Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 1, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 66 of 90 Moe: Is that what those will do? Zaremba: I think so. Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Since no one else was saying anything yet, I move we recommend approval to City Council of file number CUP 05-040, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date September 1 st, with the following modifications and that is to add some type of planter or benching or something to prevent traffic flow through the previous drive-thru access -- Zaremba: I would say at both ends of it. Borup: Right. At both ends coming from -- yeah. That previously went from the parking lot to Main Street. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Moe: No cross-access? Borup: Yes. Right. And there will be a cross access. Zaremba: That requires removing the curb. Borup: As stated in the letter from Washington Fede'ral. Rohm: I'll second that also. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 05-039 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.99 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Pisa Place Subdivision by Howard Jenkins - 3893 South Locust Grove Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 05-038 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 single family residential building lots and 1 common area lot on 4.99 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Pisa Place Subdivision by Howard Jenkins - 3893 South Locust Grove Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 67 of 90 Zaremba: Okay. Open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-039 and PP 05-038, relating to Pisa Place Subdivision. And we will begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Members of the Commission. The application for Pisa Place Subdivision lies on the west side of South Locust Grove, south of Victory Road. Immediately adjacent to the recently approved Chatsworth Subdivision, which is not constructed yet, and a little bit to the north of Chatsworth is also recently approved Roseleaf, which has begun construction. And, then, to the east would be parts of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. The applicant has proposed 16 single family building lots on 4.99 acres and has proposed to be annexed as an R-8 zone. The site is not proposed to take access from South Locust Grove Road, it would take access from a future road in Chatsworth, East Pisa Street. The applicant has presented a couple different street sections here. At the connection to Chatsworth Subdivision it would be a standard street section with attached sidewalks with the standard ACHD right of way. At the point that the northern cul-de-sac, if you will, here attaches, then, it would become detached sidewalks with ACHD drainage swales for handling the site storm water drainage requirements. There is an existing home on the property here that would have a large lot platted around it and, then, the access to South Locust Grove would, then, be eliminated with this plat and all the lots in the subdivision would take access internally from Chatsworth Subdivision. One -- a couple things. The applicant, in discussion with him, did not mean to, but dedicated a 25 foot landscape buffer, I guess I would say. This is a collector road -- South Locust Grove here is designated as a collector road and as such has a 20 foot required landscape buffer. The plat master plans do show a 25 foot landscape buffer and that was requested that we might have conditions of approval to require the 20 foot and staff is supportive of that comment, for the 20 foot -- is what the ordinance calls for and is what has been determined to be appropriate on collector road sections of this. So, I think we are in agreement with that and we are okay with that. One -- a couple of -- another condition that staff has placed on this is to graphically depict the transition from the attached sidewalk street section to the detached sidewalk street section, the area here where Leaning Tower intersects Pisa Court. And also for the applicant to depict any street trees proposed need to be clarified tonight at the hearing what, if any, street trees are proposed as part of that parkway. In other subdivisions on the other side of Locust Grove, for Tuscany Lakes, when they re-platted, ACHD did allow one street tree per property line intersection, meaning that where these property lines meet the right of way at a 90 degree angle, they would allow one tree there and one tree there. I don't know if they allowed the same on this site. I'll let the applicant address that. Staff would just like some clarification if any street trees are proposed. Also in your packets is a letter from a homeowner across Locust Grove Road discussing some problems with some irrigation water on the property and backing onto his property. I did speak with the applicant's representative. He does believe that it's possible that the pipe -- what happens is, in a nutshell here, and if I'm not understanding this completely, the applicant can clarify, but a pipe does come under Locust Grove Road and, then, is brought north to provide irrigation water to a property up on the corner of Victory and Locust Grove. At this point where it enters the property, apparently there is some backing of the water that, then, ends up on the property across Locust Grove. The applicant's representative did say Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 68 of 90 that he believes that the pipe through this section of property may be undersized and that may be part of the problem, or it just may not have -- may have deteriorated to the point that they don't have a good entry to the pipe or it's clogged or something. He did represent that that pipe will be replaced and rebuilt as part of this project and was confident that the pipe would be sized as Chatsworth and Roseleaf were when they were approved at an appropriate size to move the water through the property. Apparently, the property owner to the north was getting their irrigation water -- you know, there is a state law that says you have to deliver their water rights to them. So, apparently, they were getting their water okay, it was just causing problems for this downstream -- or this upstream user here. But the applicant's representative did testify -- or represented that they could fix that. With that, I think I'll stand for any questions from the Commission. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Not yet. And the applicant is already making his way forward. Mr. Brown. Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1800 West Overland, Boise, Idaho. I guess Lot 7, the existing home, just to clarify, currently there is a driveway at this location right here that the existing home takes its access. It has a circle drive in front of the house and, then, a garage over here on this side where they pull in. We have discussed with the Chatsworth people about getting a cross-access easement and accessing their entrance road, but eliminating our access out to Locust Grove. Staff suggested that we were going to enter from here and that will not be the case. We are going to work with our neighbors, they are going to have some landscaping and so forth here. There is already an existing berm in here. We will have to remove that so we can access that. The reason the irrigation water backs up is they built a berm in front of the house in this location, this is pasture, and the water comes over and flows in and I believe the pipe's dirty. We need to put it on alignment, pick it up with what Chatsworth is stubbing to us, which Roseleaf stubbed to them and which Tuscany Village -- we stubbed to them. So, we are very familiar with that ditch and that shouldn't be a problem. We will extend it to our southern property line. There is also another gravity ditch over here in the corner that we are going to connect in with Chatsworth also. We are sharing irrigation -- pressure irrigation water with them and so we have been in discussion with them all along. We weren't intending in this area to put any street trees, as staff asked us to clarify that. We are using the bio swale section, but we hadn't anticipated or planned on doing any street trees. We were planning on landscaping this berm. Right now this is just a big steep mound of dirt with lots of weeds on it. Giving it a nice slope consistent with what else has been done along Locust Grove. The reason that we are using this street section with the bio swale is because of the depth of the groundwater in the area. The subdivision to the west, Chatsworth, was able to -- from their reports had deeper groundwater and we have higher groundwater. So, that's why we are transitioning to this street section and proposing to use it. We would prefer to make this 20 feet. And other than that, I think we are pretty consistent with what Chatsworth was approved and Roseleaf or at least or -- or not our leans, but our lots are similarly sized. Has to be the hour, I think. Anyway, these lots along our southerly boundary are consistent with Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 69 of 90 what's in Chatsworth to the west of us. The remainder of the lots are larger than what you would see in any of those other developments. I'd stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners? Moe: You couldn't hit it at a better time. That's exactly my question I wanted ask you and that is you have done very well with the lots sizes for this, other than I do question the south lots, because they are, basically, bordering up to -- in the Comp Plan would be -- which would be R-4 designation to the south there. And so you're not doing any transition per se from an R-4 into that there, because they are all 6,500 square foot lots. I'm just -- I realize you talk about to the west is, you know, the R-8 one and I'm just kind of curious, did you guys even think about enlarging those lots on the south side at all? Brown: You end up with kind of a difficult situation where the road is stubbed and what we can really do right there. I guess we could have added a few extra feet to them, but it really just didn't -- didn't quite work out. We felt that -- I mean these in this area are a lot -- a lot bigger. We kind of had to do that, because of how we saved the house. We did look at snoopies versus the cul-de-sacs. The highway district -- it became more difficult in doing those snoopies, except, you know, in in-fill and they would view this as in-fill, but it just -- this just seemed to be the best design for what we were kind of dealt with this five acres. And, then, trying to protect the integrity of that house. So, we did try a couple of different looks at some other things, but did always keep -- you know, we always had 6,500, which was what was along the street to the west of us. Moe: Well, again, I see this and, then, the lot sizes are great, other than on the south side. I do have a concern that if, in fact, when the property to the south does develop, and it is R-4, that they may have some problems in the future abutting up to an R-8, right up to 6,500 square feet. We see that all the time in reverse here and so I'm just kind of concerned about going ahead and going with it that way, but -- Zaremba: On the other hand, if this one is there first, they don't have anything to complain about when they build. Moe: And I agree there, too, but -- Borup: And they will probably ask for an R-8 anyway. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Mr. Brown, you're saying -- you're contending that that irrigation pipe is a proper size and that the flooding that is being caused now is because it's not cleaned properly? Brown: I was out there during an irrigation time and the water does puddle right here and on where it was going, because you really couldn't see it and there is -- I mean it -- they really just -- instead of calling it a berm, it's just a big massive pile of dirt that's there in front of that house and at the south end of that berm or pile of dirt, the water -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 70 of 90 kind of the property dips down and you have got this wall of dirt and so it goes down into a pipe. So, I have no clue what size the pipe is and to the north of the driveway was unkind bushes that prevented me from venturing further, but I know that the pipe came out, because you could see it running and I have already been in contact with the engineers to the north and they are continuing that pipe that Tuscany Village did in . another bridge project for this. Borup: So, is this pipe going to be replaced through here? Brown: Yes. Borup: Oh. Okay. That answers Mr. Pulman's concern, then, that the pipe is going to be replaced anyway. Brown: It's going to -- so, basically, you're going to have a continuous grade from the user at the corner all the way to our southerly boundary, with all new pipe that's less than two years old. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: That should be help. Any other questions? Rohm: Mr. Brown, I'm still a little bit concerned about this access to this lot via -- this is a roadway to the adjacent development; is that correct? Brown: Right. Rohm: Maybe I should ask staff this while you're up here. Brown: I can speak to that. I spoke to staff about it and asked them if it was possible for us to do that on an -- and she told me just so that I worked it out with my neighbor. And I spoke to the neighbor and said, you know, you might lose some landscaping in this area and, in turn, we would landscape the corner, so that it dressed up his entrance and it would just basically be a driveway entrance, so -- we couldn't think of highway district conflicts that creates for one -- Zaremba: That was going to be my question. The driveway is far enough back from Locust Grove that it meets their requirement? Brown: Yeah. I mean, realistically, I would have the right, I believe, to access anywhere along that road. Borup: That abuts your property? Brown: Yeah. I mean that -- legally I would have that ability, but what we are working with the neighbor is to try to move it back up here and from my standpoint make it better Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 71 of 90 for the both of us. He's going to get screening if I bring this -- extend this landscaping down -- if I bring my landscaping around that corner, he's going to have both sides of his entrance landscaped. My client is going to live in that house. He's going to have the ability to be behind a berm and landscaping with a driveway entrance. So, I think we have addressed all of those, but you can definitely ask Anna. She's here. Rohm: Well, I think your -- I think your response is what I was looking for, just to make sure that the access into the lot is far enough off of Locust Grove that it doesn't cause problems with that roadway. Thank you. Zaremba: Let's see. And the letter we have been talking about is from Herman R. Pullman. I think we have addressed most of his issues. There is nobody signed up to speak on this item. If anybody would care to add something that needs to be said. Newton-Huckabay: I just think Mr. Brown needs to come up and discuss roadside swales for a half an hour. Zaremba: Yes. Actually, we have had that discussion before. Newton-Huckabay: We get to discuss roadside swales. Zaremba: We have talked about roadside swales. I think we have finally learned what they are and how they work. Okay. In that case, Mr. Brown doesn't need to rebut any comments. And Commissioners? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Who was that? Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yes. I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-039 and PP 05-038. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I would just -- I just wanted to mention one thing. We did talk with Mr. Brown about that access and he's correct that we are in support of that. I would just make a request for one modification to this -- to the conditions of approval in light of that. I just misinterpreted the submittal. It looked like it was taking access off of that cul-de-sac. So, I would just add the -- Zaremba: I assumed the same thing looking at it, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 72 of 90 Wilson: Yeah. I would just add the condition of approval that they do need to submit a cross-access agreement with the final plat for the property, so that we make sure that there is something in place there to access that property. Zaremba: Okay. Wilson: That's alii had. Moe: That's the property to the north? Wilson: Correct: Zaremba: Do we know the name of the street? Wilson: It is on -- well, let me look here. I can't quite read it up there. That's East De Vinci Drive. Zaremba: We might mention that. Commissioner Moe, you seem to be preparing for this. Moe: I'm preparing for it. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward -- excuse me. I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number AZ 05-039 and PP 05-038, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September the 1 st, 2005, and preliminary plat dated July 7, 2005, with the following modifications to conditions of approval and that would be to submit a cross-access agreement for the street East De Vinci Drive with the property to the north. Zaremba: Lot 7. Moe: Lot 7. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: That was for both. Zaremba: That was a cough when I asked for any nays. It was five votes in favor. Moe: Oh. Sorry about that. Yes, it was. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 73 of 90 Moe: That was for both of those. They were both noted, the AZ and the PP both were. Zaremba: You did them together. I wasn't -- Moe: That was within the proposed motion as notes in the staff report. Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 05-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.57 acres from R-1 to R-8 zone for Breinholt Subdivision by Richard and Susan Breinholt - 2580 North Meridian Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 05-036 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 single family residential lots and 3 other lots on 3.57 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Breinholt Subdivision by Richard and Susan Breinholt - 2580 North Meridian Road: Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. In that case we are ready to open the public hearing for AZ 05-037 and PP 05-036, relating to Breinholt Subdivision. And we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Breinholt Subdivision is located off of Meridian Road just slightly -- well, it's a half-mile north of Fairview Avenue. The location is another one of those long, sort of skinny pieces that we deal with quite often. This would be considered an in-fill parcel as approximately 80 percent of it is surrounded by existing platted lots. The property to the north of it, we have had discussions with the owner and they will in the future probably be bringing in a similar type of a development with a stub street that would have to connect through this subdivision or this proposal. As you can see from the aerial photo there is a two major features. One would be the South Slough, which runs along a portion of the northern border, which the South Slough does call for a multi-use pathway. This is listed in the -- as a portion of the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat doesn't include the landscape plan for this proposal, just because of the size of the parcel, it's very minimal. The parcel is also proposing to have -- I'm sorry. The second feature is the existing home that's on there, which will be removed. The odd feature for the site is the four stub streets coming from the south, which is Fothergill Point. Normally, we don't see a three and a half acre site with four stub streets to it. The applicant has made the best of this situation, as shown here. I did meet with them many times in order to discuss alternates and proposals. And the proposal here is what staff recommend to them. There are several parcels here. There is 22 single family residential parcels and about two-thirds of them are single family attached product, which would be townhomes. The roadway system is currently shown as 29 feet back of curb to back of curb. Staff is recommending one additional condition to just define that in order to meet fire department concerns, which would be the 29 feet from front of curb to front of curb. So, they are going to just have to up that six inches in there for a minor, minor redesign. With that, the -- there is one issue in the staff report and it does indicate that the date of the preliminary plat is July 13th in a couple of situations. This plat was amended for July 20th. And so all references to July 13th should be July 20th and that would be the