Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 2, 2006 P&Z Minutes .: .. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Pag~ 4 of 90 Rohm: Moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. At this point this is where we start opening public hearings and before we open our first hearing there is a few things that I want to just point out procedurally that I think is important for those of you that come to these infrequently and want to be heard. The procedure we go through is we will open the Public Hearing on a given project and the first thing we do is we ask the staff to give their report. The staff's report -- the intent of the staff's report is to provide insight into the project as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan and ordinance. So, they take a look at everything, they say, okay, here is compliance and here is where they have asked for consideration for maybe additional amenities or things such as that, but they, basically, just present the project as it relates to our laws of the City of Meridian. Then, we ask the applicant to give their presentation. That's when the applicant has an opportunity to sell their project to the Commission and point out the attributes of the project that they feel bring value to the city. And each of these presentations are followed by a discussion period where we have an opportunity to ask additional questions or points of clarification. Once the applicant and the staff have both made their presentation, at that point in time it's open to the public to make their presentations and if, in fact, there is a single person that is a spokesman for a larger group, say a property owners association, that individual will be afforded I believe it's ten minutes to speak, as opposed to three minutes where a person is just speaking for themselves. So, that's the procedure that we go through here and there is an opportunity for discussion after each person makes their presentation or testimony as well and, then, once all testimony has been heard, then, the applicant has an opportunity to come back up and respond to each testimony given. And so that's the procedure that we go through. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: AZ 05-058 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell - 5910 North Black Cat Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from February 2, 2006: PP 05-060 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell- 5910 North Black Cat Road: Rohm: And with that being said, I will open the first Public Hearing. It's a continued Public Hearing from February 2nd, 2006, for AZ 05-058 and the continued Public Hearing from February 2nd, 2006, PP 05-060, for the Keego Springs Subdivision. Begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Keego Springs Subdivision ~- I'll do kind of a quick recap. We are located on North Black Cat Road just Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 5 of 90 south of Chinden. The applicant did apply for 176 single family homes on approximately 50 acres and has submitted a revised plat that did include half of a school site, which ended up being most of the discussion at the last hearing. Since the last hearing it's my understanding that some kind of agreement has been reached between the school district and the two properties. It sounds like that was a very late developing agreement, so I'll let the applicant and Mr. Bigham address that. For your consideration tonight, the applicant would like to move forward with this plat and staff is in support of that with some comments that were kind of addressed at the last hearing. If you recall, the applicant did provide a letter that outlined their proposed modifications to our conditions. If you have those before you, I can kind of go through and give you staff's position on those proposed modifications. But we would recommend -- I guess our recommendation is still to move forward for approval with some of the changes that we can note and carried over from the last hearing. The applicant had proposed to modify condition 1.2.6 in regards to the amenity lots that were provided at the center of the development. It, essentially, groups them on the same side of the street and in this location, instead of having them on three separate pieces. We are in agreement with their proposed language on that condition. They did propose to modify condition 1.2.11 in regards to the stub that staff would like to see to the south. We are still in support of a stub to the south. So, we would not agree with their proposed language on that condition. 1.2.12 was in regards to the necessity of Keego Springs providing a school site. They have provided a school site here, so I think that one doesn't necessarily apply so much anymore. And, then, 1.2.13, we are in agreement with the modification that the date I believe that the applicant agreed to was June 1 st, 2006. If negotiations with the school district weren't finalized by then, then, the subdivision would come back in for a modification to subdivide that proposed half of a school lot into home sites. And my notes indicate that June 1 st, 2006, was when that was going to be. I think with that I will end staff's comments. We are -- staff is still in support of the elimination of the -- if you will recall, if the stub street is provided at this location, as ACHD wanted to see, that left this building lot in between the stub street and the school site. We would still support the elimination of that building lot. And, then, the two building lots at the northwest corner of the school site, we do not still -- we do not support those either for concerns of visibility into the school site. The police department and school district both would like to have a clear line of sight into that school site and not have this awkward corner created by those home lots there. So, we would still support the elimination of those two lots. I think that was another thing that the applicant did mention at the last hearing. I think with that I will end staff's comments and take any questions from the Commission. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Butler: Good evening to the Commissioners. Let's see. Is it okay? Is that on the record? Yes. Joann Butler, 251 East Front Street, representing the applicant. I thank staff for the overview of the report. Staff indicated that there was an agreement reached with the school district. We have only heard that in the grapevine. I have not been contacted, my client has not been contacted, but for the purposes of this meeting, let's ~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 6 of 90 assume that there is an agreement. We would -~ we are asking you tonight to recommend to the City Council that the plat before you, with showing the school site, is acceptable and assuming that Mr. Bigham has reached an agreement -- some type of agreement, even verbally, with the adjacent property owners, we are more than happy to work with Mr. Bigham until June 1, which was the date that he felt was a date that an agreement could be reached, to see if there can be a co-agreement reached and we will certainly do that. Nonetheless, we don't want to hold up this plat. We would, however, because we don't know what this agreement will be and we don't ~- we have only heard this through the grapevine -- I don't think the Commission would mind if we come back, you know, after June 1 st and modified this plat, as, obviously, anybody can, but just -- I'd like to confirm that on the record. And also if things look like they are not going anywhere, we might come back for a modification earlier, at least get it in the works, but we will do our best to work with the school district, if that's where this is. We are also willing to do this so long as the -- it doesn't make us out of compliance with other regulations. This stub street that staff would like to south -- and the engineers can speak to this perhaps even more so than I -- does not meet the offset requirements for ACHD. Now, it may be that ACHD will grant some leeway there, but we just need to be on the record that if it causes us to be out of compliance, we may have to come back for some modifications or do something to assist that. We also cannot agree to the loss of the lots. After a long discussion with Mr. Bigham in which we talked about what the city, clearly, in carrying the school district's water, in trying to encourage this -- this -- this transaction, even though the Comprehensive Plan doesn't guide the school to this location in the area, even though there is a lot more land in this area for a school site, even though our client has 15 percent of the lots in this section, we are more than happy to sit there and to go through that and try to do our best. But as I understand, the negotiations were -~ the discussions with Mr. Bigham, he agreed to this particular layout of lots and Mr. Campbell told me that as I was getting up and if you need to ask him -- I wasn't there, so if you need to ask him questions about that, he's here. So, just in summary, we are asking you for your recommendation of approval to the Council with the conditions of approval, without the loss of the lots, and we will work with the school district to try to reach agreement between now and June 1 st. Thank you. Any questions? Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would repeat a question I asked last time and I'm sorry that I have forgotten what the answer was. Is this a pathway to the school site? Butler: Well, I don't remember the answer, so -- Zaremba: Good. I'm not the only one that doesn't remember. Butler: I think that may be a block demarcation, but I will have Mr. Campbell answer that. <. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 7 of 90 Campbell: We had -- Todd Campbell, the applicant. Reside at 2320 West Preston in Eagle. We had agreed to putting in a pathway there, so desired by the Commission. The way it's designated now is no ~- there is no pathway there at this time. Zaremba: I sort of thought that was the answer that you agreed, but it wasn't ~- Campbell: Right. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Campbell: Any other questions? Rohm: At this time it's open to public testimony. Mr. Bigham. Bigham: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Wendell Bigham, 911 Meridian Road, representing Joint School District No.2. Clarification. There has been no agreement reached with the applicant on Keego Springs as to the acquisition of the property. We have been unsuccessful in moving as quickly as I had hoped. The status I can tell you today is tomorrow to Monday I expect to start documenting a verbal agreement with the Volterra Subdivision to the south as to the amount and nature of the land. It has not changed significantly from the discussion of two weeks ago -- or of a month ago. Excuse me. There has been I think some proposed street realignment within Volterra, but I have not seen those drawings. The Volterra engineer is present tonight, but I don't know that it's constructive to get into that discussion, but we think we are very close to having a tentative agreement with Volterra. My goal at that point is to immediately, tomorrow to Monday, to approach Mr. Campbell to start talking about the Keego Springs site. Our desire is to not hold the project up in having it move forward. Our desire is to do those things which furthers the discussion and the immediate acquisition of this site way prior to June 1, '06. So, it's at your discretion if you wish to move the subdivision forward. Two comments very quickly. The two lots in the northeast -- northwest corner, these two are -- or the one and a half right there, in a perfect world we'd prefer that they weren't there. We can, as the school district, work around the confines of those lots, so I will pass the buck to you, I guess, as to whether or not you think they are appropriate. They do present the concerns that staff mentioned for line of site supervision, et cetera, but it is a playground area, it's just less than desiRabehl. But we can live with that. We would appreciate seeing a pedestrian connection here, because it allows these streets to get into the adjacent subdivision to the east and the discussion of the street -- I guess it doesn't show in through here. Not discounting what the client said, I tend to agree, I don't think it meets the setback, so I think it could be problematic to require them and should this be a school site and continuing on down into Volterra, at first blush I don't think we would be desirous of having that on-street parking lot directly by the school. I think it will simply wad up with traffic. So, that I'm more interested as a pedestrian traffic from the adjacent subdivisions into the school site and less worried about the traveling public connecting through there through a street, because parents will stop right on that street to drop their kids off to and from the school and I think it will present the periodic traffic jam that Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 8 of gO occurs around schools. So, again, I will somewhat side with the applicant that even if we could get it in there, we would probably be asking that it not been there, but prefer it to be a pedestrian friendly corridor, if nothing else. With that, I would stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, Wendell. Any questions at this point? Borup: Mr. Bigham. Mr. Chairman. We saw a preliminary site plat -- well, I don't even know if it was preliminary. A sample site plan. I think it showed the buildings basically to the south and playground to the north and I think that's what you just mentioned was probable what the layout is going to be; is that correct? Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup that is correct. The playground area is -- I'm hesitant to get my -- the other map out, but the building is actually sitting kind of in here diagonally in relation to the world, because if Volterra's main street comes through like that -- Borup: Okay. And, then, was there going to be any -- but there is going to be no public access, no vehicle access at this point, then? Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, no, all of our vehicular access comes off of the main arterial, if you're a collector, that comes into the main road into Volterra. So, the connection to Keego Springs is simply pedestrian access. That's why I'm so concerned about a little stub road running from the main road into Volterra up into here. I think you're going to get a lot of people using that road for an on-street parking lot. Borup: Well, I'm just trying to understand completely the concern about these lots. I mean it's not any different than these lots over here or these lots over here. Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, that's why I'm saying that the school district is pretty neutral. It would be much better for organized play activities if that was simply a square corner for maximum utilization, because little corners like this are hard to utilized and space is like this. It would just be better utilization for the school district. I think at the end, the high and better determining factor would be the staff comments in terms of police department, fire, you know things that you're generally concerned with. We can live with this condition. In a perfect world we would prefer not. Borup: I'll discuss that with the -- I mean if the road did not go through, maybe it wouldn't be too bad to eliminate that lot and get a little more -- it would be a little more open site through there. We will see. "Bigham: That would be preferable, but that is discussion between you and the applicant. Rohm: Thank you, Wendell. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 9 of gO Bigham: Thank you. Rohm: Could you respond to the discussion on the stub street to the south a little bit? Wilson: I can. And I guess I would ask for a little clarification from the applicant's engineer about what this offset conflict is. In the ACHD report that's in your packets, the stub street is approved by ACHD in this location, lining up with the center of the alley. So, it has been approved by ACHD, so I -- as staff I'm a little confused by the offsets that he can't meet when ACHD approved it. Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come back forward and -- Newton-Huckabay: Is there more public testimony? Rohm: Well, there is nobody else signed up, but before we do that, is there anybody else in the audience that would like to testify to this application before we get back to the applicant? Seeing none -- please, come forward. Howard: My name is Jim Howard with JJ Howard Engineering, 1530 East Commercial in the great City of Meridian, and I know that there is a conflict with the spacing that's on Black Cat Road. We have to setback so far. They won't allow that street. And all that I would ask is that -- is that that be looked at again. I was surprised to see that comment. We don't think that it's in conformance if we was to put a stub street in there, so we have an issue with that and I think we can resolve that on the staff level. I just don't agree with their comments, because we have their standards and we think that it's not in conformance with those standards. So, that's the only way I can address it right now. I hope that answers your question. I don't agree with staff. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd just -- clarification for me. Your point is not where it aligns on your property, but the obvious other end of it -- Howard: That's correct. Zaremba: -- and the collector road that it would connect with is -- Howard: We have got to set that street back so far from Black Cat and we are just not in agreement with -- I just don't agree with staff. But I'm sure that we could resolve it at the staff level. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just I guess quickly just a little more discussion on this. In that location there was a stub approved with Volterra Subdivision. So, that stub connects to the collector, has been approved by ACHD, they, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 10 of 90 actually, require -- the initial plan, if the school site wasn't there, there was a stub here and ACHD, actually, required that they move that 140 feet to the west to line up with the stub that was provided at Volterra Subdivision, which lies approximately 330 feet east of Black Cat Road and that's directly from the ACHD staff report. Rohm: So, as long as the staff -- the stub to the south aligns with the one from Volterra that stubs to the north, then, it should be okay. Wilson: Yeah. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, are we into discussion? Rohm: We are into discussion. Zaremba: I'm not sure I have any real opinion about the two items under contention, but I would like to add the pathway at the north end of the school. The overall basic project seems like one that we could easily recommend. My sense of what Mr. Bigham said was that he's cautiously optimistic that the school site will happen, so I would be comfortable forwarding this to the City Council in pretty much this configuration that we are seeing now, with the knowledge if the school site falls through, they may come back and talk to us again about it. That doesn't answer the two hanging questions, but it's an opinion about the overall project. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: One thing I'm still kind of unclear on -- I know last month when this came before us, in regards to the stub street, was it not also discussed that, in fact, we weren't going to do a stub street there, that we would do a walking path in that location as well, not necessarily the one you're speaking of, Commissioner Zaremba? Rohm: One or the other? Moe: Right. Rohm: Okay. Borup: Yeah. Moe: Anyone else remember that? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 11 of gO Butler: I do. I think I do. I think that's part and parcel of some of your other decisions in this area, too. If you were looking for the connectivity and if it wasn't to be vehicular, then, you would have a pedestrian pathway. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Did you have additional comments? Butler: Just a few comments. Rohm: Yes. Butler: It does appear that Mr. Bigham has made some progress and we certainly wish him good speed. So, that means that there would be no reason to hold this plat from going forward. Speaking just, again, to these lot -- these lots, the loss, again, of just one more lot, when we have put so much into this -- and this is not even the main entrance to the school, would not seem to be reasonable in this case. With regard to the stub -- and with regard to the stub street, if ACHD is requiring this and the pathway is what is preferred, then, we'd just ask Meridian to be the go between with us and ACHD to insure that we don't have an issue with ACHD. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Mrs. Butler, while you're still here, let me ask staff a question. If the two or three lots that are being discussed remained in the plat and, actually, it also applies to all the ones along the north boundary of the school property as well, isn't there some provision to require an open vision fence, so that at least those lots have vision into the school property? I think we have done that on other school properties. Wilson: There is a disagreement of whether that would be required by ordinance. If that was a common open space for the subdivision, it would definitely be required by ordinance. But where that is just a lot in the subdivision, I don't think it's required by code, but you could certainly require it as a Commission. Zaremba: And let me ask the applicant whether that would be acceptable. Butler: It would be acceptable as a condition. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Any additional discussion on this project? Newton~Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 12 of gO Newton-Huckabay: I just want to know if we could pull back and see the picture of the broader area. Where is the nearest stub to the south now? Borup: It's not on there, is it? I was interested in the same thing. So, we don't have the Volterra plat? Wilson: Unfortunately, we do not have Volterra in our system. I think it's a safe assumption that one connects to that stub to Bainbridge -- Newton-Huckabay: So, there is the stub in Bainbridge and there is the stub that's in Volterra that heads north? Wilson: Right. And the plat shown on the screen is not the current proposed plat. That doesn't have the school site and -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Wilson: I really do wish Volterra was in the system, because we could see where that stub is and it would be pretty obvious that -- Borup: From the other testimony -- or from what you interpreted the ACHD report, the stub is approximately right where -- lined up with the alley? Wilson: Right lining up with the alley. Yeah. Borup: And that was a condition of Volterra also -- Wilson: Yes. Borup: -- that that stub will be there. It doesn't make sense to have two stub streets -- or I mean a stub street that doesn't go anywhere, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think given the fact that the other -- the nearest stub appears to me to be quite a bit to the east, that's the only other opportunity to connect to the south. I would think that it would be important to have one. Wilson: See if we can get a -- Mr. Bigham just provided me this piece of paper that appears to show Volterra's preliminary plat, showing the stub that would be approximately at the middle of that alley. Borup: The edge of the alley. They'll have to redesign. I think they could redesign their drainage pond -- just slide things down. Newton-Huckabay: I don't think they are going to do that now. Borup: Sure they can. No, not the stub street. They can redesign these lots. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 13 of gO Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay. Well, again, that said, I would recommend that we require the stub street on that. Rohm: Require the stub street to interconnect to Volterra. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Rohm: And, then, have the pathway over to the east, so you would have the stub street that connects north and south between the two subdivisions and, then, a pathway coming into what appears to be the playground to the east. Borup: And no elimination of lots. Rohm: And no elimination of lots. Is that kind of what your thoughts are on that, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: Did you say two pathways or one? Rohm: One pathway -- Newton-Huckabay: The one pathway to the north -- Borup: The other pathway would just be the street sidewalk. Newton-Huckabay: Yes, it is. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: And I could support the -- leaving the two building lots there in that odd corner, if we added the requirement that the applicant agreed to an open vision fence along the entire school property line. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Moe, do you have any additional comments? Moe: I would say I would be in agreement with those -- those items. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-058 and PP 05- 060. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-058 and PP 05-060. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 14 of 90 Zaremba: The person that moves to close the Public Hearing usually ends up making the motion, don't they? Rohm: Lucky you. Zaremba: I'm not sure I made good enough notes, but let me give it a stab. Newton-Huckabay: You're the most eloquent of the group. Zaremba: See if I ever close a Public Hearing again. Borup: Oh, we need to find the staff report. Newton-Huckabay: I don't have notes from the last hearing. Zaremba: I made some notes on my copy of the staff report and now I'm not finding that. Let me ask staff to refresh -- on Exhibit B, you gave us a couple changes. What was the first one? Wilson: The first one would have been condition 1.2.6. Zaremba: Okay. Hang on. Let me get there. Yeah, I did mark the other two. And what was the comment there? Wilson: We did agree with the applicant's language that they proposed and I'll go ahead and read that. The preliminary plat shall be revised to relocate the amenities, i.e., tot lot, gazebo, barbecue, and clubhouse and pool area on revised Lot 11, Block 7. Lots 28, 29, 30, and 31 of Block 10, and Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 of Block 4 will be placed in the amenities original locations. This will consolidate all neighborhood amenities, tot lot, barbecue area, and pool in one location to prevent pedestrians crossing public streets as neighborhood residents use the facilities and result in no loss of buildable lots. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-058 and PP 05-060, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of February 2, 2006, which meeting was continued to today, with the following changes: On Exhibit B, paragraph 1.2.6, substitute the applicant's wording that was just read by Mr. Wilson. On paragraph 1.2.12, that can be deleted as satisfied. It has been satisfied. 1.2.13 has also been satisfied and can be deleted. Let's see. I would reinforce the requirement for the stub street, which I believe is stated in here. I would add two items. One is that there will be a pedestrian path access along the north school Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 15 of 90 property line. And another addition is that all perimeter fencing along the school property line will be open vision. Did I capture everything? Newton-Huckabay: Did you want to make the June 6 ~- Borup: Yeah. Mr. Chairman. That was what I -- was on that point 13. Was your motion to delete the whole -- that whole -- whole section? Zaremba: That's the way I noted it, but if that's not correct, what should it be? 1.2.13 you're talking about? Borup: Mr. Wilson, you say you're acceptable with the applicant's wording of that? Wilson: We were, with the one change that they had noted January 1 st, 2007, and -- Borup: Change it to June 1 st. Wilson: June 1 st, 2006. Zaremba: Okay. And, then, I'd change my motion that 1.2.13 accepts the applicant's wording. Okay. That means the date is January 6th -- or I mean the date is July 2006. Borup: June 1 st. Zaremba: June 1 st. What did I say? June 1 st, 2006. Okay. End of motion. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-058 and PP 05-060. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: AZ 05-067 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R~ 15 Medium-High Density Residential zone for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: CUP 05-060 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 32-unit multi-family development in a proposed R-15 Medium-High Density Residential District for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: