Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 17, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 8 of 37 Zaremba: They are represented by the same person. Baird: Unfortunately, I'd recommend against that. Zaremba: Okay. Baird: In order to keep the record clean in case some information came up that you might want to deny one and approve the other, you're going to go in separate directions, so to keep the record straight, they need to be separate. However, I think that staff is going to be giving probably more of the presentation for the first one as a general background, so you will probably have a quicker staff presentation on the second hearing. I'm just presuming that. But for purposes of maintaining separate records, I think we have to have separate public hearings. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from November 3, 2005: AZ 05-048 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 14.81 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for McGee Property by Martin Artis - 3086 South Mesa Way and 1252 East Victory Road: Zaremba: I see Mr. Hood nodding and I appreciate your input. So, I will not combine them. In that case, let me open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-048, relating to the McGee property and even though this is continued, it was continued for a noticing thing and we have had no prior discussion on it. So, we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. And since this has been continued, but the staff report wasn't presented, as I promised, I will be brief, but I do want to run over some of the facts around this property and the adjacent property that we will discuss more in detail next. The applicant for the McGee annexation has applied for an R-4 zone, which is a medium to low-density residential zoning district on 14.81 acres that's outlined there in the purple color. It is currently zoned RUT in Ada county. The site is located on the north side of Victory Road and on the east side of Mesa Way, which is a local street in Kachina Estates. It's on the left-hand side. I'm going to grab a pointer real quick. Sorry about that. So, this is Mesa, which is in Kachina Estates. There are five lot subdivisions -- or five-acre lots in Kachina Estates, primarily, and the subject annexation incorporates three of those lots. As you can see from the aerial, it's currently rural residential. There are two existing single-family homes on the subject property. The third parcel is currently vacant or does not have a home on it. Just to kind of orient some more, there is a grange hall here across Victory. This is the platted part of Tuscany Subdivision in the city. And I guess that's -- it's pretty much low density residential around this today. It is rapidly transforming into more urban densities, as some of the adjacent subdivisions to the east and west both. The applicant has not submitted a preliminary plat with the subject application. However, they did submit a conceptual site plan, which you see here. As the chair mentioned earlier, it's the same representative of this 14.8 acres as it is the next property. What we have done here is outlined the subject area in red. It should be noted that the city is not approving this concept plan. We do require these now with our annexations if they Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 9 of 37 don't submit a detailed site plan or preliminary plat. There are some concepts that we do like or we need to change with this concept plan. We have called that out in the development agreement, some of the conditions in the development agreement, and I will touch on those right now or after I just briefly kind of describe what's going on with the concept plan. We do have one public street coming in off of Mesa Way, which does tie back into Victory. And, then, internal streets throughout. They are public streets -- or that's at least one of the conditions that we are looking at with the development agreement. I think the applicant's proposing public streets anyway. It's not fully clear, but they have enough right of way that they could be public streets. Some of the other conditions in the development agreement that we were looking at -- the Comprehensive Plan map does show a multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek and so we have made that a condition of when this property does develop they need to construct that pathway. It's kind of up to them to get it from Victory to Mesa, but it, basically, needs to go through this property. Also that the street buffer on Victory Road be installed, that all 14.8 acres be included in that plat. They are showing the existing home sites to be not a part of that subdivision and there is a couple of reasons that the staff is not supportive of leaving those existing homes out of plats. One is for infrastructure. You don't get the right of way, you don't get the sidewalk, you have gaps in those types of infrastructure. Two -- and this is the next part of the development agreement condition -- is they have existing access points to arterial streets and we do try to limit those and so we can reevaluate access points when these come back in or are part of a plat. If they are left out, they are basically grand fathered in and not part of that. So, that is something that those two are two -- the two main reasons that we do want to see this whole thing come back in for development and preliminary and final plat approval. And, then, probably the last couple ones that I will touch on is that we do like the interconnectivity proposed here, so they do need to, you know, show that -- or provide access to the adjacent five acre parcel, so those can develop when those property owners are ready to develop those sites. So, with that I think I will conclude my comments. Staff is recommending approval with those conditions as outlined in the staff report for the development agreement and I will stand for any questions you may have. Zaremba: Commissioners, any question, please? Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yes, I do have one. Craig, I would be curious, realizing this is just conceptual, would staff be looking at some type of a stub street to the property to the east? Hood: Mr. Chair and Commissioners, the stub street with this property, particularly -- and this is, again, assuming this whole thing develops -- I say the whole thing, the whole 20 acres develops together. Just by chance, if this just came in by itself, we would look for that interconnectivity here, to both of these five-acre parcels -- adjacent five acre parcels. The interconnectivity is provided through this other parcel, if it comes in. So, we haven't gotten into that much detail with these and specifically said this is where you need to provide this stub street. Some of those policies we have when we review subdivisions, so we can include those as conditions of approval for the subdivision, so -- Moe: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 10 of 37 Zaremba: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. We are ready for the applicant, then, please. Cronin: Eric Cronin with Roylance and Associates, representing our clients. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, as Craig had mentioned, we are looking for an R-4 zone. As far as areas around it, it is -- does meet the Comp Plan with R-4 and areas around it, as well as R-8. As far as the two existing homes on these 14 plus acres, those are to be included in the platted subdivision if that were to -- as we move forward into the preliminary plat stage. I don't really know if there is a whole lot more to say, other than what Craig has said. It's all planned to be annexed in and rezoned as an R-4 is what we would like to see. And with that I would entertain any questions you guys may have. Zaremba: You mentioned that the two existing house lots would be included in the plat, I think you said. And you're comfortable with them being included in the annexation as well; right? Cronin: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. That was my only question. Rohm: As long as you agree with the staff report, it sounds pretty good to me, too. Cronin: We ask that all the area included within this annexation be annex and rezoned all as one portion. Borup: How about other aspects? Is there any part of the staff report on the requirements for the development agreement you had any concerns or questions on? Cronin: If there were concerns, it would be on the existing home lot along Victory Road, as far as -- it sounded like Craig mentioned to it, when we get further into the preliminary plat stage, the question about access -- direct access onto Victory would be looked into further at that point. Zaremba: And the likelihood is that it would be eliminated at that point. That's the goal. Cronin: Yes. Zaremba: Once there is an option -- once the street goes from the north end of the property -- Cronin: Yeah. And I believe that they would still be able to get lot access from the interior roads without a problem. Zaremba: That's just kind of a warning with that issue. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 11 of 37 Cronin: That's understandable, yes. Zaremba: Okay. Cronin: Any further questions? Zaremba: No other questions? - - -- - - Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I may add this -- Eric as well, but the way that the DA condition is worded or the language that we are proposing in there is that it would -- when this plats, there is no direct lot access. So, that's how it's worded. There really isn't much up for discussion in the future the way it's currently written in the staff report. So, just so that's clear. The other thing, Mr. Chair, I did note there was some confusion, but everything is being included. What they have left out of the plat -- the conceptual plat are the two home lots. So, all of the property on these three lots are being annexed. So, I just -- it's all being annexed. We don't need new legal descriptions or anything like that. That's all good. It's all just to be included within the plat, so -- thank you. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Cronin: As a clarification, that -- their larger blocks out of -- you know, it looks like they are less dense, it's just we wanted to include what was the majority of the green space that already existed as to that lot as its own still. If you were to look at the aerial and put that on top of it. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. We will take public testimony and, then, call on you again. Let's see. I will go through the list of people that signed up, but let me first ask if there is anybody who is a spokesman for a group of people or other people. Apparently not. Okay. We, then, we will go individually. Martin Artis. If you will come up to the microphone, sir. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: If I can make one -- just one quick question of the applicant. Did you guys have a neighborhood meeting in regards to this project? Zaremba: Please. Cronin: Eric Cronin again. At the time of applicant -- or application, there was not a need to be -- have posted for a neighborhood meeting. Now, if we were to go further we would have to, as I believe the application process has changed. Moe: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 12 of 37 Rohm: SO, the answer is no? Cronin: The answer is no. None was held. Moe: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you, Mr. Artis. Artis: My name is Martin Artis. I'm the investor in this project and I believe it's going to be a very fine project and an asset to Meridian. That's all the comment I have. Zaremba: Thank you. Aaron McGee. You're welcome to say from where you are that you have been spoken for. Mr. McGee has been spoken for. Mark Carrington is it? He's been spoken for as well. Anna Key Binford. Or Aneke Binford. I'll let you correct me when you get up. Binford: It is actually Aneke Binford. Zaremba: Okay. Binford: And I live at 3101 South Mesa Way, which is -- it's the road that runs through -- across Ten Mile. I just -- I don't know if you're aware that Mesa Way is a dead-end street. You probably do know that. It's Kachina Estates. It is a fully developed neighborhood. It's not like a little piece of ground with acreages around it. And you're looking at the other plat map that they had. Yeah. It looks like there are probably, what, five or six houses that are going to be set right on Mesa Way and to me it's just pretty inconsistent to be putting that many houses in a five acre subdivision. It seems like there would be no difference than someone in Banbury saying, hey, we have got a pretty big lot behind us, let's put a duplex on it. So, it just -- I don't understand how that can be consistent with an established neighborhood, to start chunking away and I think it would affect our property values as well. So, that's all I have to say. So, I'm opposed to that. Zaremba: Any questions, Commissioners? Okay. We will have some discussion on that point. Thank you. Matt Binford. He's been spoken for. Thank you. Okay. The first name, I believe, is Tony and the last name might be Mose or Moore? It's Moss and he's been spoken for. Thank you. Ralph -- is it Lamms? Is that close? Let me take the next one and if I get to the end and haven't called you, then, we will assume that was the one. Rich Yarrington. Yarrington: Richard Yarrington and I live at 2550 Mesa Way. And the only concerns I have is the street access for the people that come out onto Mesa Way. I think that they should probably be bigger lots and maybe done different, so they stay inside their own subdivision. You know, I'm not against them subdividing the property, but I'd like to see Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 13 of 37 those houses -- they come back out in their own subdivision and not through our access. And that's my feelings on it. I'm against that part of it. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Vince Sullivan. He's been spoken for. Okay. That leaves the one other person -- I know the last name begins with an L. The rest of it I'm not all that sure of. Nobody's saying they signed up on this one? Okay. Okay. We have been through everybody that signed up and there is an opportunity, if you didn't sign up, but feel that you have something that you need to add, this is your chance. Okay. In that case, we will ask Mr. Cronin to come back up again. Cronin: Name again? Zaremba: Uh? Cronin: Do I have to state my name again? Zaremba: Please. Yes. Cronin: This is Eric Cronin again. As far as speaking to Aneke's comments, as far as Mesa, it exists as a local street right now and so direct lot access is available, if I'm correct, to Mesa Way. And as far as -- I don't believe it would decrease your home value adding homes along the road at all and so I -- that's about all I have to say, is it's a local roadway. It allows access from private drives. Zaremba: I would comment that this is a concept and when we -- we are not, at this -- for the comfort of other people, we are not at this point approving this as if it were a plat. The discussion, actually, is only whether to annex or not. And I think you are getting some anticipation of what comments may be made when you hold a neighborhood meeting about the plat and perhaps be ready to anticipate those subjects and discussion them with people. Cronin: As far as what Rich had to say, I know, typically, ACHD will like to see the interconnectivity of roadways and not leaving all these residents to have one outlet, which in this case it would just be Victory Road. There is a lot of houses to get there and if there is only one access point it kind of limits the safety issue as a -- to further subdivide. And so interconnectivity is one of the reasons that we are typically required to stub to vacant lots, as well as -- if there is a local street that we can have access to. Rohm: Those are good topics for a community meeting, aren't they? Cronin: Correct. And it will be further discussed. Of course. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Does staff, have any further comment? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 14 of 37 Hood: I may just add, Mr. Chair, onto what you said for the neighbors that are here today, this plat will be the subject of another Public Hearing, so just so everyone knows this is just for the annexation, as you stated. So, some of those design issues can be discussed a little bit more as far as roadway design and location and lot sizes and things like that. This is just for the R-4 zone now. So, just -- so, when I was out of -- really, the minutes of the subdivision that we discussed at a later date, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zarenlba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: If I can just make one observation. This would be an excellent opportunity to make sure that you have the names and addresses of those people who want to make -- to be noticed who may not be in the 300 feet zone, that would want notified of your neighborhood meeting. Cronin: These individuals may not be within the 300 feet you're indicating? Newton-Huckabay: Right. But it would be -- I'm just saying it would be a good opportunity. Just an observation on that part. Zaremba: Well -- and, actually, let me expand on that and clarify my own understanding. There are legal notice requirements when the official plat -- or preliminary plat that you present comes before us for a Public Hearing. In our new ordinance we do have a requirement that before that happens you hold a neighborhood meeting. That's a separate subject. But I'm not sure there is a notice requirement for the neighborhood meeting. And to expand on what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay said, you know, other than you going around knocking on doors or putting out fliers, it might be wise for you to ask the collected people for their name and address, so you can tell them about your neighborhood meeting, because I -- correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not subject to the legal notice requirements. Hood: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Yes. Hood: For the Members of the Commission and everyone else, we do require that the applicant either hand deliver or mail before five days before this meeting is held, everyone within 300 feet, a notice of that meeting. So, we do have provisions -- very specific provisions of how you notice people you're having a meeting, so -- Zaremba: We had a major revision of the ordinances a couple months ago and we are all learning the new details. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 15 of 37 Borup: I think maybe what Commissioner Newton-Huckabay may be saying is if those of you that would like a written notice, if you'd leave your name and address on a paper back there, then, that could get to you. Cronin: Yeah. That would be fine with me. I mean they may be within that 300 feet, but if they are not, if I can get them after the meeting. Newton-Huckabay: Well, it's an opportunity, rather than to meet up again at your Public Hearing for your subdivision, to workout the details with the neighbors prior to that. Cronin: And we would be required to have a neighborhood meeting with these, correct? Zaremba: We are just suggesting that if they give you their addresses, then, you will notify them of your meeting. Cronin: Not a problem. Newton-Huckabay: My personal thought is that a subdivision on five acre lots, that not everybody's going to be within 300 feet. Cronin: Okay. Not a problem. I will request it after the meeting. Zaremba: Thank you. Baird: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Baird. Baird: Just so we can go on record that we can't make it a requirement that you go beyond that 300 feet, so I don't want anybody here to be upset if they don't get a letter. I would also suggest, though, that everybody's name and address is on the sign-up sheet and the applicant can get a copy of that at the clerk's office to simplify the process, if you choose to do that. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I would say that's why I prefaced my statements as an observation. Zaremba: Thank you all. All right. Thank you, sir. Commissioners, discussion or are we ready to close the Public Hearing? Rohm: I think we are ready to close it. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-048. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 16 of 37 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 -- Newton-Huckabay: Did you ask for discussion? Zaremba: We can discuss before we make the motion or we can discuss the motion after it's made. If you'd care to comment, please, do. Commissioner Newton- Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry, I personally had no comment. Commissioner Borup had one. I thought that Borup: Well, I changed my mind on that. But I was going to say other than I do have -- I don't know if there is any -- is there any concern that when it comes back for preliminary plat that they could be applying for reduced standards or do we need to go on record here that we expect it to be to all of R-4 specifications? Hood: Mr. Chair, I assume that's directed at me. Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Mr. Hood. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, they do need to comply with all the R-4 zoning district standards. Now, they can always apply for a variance if they wanted to do something else or they would also have to modify this development agreement, because it also says you need to comply with the R-4 standards. So, that -- nothing's ever set in stone, but, yes, they do -- Borup: And it would be before this Commission also. Okay. Zaremba: Well -- and I would also comment, just for the applicant's benefit, this Commission does listen to the neighbors' comments and we will be concerned about not having the smallest possible lots along that west boundary. So, just something to think about in the development stage. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 17, 2005 Page 17 of 37 Borup: That's alii had. Zaremba: Okay. Are we ready for a motion? Rohm: I think so. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-048, to include all staff comments, for the hearing date of November 17th, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a second? Moe: Yes. I was working on that, but I wanted to make sure that we do note that there is a development agreement required as well. Newton-Huckabay: Is that in the staff report? Zaremba: It is in the staff report. Moe: Okay. Second. Zaremba: But a good point to emphasize that. So, we do have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Continued Pubic Hearing from November 3, 2005: AZ 05-049 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.15 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Carrington Property by Mark & Karen Carrington - 2955 South Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: Thank you all very much. Moving on. Item 6. I would open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-049 and, again, a comment that it is continued only because of a notice problem before and there was no earlier discussion and we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject annexation and zoning request is, again, to the R-4 zone for 5.15 acres. This property is also currently zoned RUT in Ada county. It is shown as low density residential on the city's comprehensive future land use map. This property is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road, just north of Victory there, again, within Kachina Estates Subdivision. There is one existing home and some out buildings on the subject site. This is Lot 7,