Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 16, 2006 P&Z Minutes -~- ," Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 41 of95 Guenther: So, you're recommending approval of that site plan, which shows the access point -- Zaremba: Yes. Guenther: And we will forward that to the City Council -- Zaremba: Yes. Guenther: -- as you have stated? Thank you. Zaremba: And the second part of my motion is if that changes after it leaves us, we want to see it again. Guenther: We will get that to them. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: Okay. All right. It has been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-057, RZ 05-019, PP 05-059, and CUP 05- 052, to include staff comments with amendments as stated. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you very much. Appreciate all input. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: At this time we will take a short break and we will reconvene at 9:35. (Recess.) Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from January 19, 2006: AZ 05~064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from January 19,2006: PP 05-064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 321 building lots and 34 common lots on 116.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bear Creek West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of West Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the Planning and Zoning meeting for tonight, February 16th, 2006, and begin by opening the continued Public Hearing from January 19th, 2006, project AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064 for Bear Creek West Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 42 of 95 Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. If you will recall, this item was -- or these items were only continued because ACHD had not given their final approval of the subdivision yet at the time of the last hearing on January 19th. Since that time ACHD did approve the subdivision with no changes and staff's recommendation would remain the same. We may need to kind of refresh your memory on discussions and items in the staff report that need to be changed, but I think with that -- one thing I will mention is Mrs. McKay did agree to the six items that are in the e-mail that is in your packet for tonight in regards to buffering their impacts on that church property on the north side and, then, we did also discuss part of the development agreement that required that the five foot sidewalks and street buffers be installed along Stoddard and Kodiak prior to occupancy of any dwelling units. I think staff and the applicant did come to the agreement that it's probably more -- it's appropriate and more agreeable that -- that's only with those parts of those streets that are installed with the first phase. In other words, you can't install sidewalk where there is not a street yet. So, that's what I have in my notes for the changes to the staff report and I would be open to any questions or discussion from the Commission. Rohm: I think before we have the applicant come forward, just for the audience's sake, if you could just describe the project in its entirety and just for clarification here. Wilson: Okay. The request for Bear Creek West was the annexation and zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT and R-1 to the R-8 zone and preliminary plat approval of 320 single family residential with 34 common lots, located generally west of Stoddard, east of Linder, and south of Overland with -- let's see. With some -- a county subdivision on the south and portions of the west, a lot of agricultural land on the west. The existing Bear Creek Subdivision to the east and, then, some rural properties, a future school site, and an existing church on the north side of the property. Rohm: Thank you. That's what I was looking for. Any questions of staff before I have the applicant come forward? Would the applicant please -- McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. Mr. Chairman, just to -- as Josh indicated at the last Public Hearing, we gave our presentation, the opposition spoke, we are -- we did our rebuttal and, then, I believe it was the statement of the Chairman and the Commission was in agreement to leave the record only open for Ada County Highway District commission action. Josh had mentioned the things in the staff report that needed some adjustment. Other than that, I believe we are in total agreement with the staff. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Rohm: As previously stated by staff, this Public Hearing is only open to discuss the Ada County Highway District's comments and so with that being said, Luke Lance, would you like to come forward, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 43 of95 Lance: Luke Lance, 1370 Eggers Place, the subdivision to the south of the proposed development. In speaking with Commissioner Bivens at ACHD, he addressed a lot of our concerns for the property, since that's all I'm allowed to talk about. That's alii have to say. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you very much. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this -- on this project. Please come forward. Rowe: My name is Chuck Rowe. I'm at 2707 South Stoddard Road. And I guess at the meeting we were here we didn't close the Public Hearing and the main reason was because we hadn't heard comments from ACHD and I came here tonight hoping to hear some comments of what ACHD is going to do and what the report was. So, my only other comment would be on the subdivision, there was some talk last meeting that the subdivision would be moved in phases and I guess I'm interested in if the roads are put in and the site's developed and, then, there is down turn in the market, what happens to the maintenance of that property if a phase is -- if the roads are allowed to be put in and, then, no houses are built on it. Any questions? Rohm: No. And those were appropriate questions. I think we can get some response on that. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak to this? Okay. At this time could I get some comment from staff on the Ada County Highway District's report. Just kind of give a synopsis of what that entailed. Wilson: I will give it my best shot. Not being an ACHD staff member or terribly familiar with their policies. It was approved as submitted by the applicant. What ACHD takes into consideration is street sections proposed, the routing of public streets proposed, and also the locations of any stubs. They also have some standard policies about offsets of roadway intersections. You know, a fairly extensive staff report in, you know, issues. I'm certainly not knowledgeable in -- I am knowledgeable that they did approve the applicant's proposal with no changes. And, you know, as far as the weed issue or the maintenance of those lots, if the roads are built and the phases aren't complete, there is a city ordinance regarding the height of weeds on vacant lots and keeping those in some sort of general upkeep and, you know, I think that's -- I think that's what we have to fall back on there. Rohm: Thank you, Josh. Would the applicant like to make any final comment? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question, either staff or the applicant probably can answer it. We did discuss at the last meeting some variation in the treatment in what would be the southwest corner of the project that involved changing a cul-de-sac slightly. And what I wish to clarify is that ACHD saw the new plan and is that what they approved? Staff had requested -- Borup: That was to allow access to that out parcel -- or to the existing house. .~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16,2006 Page 44 of 95 Zaremba: Something like that. I don't -- Borup: Isn't that what it was? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. So, they didn't have access on Linder Road. They had to take it -- Zaremba: Staff had requested it and I'm pretty sure the Commission was leaning towards agreeing with it. Wilson: It doesn't look like that's part of the report. I'll let Mrs. McKay address how ACHD deals with small changes like that, because they do -- it's pretty regular that small changes to a roadway system like that come out of this Commission and I believe there is a mechanism to -- for ACHD to approve those minor changes like that. Rohm: Okay. McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, that was discussed at ACHD tech review when -- that the city staff was not in agreement with any direct lot access to Linder. In my staff report it says other than access points that have specifically been approved with this application, direct lot access to these roadways are prohibited, meaning Stoddard and Linder. And there is no exception listed in my site specific requirements allowing for access and they use -- they specify like no direct lot access, except for lot X, lot such and such. I don't have anything in here to that extent. So, it -- I believe it's their understanding that we are not taking any direct lot access. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of either the applicant or staff by the Commission? Okay. At this time I'd entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question. On the staff report from last time I have some items marked off that I believe we were going to go into and strike from the final motion, but I'm not confident in that I have all of the modifications we were originally going to make, so does anyone else have -- I have that we were, on page two, striking the statement under five -- 5-A, the subject application will, in fact, constitute a conditional Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 45 of95 use as determined by the city, et cetera, et cetera, which I think was there by mistake and, then, on page six under nine, we were striking sub set A. Rohm: I think you're doing quite well. This could be in the form of a motion. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. And, then, I have got on Exhibit B, item number three from the fire department, I have that we were striking item 3.2 completely from the staff report. And that's all that -- and with the addition of the e-mail from -- that Josh sent out on Friday, January 20th, with the title Bear Creek West Subdivision, stating some statements that the applicant agreed to. Borup: That was not part of the testimony last time. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, it was. Yes. Borup: It was? Zaremba: I think Mrs. McKay mentioned those items and -- Borup: Okay. Zaremba: -- what I see in the e-mail is pretty much the way I remember them, that she and the developer had offered those fixes, so to speak. It wasn't anywhere in writing at the time, but this is putting that into writing. Newton-Huckabay: Well, if no one has any additions or modifications to the statements I just made, I would ask that those be added to a -- move to recommend an approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 19th and the preliminary plat dated November 15th -- excuse me, hearing date of February 16th and the preliminary plat dated November 15th, with the modifications I mentioned previously, will that be appropriate, Josh, for you to -- Wilson: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: Did I get them all? Wilson: There are a couple of minor typos. I guess I'll just run through those real quick. There is several references to multi-family development. You did catch one of them. Those are errors from another report. There was another one on the top of page seven under annexation analysis. There was another one on page eight under preliminary plat analysis. And, then, mistakenly, the Ten Mile stub is referred to in condition 1.3.6, it refers to the Ten Mile stub drain and that should be Ridenbaugh Canal. And that's the only ones that I have. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 16, 2006 Page 46 of 95 Mae: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-064 and PP 05-064, to include staff comments, with the mentioned amendments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 05-058 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a new 45,000 square foot church in a R-8 zone for Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church by Valley Shepherd Nazarene - 2475 South Meridian Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 05-058. This is in reference to Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me get to my presentation. I'm still trying to get through the Bear Creek landscape plan. There we go. The Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church is located on Meridian Road approximately a quarter mile north of Victory Road, which would be just south of the map shown here. The entire site is 32.5 acres. It was annexed as -- I believe in 2002 and also includes on this map this one lot, it's a 1.1 acre lot out of Bear Creek. This site is currently vacant. It does have the -- I believe the Kennedy Lateral bisecting it. You can kind of see it there, which is a Public Works concern. It is addressed in the staff report. The building that they are looking at would be in the north -- I guess I don't have my site plan here. Okay. Somehow it got truncated in the presentation. The church site would be located -- this would be Meridian Road here on the right side, which is the east side of the site. The church site would be located in the approximate northeast portion of that. It takes up a significant portion of this site. The one lot from Bear Creek is right here and that has had a property boundary adjustment that was recently completed and there is a 12 acre division, which if you run this line straight down to the property line, this square here is now a separate parcel, but it was included in this entire site design. One of these special conditions of approval for this site is that when and if the 12 acres is platted as anticipated as residential product, that the church site also be included in the plat, since it is addressed in the entire development agreement, as well as within the balance of this application that we have in front of us, which is for the 32.5 acres. I have not received a comment from the applicant to that effect, but it should be more of a less point. There is a collector road that is shown here. This is a half mile section of Meridian Road and -- between Overland and Victory. This rendition shows a little bit more of what we would consider an overkill. This would not be a full collector road system, as we were previously defining and ACHD, which would affect two sections. This would most likely be the shorter version of upwards of 175 to 300 feet of collector road and, then, narrow into a local road, which would be a residential road type of a system. This roadway would just provide connection at that light. It's anticipated that