Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 19, 2006 P/Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 7 of 92 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-055. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05- 055. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move to approve file number CUP 05-055 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 19th, 2006, and the site landscape plan dated August 16th, 2004, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: The only modification would be that we agree to a five foot landscape buffer in the neighborhood of the hammerhead that meets -- what previously was a hammerhead and no longer is -- that meets Clarine Street. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate Findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Commission hearing -- Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on February 2, 2006. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 05-055. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from December 8, 2005: AZ 05-050 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from December 8, 2005: PP 05-051 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 5.0 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Reserve Subdivision by Dave McKinnon with Conger Management Group, Inc. - west of North Locust Grove Road and south of Chinden Boulevard: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings on AZ 05-050 and PP 05- 051. Both of these relating to Reserve Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 8 of 92 Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you may recall a few weeks ago this item was before you and the staff's recommendation was for denial. You made a motion to remand this back to staff to come before you with Findings for approval and conditions of approval as well. I have since amended the staff report to reflect that request and I'm just going to touch on a couple of the conditions briefly. There was one of the conditions regarding fencing that asked the applicant to address at this hearing tonight how they intend to fence the perimeter. There was no fencing discussed in the application or on the landscape plan. We do have certain fencing provisions required by the Unified Development Code, specifically adjacent to micro- paths. It is conditioned as such in the staff report. I just would like to see if the applicant has any idea of what type of fencing material they are going to use. I might point out, too, that the police department did require along the north property boundary that either a six foot open vision or a maximum four foot solid fence be constructed along the north boundary of those lots, due to the school being directly north. I just wanted to point that condition out as well. I think it's underlined in the staff report as well. Also -- and I'm going to jump to the site plan here and talk about a couple of the other conditions. There is a roundabout here coming in off of Commander. This conceptual plan shows conceptual driveways, too. One of the conditions from the Ada County Highway District was that you cannot have any driveways taking access to this roundabout area. Staff has continued that condition into the city staff report, as well as no parking around the roundabout. So, no parking or driveways around the roundabout. Also, this street -- they do have a temporary turnaround here that can be vacated once the street is extended to connect up with Jericho, but until such time there is a temporary turnaround easement that needs to be on the plat and they do need to work with the fire department on appropriate signage and striping, just to make it clear to everyone that this is not a driveway to be parking in, it is for emergency vehicles primarily and sanitary service vehicles, large vehicles, buses, that may go down there and cannot back all the way back up. So, it's their turnaround area. Also, the fire department and SSC did not want to see parking directly across the street from that, because that effectively takes away their turnaround area. So, that is also a condition in the staff report. I think those are the main ones that I wanted to touch on. If you have any other questions, I can sure stand -- or if you'd like more history, I guess I can tell you that there are 12 building lots on the five acres that are before you tonight. There is a lot of history with this application, so I don't think I will belabor anymore of the staff's report, unless you have any questions of me. Rohm: Any questions of staff before we move forward? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one observation. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: The staff report apparently was written by a Mr. C. Caleb Hood and I would ask whether that change is a function of your recent marriage or would you prefer to be referred to as Caleb? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 9 of 92 Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, all the Commissioners, I have recently gone to my middle name. It was a function of multiple things. A new year, a new life, and I do just prefer my middle name to my first name. Either one is okay. I'm just trying to -- and the new title, too, I guess, that I recently received, so I thought it was just a good time to kind of -- Zaremba: A lot of life changes. Hood: A lot of changes. So, I thought get more comfortable and -- Zaremba: All of them good, as far as I know. Hood: So far so good, too, so -- but either way I will answer to pretty much anything, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Be careful what you say. Rohm: Okay. With that being said, at this time I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. Happy to be here tonight. I think we got through all the heavy lifting the last time we met and talked about this project. I won't belabor the history like Craig did. I think he mentioned he would not either. We have got a project tonight, it's just five acres. They are relatively large lots, from ten and a half thousand, basically, to sixteen and a half thousand square feet, larger than your average lot in Meridian. Craig just barely touched on those elevations. If we can go back to those elevations. Larger homes are slated for development on this lot -- on this subdivision. Craig asked me to address just a few things, fencing being the first. We have no problem meeting the fencing requirements. The new UDC requires the fencing to be included with the landscape plan. When this was submitted the UDC wasn't adopted, but just so you know, we will continue the chain link fence along the north where the school site is and the remainder of the subdivision would be in cedar fencing. So, Craig, if you can go back and just point that out. Just continue the chain link fence along the school site and, then, a wood fence around the remainder of six feet. On the pathway that goes up to the school -- it's not represented well here. Craig -- oh, there it is. Right through there. We will do a four foot tall solid wood fence through there to comply with the landscape ordinance. This is a representation. It's not the way it's going to be built. As you remember, we talked about this at the last hearing. We understand that that's not going to be able to work that way and we don't intend for it to be that way, it's just a graphical representation that someone did for us. They didn't understand the reasoning why or how we wanted the driveways at this location. We didn't give them great direction. It's just to give you an idea of what the subdivision will look like in the future. There is a stub street to the west. There is a stub street to the south. And ask if you Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 10 of 92 have any questions of us at this time. We have read through the staff report and we can live with and agree with the conditions of approval. Rohm: Good. Makes things a lot easier that way. Thanks. McKinnon: Yes, it does. Thank you. Rohm: Any questions of Dave from the Commission? Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Good. Thanks, Dave. We do not have anybody signed up to testify for this hearing, but if -- at this time if anyone would like to come forward, this is your opportunity. Seeing none, I think at this time I will just turn it back to the Commission. Do you have any questions of staff before we close the Public Hearing, anyone of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would make another observation. I thank the staff for their preparation, but also note that the staff recommended denial last time and this time they have phrased it that they have complied with what the Commission asked them to do, but their recommendation is still denial. And in the Findings of Fact they have a list of things the Commission must find and I notice that in other applications those are findings that the staff takes ownership of and they, clearly, are not taking ownership of it this time. So, if the Commission is making these Findings and going against the staff's recommendation, it's clearly entirely on us. Rohm: That happens from time to time. Zaremba: I would make one further comment. When we had this before us originally, I made a long comment about Mr. Centers' motivation and, again, I'll repeat I don't know Mr. Centers personally and in thinking about it, I was out of place in my assumption of what his motivation might be and making the comments about it and I would apologize for taking the Commission's and the applicant's and staff's and everybody else's time for my long dissertation. It's irrelevant what his motivation is or my opinion about it and I'm sorry to have taken the time to express it. That being said, however, it doesn't make any difference why this doesn't connect to Jericho. It's been known all along -- and, again, I believe we promised to the people of the Arcadia Subdivision, even those that didn't live there yet, that there would be direct access to Locust Grove. And it's irrelevant why that isn't happening. Whether there is good reasons or bad reasons, the difficulty is this creates a problem for the City of Meridian, that it may be forever trying to solve. To be honest, I have no problem with the presentation, but as staff has pointed out, this fits into an area, not just one five acre parcel, and that area needs to have connectivity and both ACHD and the city, I believe, are within their rights to insist on the connectivity and I still have to comment that I don't think it's in the city's best interest to take on this problem in this way. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 11 of 92 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I am going to change my opinion from the last time we spoke. I have thought a lot about this one after the original hearing and after reading back over it and I have to agree with Commissioner Zaremba, the connectivity is needed there. We all know how strongly I feel about the way Jericho developed with that big county sub, but I think, if nothing else, thinking through the fact that it may not -- I mean there is a possibility that we won't get that connectivity, I'm not sure that the way the emergency turnaround at the end of this development -- it looks temporary and there is just a very real possibility, if this is approved, it may be permanent and I don't think that -- I think it's awkward and I think it's -- a temporary solution would probably be appropriate, but as a permanent -- a potential permanent solution, I don't think that it would be the way I would like to see it developed. Again, generally, I do tend to agree with Commissioner Zaremba, not in the best interest at the time -- at this time, because the connectivity, I do agree, is going to be critical in that area. End of my comments. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Any additional comments from the Commission? Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe just one. I think -- I think those are both good comments, but I think it makes an assumption that that parcel to the west is never going to develop, that it's going to stay an undeveloped piece of property. Given the way things are happening in Meridian right now, I don't know if that's a realistic assumption. I mean it could happen and that's the assumption we are making, that there is never going to be any connectivity, but if that parcel ever develops, of course, there would be at that time. I'm sure that every department is going to have that as a requirement. Rohm: Well -- and along that line, the access road to the west at the end of this subdivision takes you right into that acreage that would ultimately have the potential to tie into Jericho and so that's, I guess, the other side of the coin from which Commissioner Zaremba and Newton-Huckabay spoke. So, I kind of see where you're coming from, too. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I'm not -- don't want it to be thought that I'm making the assumption that piece of property is never going to develop. I am making an observation that in the event if it does develop in a way that would block Commander Street, given the history of this, that it was included and, then, it wasn't included, that it would block Commander Street from being an access to the west, then, the emergency access point -- a temporary emergency turnaround becomes permanent. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 12 of 92 Moe: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I think in our past discussions of this property it's been well noted that if that property was to develop, that street would have to be connected back over to the west. They wouldn't have an option not to do that. Therefore, that would have to go in. Beyond that, a couple things -- and I have gone back and forth on this property as well and because this property -- this whole area has quite a history within this Commission, you know, the owner has sold off this property to where now he does not own that property to the west and he is trying to develop his property only, the opportunity for connectivity is still there at some point. So, quite frankly, I'm in favor of going forward with this, because I don't see the need to not -- basically to penalize this owner for not being able to do something with the other property. He has, indeed, sold that property to others. Rohm: Before we move forward, I have a question of staff. Because the property to the west will now be adjacent to annexed property if a motion is made and carried forward to the Council and them approve it as well, isn't there a requirement that any properties that develop that are adjacent to city property have to adhere to city standards, as in take city services via city water and sewer, and cannot develop as an out parcel with septic and their own private well? Hood: Mr. Chair, yes and no. There are provisions for county parcels that are within 300 feet of city services. The DEQ will not issue their septic permits if they are within -- close enough to city services, then, they will not issue a permit for a septic system. So, you could still develop that piece in the county, whatever the county regulations will let you do for the zoning, but you would have to address the city's Public Works Department and get our services. So, really, in effect, it is difficult to develop that piece in the county. There is no mechanism to initiate the annexation on the partial that's over five acres in size if it doesn't have our services. So, not to muddy things more, but if they are within a certain distance, then, we can -- they are required to obtain city services. Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: I just want a clarification. My thoughts were going in the -- because it's surrounded on at least two sides by already annexed -- will be annexed -- or annexed. You can't force -- force it to annex into the city, is that what you're saying? Hood: I may look at Counselman Nary or-- Newton-Huckabay: Maybe force is not the word I want to use. Hood: Yeah. There are provisions in state code where the city can initiate and annex properties. One of the outs for property owners is if they have more than five acres. If Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 13 of 92 they own more than five acres, the city cannot force them to come into the city. So, if you have more than that -- there are several provisions, though -- and I'm just going off of memory of what I remember that to be. If you are larger than five and you are receiving city services, then, you have consented to annexation in the future. So, there are some if this, then -- there is other circumstances, it's not just if you're five acres or more. This map does not accurately represent the entire city limits either, because just to the north is Westborough square, Westborough Subdivision, that has been recently annexed into the city. So, that five to the west, actually, has city limits on three sides, the north, east, and the west. So, we try to update our maps, but this one isn't totally up to date. It will be somewhat of an enclave, but there are some properties to the south that have not annexed yet and are still in the county. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: The Jericho Road properties are in the county still? Hood: No. All of the -- Newton-Huckabay: Those get annexed? Hood: Everything on the east -- or, yeah, east side of Jericho is within the city limits. Everything on the west has not come into the city yet. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Dave, I'd like to hear what your thoughts are on this, please. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a couple of thoughts and some rebuttal. Just for the record, Jake Centers no longer owns this piece of property. It's not typical for the city to require a property owner to come in and purchase a piece of property to build a road all the way through. When Arcadia was built it had one access, this stub street to Lochsa -- I mean to Saguaro was not built at that time, so secondary access was not available. Furthermore, access to Leeshire was not available at that time. There was not a requirement for Arcadia to be built -- for Arcadia to provide access all the way out to Locust Grove at this time. Jake does not own this piece of property. This property is owned by Mr. Luchini. Not For Sale, LLC, with Jake Centers being the head of that. And, then, Go Properties owns this piece of property. We have no authority to provide anything through here. Commissioner Zaremba, you made an assumption saying that ACHD and the city would require this to connect all the way through. ACHD in their staff report was satisfied with the stub street to the west and the stub street located at this point. In the future this property, if and when it develops, will provide an access road through here. If this property were not to develop at anytime in the future, we wouldn't have this access road. The city can promise anybody that this -- the city has made no promises that this would continue all the way through, because the city has no ability to promise that. What they can promise is that when these properties develop in the city, that a road will come all the way through Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 14 of 92 there. When this property was purchased it was two parcels of ground and those were both build-able parcels of ground in the county. A property status report was issued by the planning and zoning of Ada County stating that those are two build-able parcels of ground. If someone wished to purchase these properties, they could build two homes on these parcels and you would never have an access through there. At this point, this five acres -- or the four acres, plus the one acre, provides an access to this point, bringing us that much closer to this point. Is it in the best interest of the city not to provide any access through here in the future and not to provide a stub street that would provide access here? I don't know if it's in the best interest of the city to say you cannot build this until everything is built. This would provide at least part of that stub road that would connect all the way through Arcadia. If you say no to this project, then, you have got a project that can't come forward, you have hamstrung both property owners, because this property owner can't come in unless he comes in with Jake. And so what you have done is create a situation that only -- if these are properties are developed, they could only be developed together and they are different ownership and I don't believe that you can make one property owner do one thing at a different time. And just for clarification, Jake does not own that piece of property and ACHD has made it a requirement to provide a stub street to that property, just as it is a city requirement. Borup: I think we all understood that. McKinnon: Yeah. I just wanted to make sure it got on the record from me. Rohm: Thanks, Dave. McKinnon: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I think considering this property, without considering the background that went along with it, is asking us to make a decision in a vacuum, assuming we know nothing about what might happen, and I think that that -- that that's inappropriate in that instance. But, again, my big complaint is it would be -- if we moved forward, I would like to see the emergency access put in this development in a way that if it -- at some point in the future it becomes permanent, it's appropriate for a permanent emergency access. Does that make sense what I'm requesting? Rohm: If you want to put that in the form of a motion, then, we will see where it goes. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I would like to know the opinion of the rest of the Commissioners on that. If I stand alone in that opinion, then, I will end my comments and we will move on. Borup: Question, then, if that's what you're asking. What makes it a permanent turnaround that's any different than it is now? Newton-Huckabay: Well, this one had all the required -- the no parking requirements, can't park across the street. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 15 of 92 Borup: Right. Newton-Huckabay: That type of thing. They need to make it wide enough, I would guess. I mean I'm not a -- Borup: I don't know that this -- Newton-Huckabay: That's not my area of expertise. Borup: Okay. But it is an engineer and planners. Newton-Huckabay: I just need to have an opinion. Borup: If it didn't qualify as a turnaround, it wouldn't be approved as it is now. I mean whether -- Rohm: That's a good point. Borup: -- it's temporary or permanent; it still has to have the same specifications, to my understanding. Rohm: A temporary solution has to adhere to permanent -- Borup: Standards. Rohm: -- permanent standards, even being temporary, because there is no assurance that at some point in time down the road that it will be carried forward. So, I think, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, although your comments are well taken, the staff recommendation addresses those and by elimination of parking and things such as that, the emergency vehicle traffic has been addressed with this application and staff report, as I understand it. Newton-Huckabay: I think it's great that nobody will park in a no parking zone in that neighborhood ever. Zaremba: My question to staff would be what constitutes a temporary turnaround. It would be sufficient to roll four inches of asphalt over bare ground, wouldn't it, for a temporary? And a permanent one would be a full road section. Hood: The fire department still has standards, as was mentioned earlier. They do allow -- it's not quit the same. Generally, it's going to be dedicated to the public and, therefore, in ACHD's right of way. Here you have just got an easement across a build- able lot. But as far as the cross-section of what's actually underneath that, it's going to be similar. It still has to support a fire truck. The radiuses still have to be the same. It is a little misleading and it isn't the ideal situation. I mean a cul-de-sac or a snoopy that Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 16 of 92 is right of way clearly defines those areas, but your -- I mean everyone's -- it does still function as a turnaround and it has been approved by the emergency services as such. It's kind of a -- for a truly temporary use of something like this would work just fine, generally. And you never really know how long a temporary turnaround is going to be needed for. The idea is that you can use more of that area if you don't have to do a full- blown cul-de-sac or a snoopy. I mean there is more build-able area there for lots. In that instance that's nice for the development. You don't have, you know, a cul-de-sac and if it does get punched through, then, you have got a bunch of asphalt you don't need in the future. But either way it functions -- again, it's not the most ideal situation for staff, but if emergency services is going to sign off on it and it meets their requirements -- but there are differences between a full-blown permanent turnaround in the right of way and something that's just temporary and 20 feet wide -- Rohm: Thanks, Craig. At this time I would like to have one of the Commissioners make a motion to either close -- Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-050 and PP 05-051. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Oh, am I doing a motion? I just closed it. Newton-Huckabay: I won't be doing a motion. Rohm: Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion? Borup: Okay. Well, I'd like to move on, so I guess I'll do it. Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 05-050 and PP 05-051, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 19th, with the following clarification and that was the applicant was asked to clarify the perimeter and micro- path fencing. The applicant made the statement that the north fence along the school would be a continuation of the chain link fence I think the school presently has; that the fencing around the rest of the perimeter would be a six foot high wood fence and the micro-path fence would be four foot or within city standards. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-050 and PP 05-051, both related to Reserve Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? There are three in favor and two against. Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19. 2006 Page 17 of 92 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. Item 7: Item 8: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-051 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.84 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-052 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 4 common lots on 12.84 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: CUP 05-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for multi-family residential units with a request for reductions to the street frontage requirements for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing on AZ 05-051, PP 05- 052 and CUP 05-047. All three of these items relate to Ellensburg Subdivision and at this time I'd like to hear the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You may recognize the name Ellensburg Subdivision. It has been on the agenda a couple times before. It was originally scheduled for the November 3rd, 2005, hearing. ACHD had not reviewed the project and I think the traffic impact study was a little behind. So, it was continued from that date to December 15th, 2005, for that hearing. The site was not adequately posted, so, then, the item was continued to tonight. The project is located at the -- what is presently the end of this section of Pine Avenue along Ten Mile Road. It is located at the northwest corner of Pine and Ten Mile. The -- let's see. This will show the boundaries a little more clearly. It is a triangular piece of property with pretty limited frontage on Ten Mile Road and, then, quite a bit of frontage on what would be the Ten Mile Avenue. The site is this one here in white. Currently the site is vacant. There has been some recent development since this aerial photo, but this site does still remain vacant. The surrounding land uses to the south -- there are some existing rural properties on large lots. To the north there is Mosers Farm Subdivision, zoned R-8, as indicated here with some -- it looks like fairly typically sized R-8 lots and, then, also to the north and a little bit more west is a park and an elementary school that is Chaparral Elementary School and a park that is owned by the West Ada Recreation District, not by the City of Meridian. To the east there is the recently approved -- I guess Somersby -- I think it was year before last or last year, with some limited office at the corner of Pine and Ten Mile and, then, some higher density residential developments around that. The general area of the project is -- is a mix of rural areas and developments. Staff does