).
C. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing and issued a
written recommendation on the subject matter to the City Council.
d. The City Council heard and took oral and written testimony and duly considered the
evidence and the record in this matter.
2. Process Facts
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). AZ -04-015, PP -04-017, CUP -04-015 - PAGE I of
a. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in
Idaho Code §67-6509, 6512, and Meridian City Code §§ 11-15-5 and 11-17-5 as
evidenced by the Affidavit of Mailing, and the Affidavit of Publication and Proof of
Posting filed with the staff report.
3. Application and Property Facts
a. In addition to the application and property facts noted in the staff report and the
Planning & Zoning Recommendation for the subject application(s), it is hereby
verified that the property owner(s) of record at the time of issuance of these
findings are Lonnie and Karen Johnson.
4. Required Findings per Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
a. See Exhibit F.1 (Annexation and Zoning), Exhibit F.2 (Preliminary Plat) and
Exhibit F.3 (Conditional Use Permit) for the findings required for this application.
B. Conclusions of Law
The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land
Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-
6503).
2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Zoning, Subdivision and
Development Ordinances codified at Titles 11 and 12, Meridian City Code, and all
current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the
Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was
adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code
$ 11-17-9.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not
impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which
shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon
the applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, the Public Works Department and
any affected party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description in Exhibit A, the Preliminary Plat
in Exhibit B, and the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit C, D and E. The conditions are
concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a
condition of approval of the application.
C. Decision and Order
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CAS NO(S). AZ -04-015, PP -04-017, CUP -04-015 - PAGE 2 of
Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 12-3-5 and
based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby
ordered that:
1. The applicant's Preliminary Plat as evidenced by having submitted the Preliminary Plat
dated November 29, 2004 is hereby conditionally approved; and
2. The conditions of approval are as shown in Exhibits C, D and E.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits (as applicable)
1. Notice of Twelve (12) Month Preliminary Plat Duration
Please take notice that after the date of approval of the preliminary plat, the owner or
developer shall have one year within which to file the request for approval of the final
plat. After approval of final plat, the owner or developer shall have one year to begin
construction of the public utilities and one year thereafter to complete construction of
those public facilities. (MCC 12-2-4.13 & C.)
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, the Owner may
request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed
with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision
concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the
time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of
Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has
an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of
the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of
this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho
Code. ,
F. Exhibits
Exhibit F.1: Annexation & Zoning Findings
Exhibit F.2: Preliminary Plat Findings
Exhibit F.3: Conditional Use Permit Findings
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of
, 2005.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). AZ -04-015, PP -04-017, CUP -04-015 - PAGE 3 of 4
COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTINE DONNELL VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD VOTED
MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED
(TIE BREAKER)
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Attest:
William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk
Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department
and City Attorney.
Dated:
City Clerk
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION 8, ORDER
CASE NO(S). AZ -04-015, PP -04-017, CUP -04-015 - PAGE 4 of 4
EXHIBIT F.1.
Annexation and Zoning Findings
Alexandria Subdivision
(File AZ -04-011)
The City Council hereby approves the following analysis of required findings by staff:
According to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning
Amendments, both the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the
particular facts and circumstances of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the
following standards and shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions
about the proposed zoning amendment. "
A. Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment;
Staff finds that the requested zoning designation of R-8 is harmonious
with and in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and
Generalized Land Use Map, which designates the land to be "Mixed Use
Neighborhood." The Special Considerations section of the staff report
discusses the issues surrounding the Neighborhood Center. Pages 4-6 of
the applicant's supplement narrative (dated 12/21/04 by B&A Engineers)
cite several policies from the 2002 Comprehensive Plan that pertain to and
support the annexation. Staff agrees with the policies and statements.
B. Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may
dictate that the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets
been widened, new railroad access been developed or planned or
adjacent area being developed in a fashion similar to the proposed
rezone area;
The area has been designated as a Mixed -Use Neighborhood area in
Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designations
in combination with the subject property's location on an arterial roadway
with existing commercial and residential development helps to make the
proposed development compatible with surrounding land uses and the City
of Meridian's plan for the development of the area. Recently approved
developments in the vicinity of the subject property include Heritage
Commons, Havasu Creek, Razzberry Crossing, and Brockton
Subdivisions.
C. Will the proposed uses be designed, constructed, operated and
maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the
existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use
Alexandria Subdivision — AZ -04-011 — Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law & Decision and Order
Page 1 of 3
will not change the essential character of the same area;
Staff finds that the proposed uses are compatible with the existing and
intended character of the area. The Comprehensive plan designates the
area as Mixed Use — Neighborhood; the proposed residential uses (both
standard and alley -loaded product) are compatible with the
Comprehensive Plan designation, which encourages short blocks and
radiating densities. Staff finds that the proposed uses can be designed and
constructed in a manner that will be harmonious with and appropriate in
appearance with the existing and intended character of the surrounding
area.
D. Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or
future neighboring uses;
The Commission and Council should rely on public testimony to
determine whether or not the proposed use will be disturbing or hazardous
to the neighboring uses.
Staff does not anticipate that the proposed uses will be hazardous or
disturbing to future or existing neighbors.
E. Will the area be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage
structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible
for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to
provide adequately any of such services;
Staff finds that the subject property can be served adequately by most
essential public facilities and services. The Meridian Fire Department
(Deputy Chief Silva) does not allow any on -street parking where the
driveable surface of a street is below 29 feet (back -of -curb to back -of -
curb). As amended, the driveable surface is 30.5 feet (center -of -gutter to
center -of -gutter — as measured by the MFD (see MFD condition # 1).
Sanitary sewer service will be via mainline extensions from Razzberry
Crossing subdivision. Please review ACHD, Police and the Fire
Department's comments concerning this subdivision for further
information regarding public services and facilities.
F. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for
public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community;
Staff finds that there will not be additional requirements at public cost and
that the annexation and zoning will not be detrimental to the community's
Alexandria Subdivision — AZ -04-011 — Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law & Decision and Order
Page 2 of 3
economic welfare.
G. Will the proposed uses not involve uses, activities, processes,
materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be
detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason
of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
Staff finds that the proposed uses will create additional traffic, especially
on Locust Grove Road. However, staff does not believe that the increase
in traffic will be excessive. ACHD staff approved the revised plat (with
conditions) on January 25, 2005. Staff does not anticipate that the
proposed development will generate traffic, noise, smoke, odors or other
nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the
surrounding area.
H. Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall
be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on
surrounding public streets;
Staff finds that the proposed vehicular approach to Locust Grove Road
and the extension of the two stub streets from Razzberry Crossing
Subdivision to the north should not appreciably interfere with traffic on
the surrounding streets. The proposed closure of E. Green Haven Street
where it connects to Locust Grove Road should have a positive impact on
traffic flow on that arterial.
Ada County Highway District's comments should be considered when
making this finding.
I. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance; and
Staff finds that no natural or scenic features of major importance will be
lost or damaged by approval of this annexation request.
J. Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of
Meridian. (Ord. 592, 11-17-1992)"
Staff finds that the annexation of this property would, be in the best interest
of the City by providing a diversity of housing types and lot sizes in one of
Meridian's designated Neighborhood Centers.
Alexandria Subdivision — AZ -04-011— Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law & Decision and Order
Page 3 of 3