Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 1, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 80 of 90 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I'm on a roll now. I recommend we continue AZ 05-038, PP 05- 037, and CUP 05-039, to our regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on September -- Zaremba: 15th. Newton-Huckabay: -- 15th. Moe: Second. Zaremba: September 15th. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion caries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 21: Public Hearing: AZ 05-034 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.89 acres from RUT to R-B zone for Caymus Cove Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - 2745 McMillan Road: Item 22: Public Hearing: PP 05-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 27 single-family residential building lots and 4 other common area lots on 7.89 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Caymus Cove Subdivision by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - 2745 McMillan Road: Zaremba: All right. And we will open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-034 and PP 05-033, both relating to Caymus Cove Subdivision. And we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Caymus Cove is originally a Craig Hood project, Craig had to go get married during the middle of it, so I took it over, so I will give my presentation on this and, hopefully, it's close enough to what the applicant worked with Craig on in the beginning. The preliminary plat includes 27 residential lots, going through an R-8 standard subdivision with a variance for block length. The variance was not included in this application, but it is for the cul-de-sac length, but this has been addressed for -- because of the emergency access point that will be a connection over to McMillan Road, with the bridge or culvert over the Lemp Canal in order to provide for emergency access to the public road, the length of that block of the cul-de-sac. With that the Lemp Canal is all along Meridian Road here and if you look at the landscape plan you will see that there is, actually, two small canals Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 81 of 90 there. One of them is a -- just a local canal and, then, the Lemp Canal is a significant canal. It's -- I think the applicant stated that it would take a 72 inch pipe in order to actually put it underground and so this is mostly not going to be tiled and hasn't been tiled along most sections of McMillan Road. Staff has just requested that the applicant contact -- I believe it's Settler's Irrigation District and provide a letter saying Settler's does not require it to be tiled and, then, that would be -- the tiling requirement will be waived. And with that the applicant has proposed a 33-foot wide landscape buffer, because approximately eight feet of the front of that landscape buffer to McMillan Road is the Lemp Canal. So, he is going to provide the 25-foot landscaping with a berm, fence, and a detached sidewalk, which can be accessed from the emergency access, which will most likely have bollards on it. The Meridian city fire department standard condition says a swing gate or other method. Typically, with this type of development they would put the bollards in there, which would be acceptable as well. They would just have to work with the fire department on that issue. Let me go back to the site plan here. There is an existing home here that has this very odd shaped parcel and the exiting home on the Caymus Cove site is located on I believe Lot 24, with out buildings on Lot 25 as well. With that there is some buildings that straddle lot lines, as well as older buildings, which will be removed, but the main -- I believe it's a shed or a barn will stay on one lot, as well as the existing home will remain on the other of the larger lots in the location. Immediately north of that site there is an access road for future development of the parcel to the east. Again, it's the last parcel to the east and if I go back to this one, as you can see by the platting around here, this is Bridgetower Crossing. There is three phases of Bridgetower that have already been final platted around this area. Once Caymus Cove is incorporated, then, this small parcel with the one home is the last one that is to be developed there. So, we -- or Craig had asked them to bring in -- I'm sorry, I'm going the wrong way. So, Craig has asked them to bring in an access lot, which is the lot here -- it's shown as a 25 foot lot, as well as it's also showing a fire plug in the middle of it, which the applicant has indicated they will relocate that fire plug and make that lot 30 foot wide, in case this parcel upon redevelopment comes in with more than one home, that they have adequate access to that. The existing driveway that is for the access for the existing Caymus Cove home will be fenced off as shown by the landscape plan. They will be allowed to take access to McMillan from that gravel driveway until such time as the road system within Caymus Cove has been developed and, then, they will have to, most likely, access that common lot and, then, to North Station Place. Staff is not overly concerned with that. It's an ACHD condition that no lots within Caymus Cove, which includes the existing residence, shall take access to McMillan and none of these lots bordering that gravel driveway shall take access to that gravel driveway, which is fairly standard. With that I believe I have covered everything I need to and I will stand for questions if needed. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 82 of 90 Moe: The lots to the west, are -- what are these? Are they R-8's? The reason I ask that is in the Comp Plan all this area is -- is noted to be low density and so I'm just curious what is on the rest at the present time? Guenther: Right. The areas of Bridgetower was an R-4 with a planned development. With the planned development -- I guess this aerial photograph doesn't show it. There is a very large open space through the middle of it, as well as they have larger lots -- as you can see, these lot are significantly larger. And, then, they did a mixed type of development. Their smallest lots are the ones closest to Caymus Cove and they are the ones closest to McMillan Road. With that all of lots are minimum of -- I believe they are 6,500 square feet and many of them approach the R-4 standard. Moe: No. I was going to say, I think it transitions okay. That's why I was just curious what was on the west to see how it transitioned into there and they are small enough that -- Guenther: Right. Reduced lots for the Bridgetower. Moe: Right. Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Just a comment on page three, paragraph F, subdivision plat information, number nine, I think was a typo. Guenther: The correct number is 3.74 dwelling units to the acre, not 8.74 dwelling units to the acre. That has been corrected for the City Council already. Zaremba: Okay. I'm sorry. And in that case we are ready for the applicant. Boyle: Planning comission members, Clint Boyle with Landmark -- Landmark Engineering and Planning. Business address of 104 9th Avenue South in Nampa. It's a pleasure to be here this evening. I should have went with my gut instinct and actually tucked my kids into bed before I showed up here, but that's okay. I showed up about 8:30. Haven't spent the entire evening. So, appreciate you guys wading through a lot of these items this evening. We have worked most of the issues with the staff. Just a couple of comments as was noted by the Planning Commission very briefly and that is with this project we have tried to transition the lots. Bridgetower Crossing immediately west of us in the patio home or town-home area, those lots are around 5,500 square feet it size and, then, as you come over you get into some of the larger lot, so they are eight to ten thousand square feet. If you look at our plat, we tried to put our smallest lots up against the townhouse lots and, then, the larger ones are on the east side of the plat for Caymus Cove. So, again, just trying to promote that transition between the lots. And as far as the street itself, this particular piece of property was only provided one stub street by Bridgetower and that was down at the south end of property on Station in this location here. That is the only stub street to this property. We have had some discussions on the front end with staff, with ACHD, and, obviously, with other driveways and whatnot on McMillan, the recommendation was that we bring this in, we cul-de-sac Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 83 of 90 it and provide an emergency access only coming in off of McMillan. Everything else falls well within the threshold that ACHD has for the amount of traffic on the local streets and it works out very well. So, we are excited to bring this in. It is, essentially, surrounded by development. The staff hit on the canals. There is a very large canal along McMillan and, just to clarify, they do want to leave that open. The Bridgetower Crossing has some commercial further to the west of the townhouse area and I believe maybe even the townhouse area where they piled it in front of that location or where they specifically have commercial uses and townhouses, but everywhere else as you head to the east along that canal through many different projects, Settler's Bridge -- you could probably rattle off a bunch of them. The school that just opened, that canal is open that entire lane. So, again, we are -- due to the size and the extensive size of that canal, requesting that it remain open. I've had discussion with the irrigation district. I don't have a written letter out of them yet, but verbal on the phone they don't have any problem with us leaving that untiled, leaving it open. So, again, that is the approach that we are going to take with that and I believe that the large canal is actually the Settler's Canal and the Lemp is the small user ditch that's immediately adjacent to it, is my understanding from talking to the irrigation district. So, just to clarify that, I think that Settler's is the very large canal that's on McMillan and the Lemp is the little user canal that's adjacent to the Lemp we will tile, but the Settler's we'd like to remain open. I'll answer any questions and appreciate you letting us run it a little late this evening. Zaremba: Commissioner, any questions? Borup: No questions. Just a comment for Mr. Boyle. Next time you decide -- when you do decide to come late, everything before you, you know, will either be continued or postponed or something. Boyle: That's the risk you always run. But I thought about setting up a new business and just having a high school kid or something come and sit here and just call you up, you know, a couple items before you're up. Might not be a bad idea. Rohm: I thought that same way myself. Zaremba: Just to clarify, apparently you are working with this property owner that is not a part of it. They are not wishing to be annexed at this time? Boyle: That's my understanding. I believe they are here this evening and the discussion in the neighborhood meeting -- we did hold a neighborhood meeting. They were in attendance and I believe there was one property owner for Bridgetower that I think we addressed all their concerns from that particular neighbor and those were the only people who were in attendance at the neighborhood meeting. And my understanding was that they did not want to annex at this particular point in time. What we have done in working with the staff was provide the common lot and we agreed to have it 30 feet wide. We will provide an ingress-egress easement over it, so at a point in time when this property splits into two or three parcels or whatever may happen Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 84 of 90 there, that they can come in through this project and, then, that access to McMillan will be totally abandoned. The existing gravel drive. That's been our discussion. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Boyle: Thank you. Zaremba: All right. We do have a couple people signed up and I will begin with Donald Kelso, please. Is he still here? He may have escaped. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Was he for or against? Zaremba: Next would be Steve Tolman. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Was the first person that's not here, for or against the project? Zaremba: I'm sorry, I should have said that. He is marked as being for. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Tolman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commission. I'm Steve Tolman. I live at 2695 West McMillan, which is the property to the east, which is approximately -- well, including the driveways, 1.6 acres and currently is county and in discussions with your planning staff, what your position is, that you have not typically done forced annexations and so I wish to make it known at this point that I do not wish to be annexed and I wish to remain in the county and that's my request as property owner and I hope that you will consider that. Just a couple of additional items in relation to that point, I have lived in this property approximately two years and in the last three, three and a half years I purchased it and it was sold one other time and also the Bridgetower development was started up within that time frame. So, my thinking is that if you were going to annex, that you would have done it when that Bridgetower development was going through the approval. Didn't happen, then, so why should it happen now. One other point that -- I don't know if it was addressed. We talked about the lots to the west in Bridgetower, but the one thing that they have not addressed are the lots to the east in Bridgetower, which are significantly larger lots, which has a cul-de-sac that runs parallel with McMillan, which is all the grey area there that's not on your map yet, but now it is completed and I believe most of those have been sold. So, there is some lot size conflict in that area and with my lot. I marked the "neutral" box, but I could be on the "against" box, I guess, in certain circumstances. So, that's just -- you know, those lots -- some of them have been sold, but I'm sure that those people who purchased those lots were not notified of this public meeting, because I'm sure that their property records were not updated, because it has happened recently. A couple other points where the -- as I guess as Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 85 of 90 was mentioned the private lane, my hope is that that will remain, just to put that on the public record. And I guess the access point into their new street, just one question or clarification. Now, if that is in the future developed and would be annexed, is that the point where water and sewer would be accessed for my property? Zaremba: That question we will pass onto staff. Guenther: Typically, yes, there is going to be a sewer connection that will be available through that common lot and -- and that's where the future sewer extension would occur and, then, your existing access, as long as you remain in the county, we wouldn't be opposed to maintaining that McMillan access. It's an ACHD policy that when you redevelop that your arterial access be eliminated and they have been very consistent with that in other locations in the city. So, until such time as your -- most likely your septic fails and you're forced to hook up for other reasons, then, your annexation would be when that would occur and it would be through that ingress-egress access to North Station Place. Tolman: So, that would be stubbed to the property line? Guenther: That is proposed to stub to your property line, but it would be available to you through that -- through their connection. Tolman: Okay. Do you have any questions? I guess that summarizes my comments. Try to keep it brief and get us all home for some sleep. Rohm: I have a question. What would be your opposition to annexation? I mean it appears to me that you're going to be receiving all the services that the adjacent properties are that are within the city. Just curious, what's your opposition? Tolman: Well, my understanding is you basically lose many rights and options when you are annexed, being that you cannot have your own private lane, you cannot have livestock, you cannot use your existing -- you lose your investment in the livestock facilities that you have from what I was told by -- who did I talk to? Craig, I believe, is who I have spoken with that told me that. I mean I don't know if that's correct or not, but that's not desirable to me, so that's why -- Rohm: I was just curious. Guenther: He is correct, Craig was given the correct information. We don't have an agricultural zone. Tolman: So, you're saying that I have no grandfather right? Guenther: There is always grandfather rights, we just don't have an agricultural zone if you wanted to maintain livestock. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 86 of 90 Tolman: So, you're saying I could have had them there for a hundred years, but that doesn't matter? Borup: No. Canning: Chairman Zaremba, it's up to you whether you want staff to comment or not, so we will take direction from you. Zaremba: I was kind of deciding who, whether it would be Mr. Nary or you. But, yes, if you would, please. Canning: The new Unified Development Code has nonconforming -- it would become a nonconforming use upon annexation. So, there is a nonconforming use, there is nonconforming structures, and nonconforming property. Thank you. But if it ceased for any period of time, then, it -- within those provisions, it could not restart. Tolman: So how about upon sale? Could you transfer those rights? Canning: They run with the property if the use continues. Tolman: So, as long as you have no more than a six-month lapse you could continue them? Canning: Yeah. And I think it's actually longer than six months, but I'm not sure at this point -- I'd have to check on the particulars, yeah, as long as the use continued and didn't expand, it could continue. The ownership doesn't affect that. Tolman: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: I just had one clarification question, Mr. Tolman. I think I understand what you're saying about the annexation, but are you in favor of this egress access to your property as -- you really didn't make a statement either way. Would you just as soon it wasn't there or are you -- Tolman: I'm uncertain as to which one you're referring to. Borup: The 30-foot -- the one that the staff required them to increase from 25 to 30 feet to allow you to -- Tolman: I'm kind of neutral on that. I see it, maybe, as a potential benefit if I was to ever sell, have some possibility of development. That's about the only positive I see to it. Borup: And the negative was what? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1, 2005 Page 87 of 90 Tolman: Well, that it may lead to sooner annexation than without. Borup: Well, I think the city has already stated that. And the only benefit is to you. I mean, you know, to allow you to develop that. Otherwise, without that it sounds like you would not be able to do anything with your property, other than what it is now. Tolman: Now, what would happen -- okay. Say that that did happen, to have the 25 foot -- 24,25 foot driveway that the lane -- what happens to that property? Borup: That would still be part of this subdivision, but an access easement into yours, is my understanding. So, you would have rights to build a road over that to access Station Place. Is that what it is? Otherwise, you're landlocked. Tolman: Yeah. I understand that. But-- Borup: It was done as a benefit for your property. Tolman: It's harder and harder to find land, so that's why I'm staying put. Borup: Yeah. It makes sense. Especially acreage like that. Thank you. Tolman: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Actually, I had two lists and now that I look at the second list there are more people. So, I will ask Brian Cooper -- marked as for, but he indicates from the audience he has nothing to add. Kevin Churchman. Marked as for. Has nothing to add. Merrill Smith -- Mark. I'm sorry. That's Mark Smith. Okay. He's marked as for and indicates he has nothing to add. Stephanie Churchman. Okay. She's marked as for and has nothing to add. So, that's all the sign-up sheet. Anybody who didn't sign up who cares to comment? Okay. Okay. We are ready for the applicant to come back. Boyle: Planning commission members, again, Clint Boyle. There really isn't a whole lot to add. We have tried to accommodate the Tolmans by providing that common lot with the ingress-egress easement and utility easement over it. So, again, in the future if they wanted to do something with their property, they have that availability there. And, then, all these lots in our development are proposed to go out to Station Place, including the existing home. There will be fencing there. The Tolmans will still have their existing gravel drive on the interim basis until they do something with their property. So, I think that it is a benefit for them what we are proposing here. That's something that the staff, in working with them, had asked that we do and it just makes good sense for the future, I believe. As far as the transitional lots, again, our small lots are on the west adjacent to the 5,500 square foot lots. We have lots that are, you know, 6,500 square foot lots up to some 7,OOOs. On the east side of our project, you start down with the cul-de-sac, there is 14,000 square feet, 11, nine, 14, 17, 14, seven, several eights, a ten as you go Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission September 1,2005 Page 88 of 90 further north. So, again, I mean I think it's a really good mix and we certainly looked at Bridgetower and what they have done and tried to make this a good transition between us and them. We are tying our sidewalk into the Bridgetower system. It's a sidewalk that's actually south of that major canal and Bridgetower is already running those sidewalks and we will tie into the sidewalk system and just try to make this integrate just as well as we could with the constraints that we were given. And with that we respectfully ask for your approval this evening and, again, appreciate your time. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any further questions? Thank you very much. Boyle: Thank you. Zaremba: Any discussion? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move we close the public hearings on AZ 05-034 and PP 05-033. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? . Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-034 and PP 05-033, to include all staff comments for the hearing date September 1, 2005, and received August 29th, 2005, with no changes. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 23: Public Hearing: AZ 05-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for The Reserve Subdivision Revised by Conger Management Group - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: