Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 19, 2006 P/Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 49 of 92 Item 14: Public Hearing: AZ 05-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.03 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Quenzer North Subdivision by Brighton Development, Inc. - north of East Ustick Road and west of North Locust G rove Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: PP 05-063 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 building lots and 1 common lot on 5.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Quenzer North Subdivision by Brighton Development, Inc. - north of East Ustick Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: / Rohm: At this time I'd like to open public hearírigs AZ 05-063 and PP 05-063. Both of these requests are for Quenzer North Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Quenzer North Subdivision -- I think it's referred to by Brighton Corporation as Quenzer No.1 0 -- is a parcel of land containing an existing residence. You will probably notice that the annexation request is for 5.03 acres to the R-8 zone and the plat is for 5.47 acres. The -- let's see the best way to show this. The triangular property at the bottom has already been annexed and zoned and platted as part of Quenzer No.9. It was platted as an open space lot for that subdivision. So, with this application they are proposing to re- subdivide that lot and, then, also annex the additional properties to the north and su bd ivide them as well. So, on the 5.47 acres they are proposing a total of 12 lots, for a total density of 2.19 units to the acre and that is gross. The existing home contained on the larger lot to the east is proposed to remain and have a large lot around it. The remainder of this site would, then, be bisected by an extension of -- I think that's Quenzer Way and have some additional build-able lots platted on it. The triangular property that was platted with Quenzer No.9 as an open space lot -- it's a little clearer on the landscape plan. The western portion is proposed to become a build-able lot and the eastern portion is proposed to remain in landscaping within parkways, with street trees on either side of Quenzer Way, with detached sidewalks. A couple of items relating directly to the landscaping for the site. Also, divisions are required to have five percent landscaped open space gross of the subdivision. As proposed the proposal has 2.17 percent. The applicant does need to come up with that additional percentage to meet the five percent. They are required to widen the parkways in accordance with the Unified Development Code to a minimum of eight feet, to contain class two trees, and, then, the applicant has stated that they will also be adding a landscaped common lot on the north side of Leigh Field Drive to make up the remainder of that five percent requirement. I would ask the applicant to address their plans for that in their presentation. That change to the plat we would like to see before the City Council hearing, the same ten days in advance, ten copies. The existing home on the property will retain access from Leigh Field Drive, the existing driveway, which is located at this location. Really, the issues on the proposal boil down to the landscaped open space and the requirement to have the five percent, which the applicant has stated they will address. And, then, also the fact that there are currently horses housed on the property. Horses within Meridian city limits are a topic that the Unified Development Code doesn't really address. So, has part of the development agreement, staff did Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 50 of 92 propose a couple of restrictions and in discussions with the applicant I think they are proposing to modify one of those restrictions and I think we are agreeable to it, if the Commission is as well. It is your ultimate decision. Those restrictions would be that the housing of livestock would be restricted to -- it's Lot 7, Block 31, the existing home that currently houses the horses and that upon vacancy of the property by the current owner, listed as Vanessa Klaus, that those horses would be removed from the property. The restriction that staff had put in was that they would be removed from the property when the current owner vacated it or 2010, whichever occurred first. The applicant did have some concerns about the short time frame of that -- time line of that, proposed that we -- we change that that no new horses be added and limited it to the life of the current horses and I think staff is okay with that. Really, where -- that was kind of a -- really, we just don't want the horses to remain on the property in perpetuity. The 2010 was kind of a meaningless date that was just kind of picked. So, I think we are agreeable to the applicant's proposal, that no new horses be added, be limited to the lifespan of the horses currently on the property, and that -- or if the applicant vacates the property, whichever occurs first. North Quenzer Way is proposed as a reduced street section of 29 feet per the Meridian fire department's requirements. There will be no parking on North Quenzer Way and signed as such. Until North Quenzer Way is extended to the north, there is fire department easement placed on the northern-most lot that is -- it is depicted on the plat and the fire department has approved that turnaround as proposed. When North Quenzer Way was extended with any proposal -- with any proposal for development to the north, that easement would, then, not be necessary and the roadway would continue on and the fire department gain access there. Just some quick housekeeping. This will come up in the next application as well. There is some typos in the staff report. Must have had Ellensburg on the brain this day. There is some references to multi-family on page five under item nine, zoning ordinance item A, it does -- it states that UDC 11-2A-2 lists multi-family developments as a conditional use. There are no multi-family developments proposed on this site. That is a typo. They are single family houses. That error is repeated under annexation analysis, Item 10, Item A. And also again in the preliminary plat analysis. So, I don't think those typos require any action by the Commission, I just would get those in the record and point those out. With that, I think I will wrap up staff's comments on the application. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Moe: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Josh, going through -- I think it's probably typos as well or maybe even just give me some information. On page two of the report where you talk about the present Comprehensive Plan designation, you're noting that it is mixed use neighborhood and, then, you got in parenthesis neighborhood center. Should that, actually be there? Wilson: That should, actually, be there. designation. It is the correct Comprehensive Plan Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 51 of 92 Newton-Huckabay: Oh, it's right there. That one. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Because there is the school. Moe: Then, on page seven under your exhibits, on your drawings, your note in preliminary plat of the 15th of November and on the plan -- and, actually, back on page -- under Exhibit B, your note to preliminary plat labeled and noted as November 11th, 2005, so the plan -- I noted the plan as November 11th as well and I'm assuming the 15th would be wrong or do you have another plan? Wilson: No. The 15th is incorrect. It is the 11th. Moe: Okay. Okay. And, then, on page eight, under the landscape plan, was that not revised on the 1 st of December? Wilson: Yes. That is correct. That should be the 1 st of December. Moe: Thank you. That's alii had. Thank you. Wilson: Okay. Rohm: Any other questions of staff from the Commission? Zaremba: Yes. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: And this would be a clarification. I'm not sure I'm quit getting it. What is currently shown as Lot 1 and Lot 11, are they, actually, platted on a previous application? Wilson: They are. They were final platted with Quenzer No.9. Zaremba: And they were platted as usable open space? Wilson: Yes. Zaremba: Do we know whether removing -- well, apparently Lot 1 is still planned to be landscaped open space, but it's removing Lot 11 and the width of the road as well, is the previous application still within -- within the requirements for open space? Wilson: The subdivision overall would be within the requirements and I believe, actually, probably a little bit above once they do add the additional landscaping required Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 52 of 92 to meet the five percent for this small piece. That will replace what they have taken out, plus some. Zaremba: Okay. And just run me through whether or not this plat can include something that was already platted as part of another plat. That's okay? Wilson: It can. It's can. You can re-subdivide a platted lot in a subdivision, essentially, is what this is doing. Zaremba: They don't have to redo the other application? Wilson: Correct. It just becomes part of this plat. Zaremba: Okay. That was it. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Walker: Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Jay Walker. I represent Brighton Development Corporation and my address is 12601 West Explorer Drive, Suite 200, Boise, Idaho. 83713. I appreciated staff's comments. In an effort to consolidate her property, Mrs. Klaus did sell this 2.2 acre parcel to us and included annexation of her residency and as part of that grandfathered her livestock, her horses, into that. Both her and her sister obtained that from their deceased father and run a horse outfit there and it probably makes sense to keep their operation conjunctive there as they work together at this effort. I really don't see an issue with her horses. I think that will be resolved here shortly. So, I appreciate your consideration of removing that clause, the or clause in those two locations under the staff report and the preliminary plat analysis, as well as the annexation comments. And also, as Josh has stated, for the overall subdivision we did exceed the common area and landscape requirements -- city requirements and will meet the five percent on this additional annexation and, thirdly, when we platted the original Quenzer Commons Subdivision there was a five foot landscape strip required by ACHD and since that time that has been modified to be eight foot and we would be happy to adhere to that condition put on and I'm open to answer any other questions. I do -- as a part of some neighborly commitments, we have agreed to adjacent property owners to the north and Mrs. Klaus a few things and I want to put them on record, just so that those property owners are heard. First, Laird and Vickie Graham have asked us to continue the private vinyl fencing that Copper Basin currently has. We are more than willing to comply to that. We will also insure that any tail water from Mrs. Klaus' pasture is collected and piped to the discharge location on Mr. Laird's -- or Laird Graham's property as he's requested. He's also asked that Lots 6 and 16 have single story structures on them. Residencies. And we will commit also to that. And, then, has a part of some of the recommendations of Mrs. Klaus, you have addressed the one, her retain-age of livestock, particularly the horses, and we appreciate your consideration there. I think other than that, we feel like we can meet all the conditions that you propose. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 53 of 92 Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate that. Before you sit down, see if there is questions from the Commission. Zaremba: I do have two -- actually, three. On the subject of horses, I understood staff to say not that they were removing that, but that there was some agreement to change it that there would be no new horses and that the permission was for the life of the current horses. Is that the way you understood it? Walker: That is the way I understood it. Let me just read what we have in their -- in their staff report that staff recommends that horses should be allowed to stay until either vacation of the property by the current owner, which was part of the purchase and sale agreement that we entered into with Mrs. Klaus, so I would prefer that that be the statement and, then, that January 1 st, 2010, be striked from the record. Zaremba: I don't think that's what staff suggested. The first part of the sentence -- and we have all agreed to -- if she vacates the property, then, that is off. The second we have agreed not to attach that date to it -- Walker: Okay. Zaremba: -- but there was -- the change was the requirement that she not add any new horses and that the existing horses could live out their full life there, but no new horses. Walker: That would be fine. Zaremba: Okay. So, there is still an or clause in there, but it's not that specific date. Walker: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. And the other question -- well, still on the subject of horses, would it be appropriate to put on the face of the plat the Right to Farm Act, which was mentioned earlier, and what I'm thinking of is the people who move into Block 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 may -- we may want to have them notified there may be horses next door to them and I think the Right to Farm Act probably would cover that. Is that an appropriate thing to put on the face of the plat? Walker: I think that would be appropriate. Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Then, new subject. Landscaping. I think I understood staff to say that you're planning to add five feet of landscaping along that property line; is that correct? Walker: That is correct. Mrs. Klaus is agreeable to that. Zaremba: My question on that would be -- thinking a long way down the line, many many years from now, probably -- if Block 7 is eventually subdivided, the access street Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 54 of 92 is likely to need to line up with something View. I can't see the first word of it. Which would mean removing landscaping and stuff. Is that something that's fair to assume? Walker: Yes. And that's Heritage View Avenue. Yes. Yeah, that would -- I think that would be -- that would be a good assumption. Zaremba: Okay. Walker: And you see a problem with that? Zaremba: Then, my question to the staff would be do we need to now have an agreement that even though the current access to the current house is fine, that when there is a change, that that access will be given up and the new access will be -- align with -- or am I nitpicking too much? ACHD would require that. Wilson: Correct. ACHD would require that upon subdivision of this larger re-subdivision of this larger lot, but it doesn't hurt to get that on the record and make it clear that's your recommendation. Zaremba: Okay. And that works for you? Walker: I haven't spoken to Mrs. Klaus, but I'm sure once she vacates the property she probably wouldn't mind -- Zaremba: Okay. Walker: -- what's done with it. Zaremba: Well, I guess my concern is your investment in landscaping; some of it's going to get torn out again. Walker: We don't have a problem with that. Zaremba: Okay. All right. It's probably a small section anyhow. Walker: Yeah. It looks like it. Zaremba: Okay. That was it for me. Nary: Mr. Chairman, just on the question of the Right to Farm Act, the Right to Farm Act wouldn't apply to raising of horses. It applies to livestock that are food products, not -- so not -- so horses don't apply to that. So, you don't have to include that in the plat, since there is no agricultural purpose -- or agricultural uses existing on the property currently that would qualify, you don't have to include that. If you want to give notice that there is horses there, I think there is probably visual notice that's probably adequate, but it wouldn't be necessary to include it on the plat. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 55 of 92 Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Wilson: Mr. Chairman, if I could just have the opportunity to address one thing. Rohm: Absolutely. Wilson: Public Works Department did have one concern with a note on the plat that -- and that is note two that reads that all side yard lot lines shall have a five foot drainage and irrigation easement on either side of the lot lines for the front half of the lot to allow for attached garages in the rear. All rear yard lot lines shall have a ten foot utility easement. If Jay could just state on the record whether or not they intend to attach garages on the rear of that -- of these lots. Walker: We do not intend to attach the garages in the rear of the lot. Rohm: Thank you. Walker: Thank you. Rohm: Would Laird Graham like to speak at this time? From the audience he says his concerns have been addressed. Next one is Bev Hooker. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, it may be appropriate to ask if there is a spokesman first before you go through the whole list. Rohm: It's a pretty short list. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Bev Hooker indicates that she didn't need to speak. Next one Mike Sweet. Sweet: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Mike Sweet. I live at 1334 East Loyalty, which is directly to the south where this project is. We live right next to the new development, the project nine, that section of the development. We are members of the homeowners association, the Heritage Commons homeowners association. I just got a bill for our fees to enter that association of 436 dollars for the year. Excuse me. 432 dollars for the year. And we haven't paid that up yet, but we have paid all of our dues that have been assessed prior to this time. We have had considerable -- and throughout the rules and regulations, the laws of the city of Meridian and those of the Ada County Highway District, there is reference -- excuse me -- at several times to the rights of a homeowners association and in this case -- and there is several waivers, there is certain types of activities that the homeowner association can be approached for the homeowners association to take some activity with regard to just Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 56 of 92 matters that you're talking about here. We have been told considerably by Brighton that this homeowners association would be turned over to a number of members of the -- when the ownership of property within the subdivision -- and when we bought our pieces of property, when that reached 80 percent, that we would be entitled to take over the homeowner association, that we would, then, organize -- be allowed to organize and take over that position and this has been done -- oh, last summer there was considerable amount of talk about it. There was a letter written to us that said that anybody who wanted to become -- to run the executive director of the homeowners association would make application and there was a considerable amount of conversation. Subsequent conversation also said that it was going to be done this fall -- the past fall. As these additional properties come in -- we haven't had specific conversations to it, but I would assume that all of these members are going to -- all of this land is going to become -- going to be allowed access to the homeowners association and it's our position that -- and we have been -- there have been several items that we have approached Heritage Commons -- excuse me. We have approached the Heritage Commons Association and the Brighton Industries to try to get some of these matters resolved, certain matters that we have had problems with. And the association has already been to the -- which Brighton is the -- owns and manages the association and they have gone to these different political subdivisions and gotten releases and gotten -- and talked and represented. But it's our belief now that this creates a definite conflict of interest. As you can see, if they are in there representing themselves as a developer, how can they, then, truly represent the people who are paying dues and who are in the association? And there is a considerable number of us, so we have presented a number of petitions and so forth that have considerable signatures and we would have no problem in the area organizing the homeowner association to appear before you and to question and represent these matters. So, in the -- we have no problem with the further development of these lands, but we feel that the association -- and I would assume, although I don't have direct evidence, I would assume that all these people are going to be the owners of new lots and this new portion will be offered positions in the homeowner association, which allows them to use the swimming pool. We have got a very nice area out there and there are certain things that we are paying for in doing that. So, we feel -- Rohm: Sir? Sweet: Yeah. Rohm: I'd like to have you conclude at this time. Borup: And Mr. Chairman or -- is there something that you're asking this Commission to do? Sweet: Yes, there is. Specifically, I'm asking that you, as a part of this -- of this asking - - their application, that a condition be that they release the home -- they release and allow the homeowners to organize and take over the homeowner association part that Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 57 of 92 would present to you and be involved in your discussion here. So, that would be our request. Rohm: Thank you. Sweet: Any questions? Rohm: And we will give the applicant an opportunity to respond to your questions and we will take it from there. Thank you. Zaremba: Well, I would comment on that. The provision in most subdivisions that the developer has control of the homeowners association until there is -- pick a number, usually around 80 percent sold, is a pretty typical thing. That appears in the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs are not an issue that the city regulates. We have nothing to do with the CC&Rs. We encourage subdivisions to have them, but I -- if I'm understanding, your question also is at what -- what counts towards that 80 percent? Are all phases done and that's something we certainly want to ask the applicant, you know, to answer you. But I would say, again, that the city doesn't have anything to do with CC&Rs. It would be interesting to know that answer, but we wouldn't enforce it anyhow. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. And that's appropriately stated. Next person on the list is Rod Westerberg. Okay. From the audience he says he has nothing additional to add. Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this issue? At this time I'd like to -- if the applicant would like to come back forward and respond to comments made. Walker: This is Jay Walker. 12601 West Explorer Drive, Suite 200, Boise, Idaho. 83713. We have heard Mr. Mike Sweet's concern there and, obviously, you have heard from him that we are commencing that process, but we, as developers, retain the right to annex additional property and continue with the development and there is a lot of development activity, as you can see, continuing and for that purpose we have retained that. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant before he sits down? Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Any discussion amongst the Commission before we close this Public Hearing? Zaremba: I would comment that I think most of the questions have been answered and that this is a project that is compatible with the surrounding projects. Rohm: Okay. I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-063, request for annexation and zoning of 5.03 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Quenzer Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 58 of 92 North Subdivision by Brighton Development, Inc., north of East Ustick Road and west of the North Locust Grove Road. And PP 05-063. And I won't read the details on that one. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Second. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-063 and PP 05-063, both relating to Quenzer North Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Will make the recommendation to City Council, with one -- I need just some clarification on where I would put the notes regarding continuing the vinyl fencing along the west property line -- and it was the west property line. I want to verify that. And, then, there was the water collection comment and I didn't -- I got collect water and that's all the farther my note went. Did any of you get that? Rohm: It is the collector for the water off the large parcel lot. The parcel that the -- where the horses are, they are going to collect the water off of that and take it to proper drainage. Newton-Huckabay: Collect water from -- Rohm: If you could put the plat back up there -- Newton-Huckabay: Josh? Rohm: If you put the plat back up we can designate the lot. It's Lot 7. Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to add a comment to that effect and where would I put it? Wilson: In regards to the fencing? Newton-Huckabay: The fencing and the water and, then, the Lot 6 and 16 agreed only be one story. Borup: Could she just add to the motion that -- to incorporate the comments made by the applicant? Newton-Huckabay: Hey, I'm allover -- I like that idea. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 59 of 92 Wilson: You can. Those conditions would go in with the preliminary plat and the applicant did clarify that the fence would be on the north and east property line. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, north. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, I can just say the comments regarding those three items be added to the preliminary plat comments? Okay. Mr. Chair, I move to recommend -- Zaremba: Plus the change about the horses. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I got that one. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number AZ 05-063 and PP 05-063 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 19th and a preliminary plat date dated November 11, 2005, with the following modification to the conditions of approval: That the statements regarding the continuation of the vinyl fencing along the north property line and that the water collection methods from parcel seven comments and the comment regarding that Lots 6 and 16 will be one story dwellings only, be added to the staff report. And, then, on page six, about halfway down the page, bullet -- the sixth bullet, that should read that livestock shall only be allowed on Lot 7, Block 31 -- am I supposed to change livestock to horses? Wilson: That would work. I think, though, you do need to make sure and modify the condition of approval in Exhibit B, the reference to page six. It is discussed in the body of the staff report, but the actual -- it's a comment, because it's under annexation, but that should be on B 1.1 is where that should be changed. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, changed on B 1.1. Okay. That horses shall only be allowed on Lot 7, Block 31 -- oh, I'm on comment B 1.1 at this point. And the livestock shall cease to be housed on said lot upon either vacancy of the property by the current owner, Vanessa Ann Klaus or for the life of the current horses. Current horses. Whichever occurs first. So, we are striking: Or January 1,2010. End of motion. Zaremba: Should we tag another sentence on that that says no new or -- new horses or other livestock can be added? Newton-Huckabay: As stated -- please amend as stated per Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: In the same location. Newton-Huckabay: In the same location. Borup: Second.