Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 2, 2006 P&Z Minutes ~!;. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 55 of 113 Borup: And that's if those seven property owners could be contacted -- maybe that would be up to the applicant to contact them and perhaps just to -- I don't know, maybe a non-binding agreement as far as where they like the fence and see -- basically, in my mind to see if all seven of them are in agreement on the location of the fence. If they are not in agreement, then, there is going to be another direction that needs to go. If they are in agreement, then, something could be worked out. Rohm: And I think that that's the direction we need to go as well and so I'm pretty sure the applicant understands where we are going with this. So, I think at this point in time I would entertain a motion. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move to continue file numbers AZ 05-57, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05- 052 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February the 16th, 2006, give staff time to review documents and resubmit. Does anybody want to second that? Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue items AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05-0-52 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: And thank you, folks, all for coming in and very much appreciate your testimony and we will see you in two weeks. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05-062 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RUT to R-8 for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC - 2445 North Wingate Lane: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: PP 05-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 single-family residential lots and 2 common lots on 5.11 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC - 2445 North Wingate Lane: Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open up the public hearings of AZ 05-062 and PP 05-062, both pertaining to Sharp Estates Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I realized here late in the game that the clerk did not run you a copy, because I did not send them any copy of the staff report. Actually, it was the same copy that you had back on the 19th of January L- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 56 of 113 from which this item was continued from. So, I apologize for getting this to you late. Hopefully, you remember reading this the first time through. I will touch on some of the conditions briefly. I just wanted you to have a copy of the conditions in front of you while I ran through the staff report. So, again, this was continued from 1/19. In your motion if you could reference today's date, the staff report for today's date, I'll go ahead and change the staff report to reflect this hearing date, that would be appreciated. The subject site is located on the south side of Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 on the west side of Wingate Lane. It's approximately a half mile south of Ustick Road. So, Chinden and Carol Subdivision, which we were just talking about, is -- here is Leslie Drive. You can see a portion of it that feeds out to Eagle Road. This site is currently designated medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is proposing 25 single-family residential building lots and two common lots on just over five acres, 5.11 acres in a proposed R-8 zone. As you can see from the aerial, it's a few years old now, this is truly an in-fill subdivision. This is the last five acres on the infamous Wingate Lane. Everything else is building -- Packard Estates 3 is not fully built out yet, I don't believe. I think there is still a couple lots in there that have not developed, but all these other subdivisions are up and running. There are 4.9 dwelling units per acre proposed. Again, 25 build-able lots on the five acres. There is .53 -- just over half an acre of open space. The applicant is proposing to extend the stub street in Packard Acres No.3 south through the project and connect in with the stub street in Kearny Place Subdivision. Let me go back just a minute and I will give you the names of -- names and zones, I guess, of the subdivisions that are around. As I said, north is Packard Acres. To the east is also Packard Acres. South is Kearny Place Subdivision. That one is zoned R-8. And Chateau Meadows to the west is also zoned R-8. As I mentioned, the applicant is proposing to connect the two stub streets, which feed up to Ustick Road. They are not proposing to use Wingate Lane. There is a condition in the staff report that requires the applicant to submit a legal document stating that they will not use Wingate Lane, basically, is what it amounts to. They have the option of either vacating that easement and, then, using that area towards their build-able lots or placing that easement on the face of the final plat and not being able to place any permanent structures within that easement. So, they do have -- I think something also I'll mention real quick, since you talked about pathways with the last applicant. There is kind of an impromptu pathway in a lot of -- a lot of the properties adjacent to this one. There is a cinder pathway -- I'm going to go back here. You can kind of see it a little bit here. Eventually there is some gates to irrigation, there is an irrigation easement, 30 feet wide, that runs along all of these properties. It's my understanding a lot of the children use this pathway and walk across this back side here to get to the school. So, River Valley Elementary School is just an eighth of a mile away off the screen here. The applicant is proposing to leave that irrigation area open. There is also a condition in there -- as you mentioned in the last hearing, Nampa-Meridian does not allow trees within their easements due to the root system, so there is a requirement that rather than trees you need to plant low lying shrubs as approved and allowed by an NMID. There is a common driveway for these four lots here, just to Gall that out to your attention. I think that's probably the end of my staff report. Everything does meet the dimensional standards of the UDC and does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 57 of 113 recommending approval of this application and I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thanks, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Not at this point. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Sargent: Ron Sargent. 1771 North Wildwood Street, Boise. We are in agreement with the staff recommendations and requirements in the staff report and we think it's thorough and covered all the items I think are important. I guess I'd like to go back to the aerial photograph, Craig, if you could. And I guess just to clarify things just a little bit further, there is a cinder pathway here, but right at this point here on the property there is a locked gate and, likewise, there is approximately in this location on the cinder path, it ends and there is a locked gate there. And, then, likewise, there is a gate that's locked at this location as well down here where it goes into Chateau Meadows and where it comes to the public street at that location. So, right now this pathway area -- or that Nampa-Meridian easement area is not being used, because of those gates that are located in there. When we had our meeting with the neighbors, there was quit a bit of discussion about the desire to be able to use that for kids to travel to River Valley school, but there is some issues about the open canal from here to River Valley. There is also -- I mean we can only put a pathway in from this location of our property over to this location. But we will remove this gate here and so they will be able to use the pathway from this section, you know, up into this area. I guess with -- there is a lot of weeds and debris and everything along this portion, but it's an open area, it's not -- it's not used by these homes or their backyards. So, I guess there is a desire by the neighbors to see this area opened up and have the pathway continue all the way through. So, in our application we are proposing to put, essentially, what is a multi-use pathway path though there, even though it's not required, but it would be a paved pathway. And, then, also as staff mentioned, we'd also have to landscape it to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District's requirements, which means we couldn't put trees in there, but we can put shrubs and grass on either side of the pathway. The other -- I guess major item about the subdivision is Wingate Lane and we would agree with the recommendations of staff to vacate this section of the easement, which the easement, essentially, ends here at this existing home and doesn't continue on any further. So, we would, you know, vacate it from this portion where it enters our property to where it ends today. I guess I would stand for any questions. Rohm: Well, this is a pretty straight forward application. Sargent: We don't have any school that we are trying to build here. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Sargent? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 58 of 113 Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Thank you. Is there any reason why Wingate Lane can't be abandoned all the way to Ustick? Sargent: Well, we can't control that. I mean we can only deal with what's on our property. I mean which is from this location -- we can't dictate what happens on other people's property in that regard. Zaremba: I guess the difficulty I have is there isn't anybody south of Challis that uses it. North of Challis -- I believe it's the city that has a well they have to access or maybe it was an ACHD property, but when the Packard Acres -- is it No.3 was before this Commission, the Sharps made a big point of saying they were going to refuse to use the new public roads and they wanted to continue that access all the way up, made the developer jump through a whole lot of hoops to put a gate and try and keep other people off of the Sharp's access, which they legally had the right to. I mean they weren't asking for anything they didn't legally have to do. But there is no nobody -- I can't imagine there is anybody else that needs the other sections. Nobody else has the authority to give it up, except them. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I have reviewed the document that created Wingate Lane and it's an odd document. It's a private roadway agreement, which is something legally a little bit different than an easement and to vacate it -- I came to the conclusion it's just not the city's issue. It's the issue of the adjacent property owners to do what they want to do with it. It's unfortunate that it's going to be vacant land and it's probably going to, you know, have fences on both sides, but it's up to those property owners to get together to decide to -- whether you call it vacating it or abandoning it, it's really -- I would urge you to let that be worked out by the proper property owners. It may not be good planning, but that's what you're stuck with. Zaremba: Well, I guess the biggest reason I brought it up is that -- I forget whether it's the city or ACHD, would have an interest in part of it and that's getting to -- I forget what the facility was, a well or something that's just north of Challis and that's where the gate was put, so that's why I remember the discussion. But if you're saying stay out of it -- Baird: Well, for purposes of this application, it's to the benefit of this applicant to pursue whatever he has to do to abandon it, vacate it, to make use of that property. But as has already been pointed out, what's done off site is just going to have to happen separately. Borup: So, it's your opinion that adjacent property owners would have control of that? Not control, but they would -- it would be their place -- Baird: Members of the Commission, I haven't researched it completely, but, you know, there is no authority to go to to have it abandoned, because it was created by the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 59 of 113 signatures of adjacent property owners, it's likely that the way to abandon it is to find those successors in interest and get them to agree that they no longer have an interest in it. And those interests may have been given up while those subdivisions were developed. Again, it's going to take somebody some research. Borup: I think that's probably what it was, the adjacent property owners didn't have any rights to that, did they? Your recollection -- Zaremba: They were wanting to put other things on that property and the Sharps had ownership of it the whole length of it. Baird: They certainly had the right to access their property. Borup: Yeah. I don't think it was ownership, but they had a right. Rohm: The thing that they can do, though, is just vacate that which they own and I think that that's what they are agreeing to do tonight and that's about as far as we are going to be able to take that, so -- Zaremba: Would they be able to word it in such a way that they abandon all interest in access to any portion of Wingate Lane? Borup: Would be appropriate. Sargent: For the property that we own -- Borup: No. But they are claiming interest all the way to Ustick. Sargent: Yeah. But if we abandon our use of it, we would abandon our use all the way to Ustick. But that doesn't mean we can influence what the other property owners do outside of the boundaries of our property. We can't -- Borup: I don't think Commissioner Zaremba was asking that. Sargent: Oh. Okay. Yeah. Zaremba: If they would state in a legal document that they are abandoning the use of it, I think that would be enough. Borup: And all rights. Zaremba: And all rights to it. Sargent: Right. Yeah. And that's what we would -- Zaremba: Including off property. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 60 of 113 Sargent: Yeah. And that's what we had proposed to do. Rohm: And, then, there would still be other people that would have an interest, but at least that would eliminate one party from being -- still having an interest in that right of way. Sargent: Correct. Yeah. We would abandon our rights to the whole length of the -- Rohm: Thank you. Sargent: -- of the lane. Zaremba: Perfect. Rohm: Any other questions? Zaremba: I would comment that that was also an ACHD requirement Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Anna. Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, I believe that the two subdivisions north of this also had to abandon all interest in access to Wingate Lane. So, I think it effectively ends at this point of all the smaller lots. Now, the ones to the north still have access provisions to that second street, if that's Challis. And I think they wanted to preserve that. And that discussion came up as part of the gate, that at some point they may want to be able to use that access point, so that they don't have to get up to Ustick -- is that right? So, I do think there is still an interest from the property owners to the north want to protect their interest to get to Challis, but I don't think that they had any interest in that one last section that will be left open. So, I think that that's the only section that I see that will still be there, but it will be just a dead end between two streets. So, I think that that neighborhood association over time can deal with that now. I think they have the tools. Zaremba: That doesn't surprise me. That's the way I would remember it from before. But I think the thing I'm trying to pin down is that if that section north of Challis -- between Challis and Ustick, if those people ever chose to abandon it, that at that point we don't have to chase down the Sharps and get their agreement. I would like that to be established now. Canning: Yeah. And I think if we look back at the wording the other development had to sign, it specifically talks about abdicating their interest in the -- the use of the easement. Rohm: I think we have got that pretty well ironed out. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 61 of 113 Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: At this point in time I'd like to ask William Smith if he'd like to come forward. From the audience he has indicated had nothing he needed to add. And Kathy Smith? And she's fine as well. Both of them had marked down that they were for this project. And so is there anybody else that would like to speak to this project? Okay. Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Caleb. Hood: I was going through my minutes and -- or my notes in the staff report and I wanted to mention a couple of things from other agencies that I did not mention in the staff report. Nothing too major, but I did want to go on record that the Sanitary Services Company did note that they will not use the common drive to get -- to go down here to pick up trash for these homes and that a pad needs to be built near the curb here, so that they bring their garbage cans to the curb for pick up. So, the applicant should contact SSC and get the dimensions of that curb worked out. The other thing that -- Zaremba: I would add to that, that's not unique to this project, that's something they say on a standard basis. Hood: Correct. Whenever there is a common drive-- Zaremba: They are not being -- they are not picking on these people, that's a standard -- Hood: Correct. I just wanted to call it out for the applicant and the Commission, just so the people that attend those meetings don't think their comments are for not, so -- the other comment had to do with the police department. They did have some concerns about this lot and there being a lack of eyes on that property and it possibly being subject or susceptible to possible break-ins or other type of crime. It is somewhat hidden. I did talk with the applicant about that lot and possibly what measures could be taken to allow this property to be visible. There will be an open vision fence here adjacent to that pathway that the applicant talked about and I would like in this lot to -- you know, a lot over here that's at the end of a cul-de-sac, this lot isn't very visible either. I mean his neighbors can see him, but you have got that situation here. So, I really don't see much of a difference and I did -- do appreciate the police department's comments, but no changes were made to the plat as submitted. Kind of just talked through it with the applicant and that's what we had before. But I did want to let you know that the police department did have some concerns, anyways, with that lot, so-- Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Caleb. Zaremba: I don't know if we can qualify or quantify what the police department has said, but would it be an option to place a restriction on this lot that their setback had to Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 62 of 113 be a little bit greater and maybe this side setback has to be a little greater than standard to open up the visibility a little bit? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba -- and I'm not sure that that would -- I mean you, obviously, would be able to see the front of the house, I guess if they are patrolling and could maybe look down. It seems to me like they had issues with even the rear part of that house, you know, someone breaks a rear window and gets in. So, without putting words in their mouth, I don't know that all of their concerns would necessarily be addressed. It is certainly, you know, an option if you wanted to add something like that. I don't know how the applicant feels about that, but, again, I don't think that would solve all of the police department's issues with that lot as designed, so -- Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Cole: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Mike, go ahead. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, the Public Works, on the other point you made, a well site at the end of Wingate Lane for access, we have no well site in that area. Rohm: Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. Hearing none, discussion? Borup: I guess I do have a comment and it's completely the opposite from what I usually express and that's the size of the lots. For once I almost feel they are not compatible with adjoining -- adjoining subdivisions. I mean this is completely surrounded. It's not like it's at the edge of something and, you know, where it's new development extending out and, you know, there is 50 percent more lots against the neighboring -- I mean this subdivision has 50 percent more than the adjoining does. But that being said, I saw no testimony or comments from any of the neighbors, so I'm assuming that they don't have any concerns, so -- and that's what probably really matters. Rohm: I think you're right. Commissioner Moe, do you have any comment? Mae: No, I do not. Rohm: Okay. Good. Then, at this time I'd entertain a motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-062 and PP 05- 062. # Meridian Planning & Zoning February 2, 2006 Page 63 of 113 Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-062 and PP 05-062. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward -- we recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 05-062 and PP 05-062 as presented in the staff report for the original hearing date of January 2006 and re-dated for today's date, which is February 2nd, 2006, with the following modification. On Exhibit B, page two, paragraph 1.1.5, in the second sentence I would delete the choice, so that that second sentence reads only the applicant shall terminate or vacate the private road agreement -- or let me ask legal. Should that say they would terminate or vacate their interest in the private road agreement? Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's correct. Zaremba: Okay. So, paragraph 1.1.5 I would change the second sentence to read: Further, the applicant shall terminate/vacate their interest in the private road agreement and by that I mean all the way to Ustick. End of motion. Moe: Second. Item 12: Public Hearing: RZ 05-022 Request for a Rezone of 3.36 acres from R-8 to L-O for Church of the Holy Nativity by Church of the Holy Nativity - 828 West Cherry Lane: Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we recommend approval of AZ 05-062 and PP 05-062 with the one change in the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: All right. We are doing quite well now. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 05-022 and start with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Church of the Holy Nativity has applied for a rezone of 3.36 acres from an R-8 district to an L-O district. There is an existing church on the property. It's located on Cherry Lane across from Meridian Middle School. Surrounded -- Cherry Lane in this area is really kind of a mixed bag. It's surrounded by some office uses to the west, some residential to the