Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 2, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 51 of 90 Rohm: And before -- before somebody makes a motion to move this folWard, the CUP 05-039 has been withdrawn, so we don't have to make a motion on that, just -- it will be just the -- the zoning and preliminary plat. So, whoever wants to make a motion would - Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would make the first motion. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: I recommend we accept the withdrawal of CUP 05-039. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the withdrawal of CUP 05-039. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 05-038 and PP 05- 037 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2nd, 2006, preliminary plat labeled PP-1, dated January 19th, 2006. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we folWard onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-038 and PP 05-037. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 20: Public Hearing: AZ 06-007 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 59.88 acres from RUT to R-8 for Solitude Subdivision by Providence Development Group, LLC - south of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Item 21: Public Hearing: PP 06-006 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 255 single family residential lots and 16 common lots for Solitude Subdivision by Providence Development Gråup, LLC - south of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings on AZ 06-007 and PP 06- 006, both relating to Solitude Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Solitude Subdivision is located along McMillan and Meridian Roads. Point of clarification. I Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 52 of gO guess the design shows the Lemp Canal on the south side of McMillan. The Lemp Canal is on the north side of McMillan. And the Starkey Lateral, I believe, is -- has already been tiled on the southern portion here. So, there is some reference to those items that I just want to make sure that you realize that they have already been addressed or they are off site. With this, this is an annexation request of 59.88 acres from RUT to R-8 and it is also a request for 225 single family residential lots and nine common lots. With that, the applicant has designed it with a central open space, which is kind of the helmet-looking feature in the middle of this design, and there are -- is a collector road system to McMillan Road. As well as a smaller one to Meridian Road. So, the applicant has been very consistent with ACHD's standard conditions of approval to hook up to all the stub streets in adjacent subdivisions. As you will have seen, ACHD's staff report is not present with this application. However, staff does not see any need to have the conditions of approval be included with the recommendation to the City Council, staff would like to see the official conditions of approval prior to City Council meeting, but the applicant has provided two stub streets to the only parcel and is hooking up at locations for stub streets and limited their access points to arterial roads, so they have met all the standards that we would anticipate them meeting. So, staff is comfortable that this applicant will meet ACHD's conditions of approval when they are available. With that, staff's request has been to bring forward a minor design change to break up these middle lots in this location and provide a pedestrian connection from the north-south direction. This is Amber Creek Subdivision in the southwest corner of Meridian and McMillan and they have also done the same type of a design where the pedestrian connection comes from their open space lot, which is square, to the southern portion of their property in order to facilitate pedestrian connection to their main open space features. I guess this one is a little oriented -- I'll ask the applicant to get better detail. She has a color drawing. But you can see they have provided the pedestrian connection as city staff has requested. The staff is in support of this application and has provided Findings for approval. I will stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Borup: Mr. Chairman. Just a question on the out parcel. Was that originally all one parcel under same ownership? Guenther: I believe it was or at least they were common ownership at one point. Mr. Starkey is -- was the original owner for the entire parcel. They did have two deeds for these parcels when we -- when they approached the City of Meridian. While you brought up that point, the applicant is working with this out parcel in order to provide an off-site concession to the city in order to provide the sidewalk connection from here to here, as immediately north of this site is the -- I believe it's a middle school. So, they are working on providing a pedestrian easement for the connection of the sidewalk. Borup: And that was one of the concerns I had. And we have had others that we have recommended denial because of out parcels, the concern being, you know, the future. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 53 of 90 Guenther: The applicant indicated to me earlier that they are meeting on Tuesday in order to better clarify that situation. So, staff feels that it should be addressed fully prior to City Council hearing. And the last thing is with that sidewalk connection, similar to Amber Creek, the City Council did require the applicant in the first phase, in order to provide all of the landscaping around the perimeter of these arterial roads, that is not in the staff report, but in meetings through the day staff would recommend that the same condition of approval be transferred -- the same condition from Amber Creek to this application, where the landscaping and sidewalks would be provided with the first phase of the development. Rohm: Very good. Thank you. Any other questions? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, on that last subject, does that include sidewalk across the out parcel? Guenther: Yes, that would. Zaremba: I didn't quite catch that. Thanks. Rohm: You're on. McKay: Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, in Eagle. I'm representing Providence Development on this particular application. First of all, to answer Commissioner Borup's question concerning the out parcel, this property was bought in excess of I believe five years ago by Steiner Development. It was owned by Mr. Starkey, who does reside in the existing home. They did a one-time split. I think that was done with W.H. Pacific, so Mr. Starkey could retain his home and barn and it's just very immaculate. In working on this design, I did meet with the staff concerning Mr. Starkey's property and how best to provide future access or possibility of redevelopment. He is an elderly gentleman. The locations of both of those stub streets were -- were what laid out the best for redevelopment of that portion and not necessarily what worked out best for this parcel. So, I did take that into consideration. This parcel had some -- some hurdles that we had to get over as far as the stub streets. As you well know, the stub street locations kind of dictate what we do as far as our designs are concerned. When I did Copper Basin I stubbed three stub streets to the west to this parcel, probably could have got away with just two, but I did three. I'm not sure why. And so, then, that kind of dictated how we brought these -- those stubs in and, then, interconnected here. We have a stub street to the south of us, Burney Glen, that we are connecting to and pulling into this site, so we have got multiple points of ingress and egress. We brought in Amber Creek's access to make sure that we have got adequate offset from our primary intersection here at Meridian Road. Based on our traffic study, the intersection of McMillan and Meridian Road operates at a level of service B. After build out it will still operate at a level of service B. We will have to have a left turn at our entrance here on Meridian Road and one on McMillan. As far as services are concerned, there is -- the sewer is located here at our southwest corner. We will be extending the sewer trunk through the parcel and, then, taking it over to Havasu Falls Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 54 of 90 Street, which is this northerly stub street there you see at Copper Basin and taking offline their temporary lift station. There is also existing 16 inch water in Meridian Road, 12 inch water along all of our frontage in McMillan. So, all services are available to this property. It's kind of very similar to an in-fill. We have got 40 feet of landscaping along our Meridian Road and McMillan corridor. We are dedicating additional right of way, I think 23 feet on Meridian Road, 13 feet on McMillan. We don't have any conflict with the middle school that will be north of us, because all their access will come off of Meridian Road and I did check with their architects to confirm that. In working with this design I came in with a non-continuous collector, brought it in with islands along, landscaping along the perimeter of it, coming in here to this central common area there. That common area, I think, is about a little over two acres in size. It is 2.74 acres to be exact. So, it's a pretty large, nice common area. That's what you'll see, that open space corridor as you come into the project. If you enter off Meridian Road, I went with more of a linear open space that's open all the way through those lots, so you will see that clear vision as you come in through -- off the Meridian Road entrance. And that particular area is about one and a half acres. The lot sizes in this varied. We tried to provide, you know, some variation in sizes and product. We have got lot sizes that are around 5,500 square feet and, then, they go all the way up to I think 14,000 some odd square feet. Lot size is 7,244 square feet. We have approximately 12.41 percent open space, which I think that's a good open space. Nice perimeter buffers. I think this is a real clean project. We have provided good pedestrian connections. The staff asked for some additional pathways. We did add those. They wanted the ability for -- for the peds to come through these blocks, get to this linear open space here, and come up into the primary common area located there. We have got a block here that's a longer block; we have got a cut-through ped path through the middle of that one. There will be an elementary school that will be constructed in Cooper Basin. I have lined this pedestrian pathway up with the common lot. I had it at Copper Basin, therefore, facilitating the kids walking through that ped path and going directly east to the school. We are asking for R-8 zoning designation, just for the straight preliminary plat. It's R-8 in Burney Glen, R-4 in Copper Basin. You just approved R-8 here in Amber Creek to the west of us. As far as lot transitioning, I did take a look at the lots in Copper Basin. Those ones along that perimeter range from 80 to 85 feet in width and 115 to 120 feet in width. And so our lots along that corridor range from eight to ten thousand square feet, roughly. I also looked at the lots at Burney Glen. They are not as deep. They are like about 80 by 108, some are 70 by 100, and I made it consistent on the south boundary where those were eight, nine, and ten thousand square feet. So, the smaller lots that we have got are primarily up along that McMillan corridor and, then, they get larger as you enter into the subdivision and, then, obviously, maintaining around that perimeter. We think this is a good project with the 3.8 dwelling units per acre as our gross density. It's medium density three to eight, so we are on that low range. Amber Creek across the street was at 4.95, so they are denser than what we propose here. I talked with ACHD. Lori is working on our staff report. They have lost a couple of employees and so they are short-staffed at this time and trying to handle a heavy load. In the conversation I had with Lori, she said she believes that this will be a staff level application, because, basically, with a level of service B, the fact that we are hooking Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 55 of gO into existing stub streets and our traffic study did not find anything out of the ordinary, everything is in compliance with the ACHD policy manual. Do you have any questions? Moe: Mr. Chairman. Becky, I noted that in your response letter that you are asking not to have to do anything for some road calming. McKay: Oh, the traffic calming? Moe: Yes. McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, we are seeing that comment in a lot of the staff reports from the police department. If we have -- it seems like two points of ingress and egress between two arterials, regardless of the route, we are seeing that. I mean even on our continuous collectors we are seeing that they want traffic calming. I mean we have got a circuitous route in this design. We are not creating an easy loop through. We are using collectors. Therefore, from a transportation perspective no one else has voiced the same concern. But the police department -- it seems to be on all the applications. So, you know, just -- we didn't feel it was applicable. Borup: Mr. Chairman. Becky, any concerns about the sidewalk through the out parcel along Meridian Road? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, after the Amber Creek application I made it quite clear to my clients that that would be an issue with the Council, because it was discussed in length here just a few weeks ago with Amber Creek. They have met with Mr. Starkey, talked to him one time. He is elderly; he is in very poor health. They have a meeting next Tuesday and I guess one of his concerns was he has some very large mature trees and he did not want those cut down. So, with sidewalk we can, obviously, meander around trees to save them. As far as like dedicating additional right of way for ACHD, he may not do that. But they believe that they can get him to grant a sidewalk easement. Borup: And so you're comfortable with the sidewalk as a condition? McKay: If -- I think Amber Creek -- the Council gave them the option if they could not obtain a sidewalk easement, then, they would need to go within the existing right of way and provide some type of pedestrian barrier, temporary pedestrian access through that noncontinuous part there. So, the gap between the two. Their situation is more difficult than ours, because they have the Settler's Canal, because it's coming across -- it's on the north side of McMillan and, then, drops into the south side, so not only are they fighting the canal and edge of pavement and borrow ditch and trying to find enough room -- we don't have that situation here. Borup: And I don't think we are asking for the right of way. And the other thing that is different in my mind is at one time this was all under one ownership, too. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 56 of 90 McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Even though it was five years ago. McKay: Yeah. But the county does allow the one time splits, if they -- Borup: Right. McKay: -- if they kept the five acres. Yes. One other point I'd like to make is my clients have been working with Meridian School District, ACHD, and Mr. Turnbull at trying to partner up to improve this intersection to get it built out and signalized prior to that school opening. So, they have -- they have stepped forward to try to help facilitate that. Rohm: Any other questions? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Mrs. McKay, I'm trying to find where it was. The Public Works Department had a concern that the conceptual sewer plans do not allow for taking the Cooper Basin lift station off line. You mentioned something about that. Have you solved that problem? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba. Yes, sir. With an eight inch -- running an eight inch line over there, we could not intercept that manhole where it comes out of the lift station at the elevation to take it off line, but running a 12 inch line, I think at .22 percent, we could come in and we had a couple feet to spare. We did rerun our sewer inverts. We e-mailed it to Mike and I believe he concurred with the finding. So, that has been solved, sir. Yes. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Mr. Cole. Cole: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Zaremba. They did e-mail over an AutoCAD drawing showing the revised elevations, inverts, and profiles and it, indeed, does allow for the -- that lift station to be taken off line. We received it just a hair late to incorporate that in the staff report. However, Mrs. McKay has -- is correct, the profile she has shown will take that offline. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. We don't have anybody signed up to testify, but at this time you're welcome to come forward. Seeing none-- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, is it my turn? Zaremba: Uh-huh. We are all looking at you. Moe: Go right ahead. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 57 of gO Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-007 and PP 06-006. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-007 and PP 06-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06- 007, PP 06-006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2nd, 2006, and the preliminary plat labeled PP-1, dated January 19th, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. Would it be appropriate just to incorporate the applicant's response letter? Rohm: I think that's very appropriate. Yes, you can add that. Newton-Huckabay: I mean as -- or do I need to actually make a modification to the -- Guenther: Did you feel comfortable with not requiring the traffic calming in the police report? Newton-Huckabay: I can only speak -- yes, I did. Guenther: And is that your motion? Borup: Put it in your motion. How about the sidewalks in front of the out parcel? Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: My comment on that, if we are discussing before the motion is finished, is that some of the traffic calming devices are circuitous -- can't even say it. Circuitous routes, which this has. Traffic islands, which this has. And my feeling is that requirement is satisfied, not ignored. Guenther: If the Commission feels that their -- that the comment is satisfied and not ignored, then, staff would not have a problem incorporating the applicant's letter into your motion, the changes in that letter. And, then, the one change for incorporating the condition of approval from Amber Creek into this one, too, for the perimeter landscaping would be -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Let's -- I'm going to withdraw my second motion and just tally up my -- our additions. So, we are all in favor -- all agree with the applicant's response letter to the staff report? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 58 of gO Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: And I have on page -- Exhibit B, item 1.2.1, will read: Sidewalk shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision, pursuant UDC, et cetera, including sidewalk along the Meridian Road in front of the out parcel. Is that good enough terminology? Guenther: You should also just indicate that it was offered as an off-site improvement by the applicant. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I mean I don't -- do we -- and I'll just state that we -- 4.1? Okay. Exhibit B, number four, just state the Commission feels that condition has been met. Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Okay. Rohm: Would you start over. Newton-Huckabay: I will start over. Excuse me. Okay. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-007, PP 06-006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2nd, 2006, and the preliminary plat labeled PP-1, dated January 19th, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. First, the Commission would incorporate the comments from the applicant in their letter dated February 27th in response to the staff report. We have no disagreement with that. And, then, Exhibit B, Item 1.2.1 will be changed to read: Sidewalk shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17, and will include the sidewalk offered as an off-site improvement by the applicant along the Meridian Road in front of the out parcel. End of that statement. And, then, under the police department's conditions, still in Exhibit B, number four, bullet one, the Commission does feel like that the applicant has met the traffic calming needs put forth by the police department condition. So, we don't think anything else needs to be done there. End of motion. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-007 and PP 06-006, to include staff comments and the response letter provided by Engineering Solutions and a couple of modifications made by the Commissioner. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page Sg of gO Rohm: I think we are done with that one. We have one left. Thank you, everybody. I wonder if we should have commented on if, in fact, an easement could be obtained for the sidewalk in the motion, as opposed to -- because it -- if they couldn't get an easement for the sidewalk, then, Becky has proposed something that would -- Borup: That can be handled when that's developed and the right of ways given and stuff, isn't it? Rohm: I don't know. It's more of a question than anything else. Borup: I think it's just important to have something to walk on. Rohm: If that out parcel -- if they won't grant a sidewalk easement, then, it will have to be -- Nary: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, since the anticipation, I guess, of the applicant in her testimony was that they thought they could get that worked out between now and the Council hearing, since the Council is going to have to hear it anyway, I think they could probably address it there. If it hasn't happened or isn't going to happen, they can do it then. Item 22: Public Hearing: AZ 06-004 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 358.57 acres from RR to R-2 (66.02 acres), R-8 (167.02 acres), R-15 (79.82 acres), C-N (17.26 acres) and C-C (28.45 acres) for The Tree Farm by Treehaven, LLC - north side of Chinden Boulevard on both sides of Black Cat Road; west of Spurwing Subdivision: Rohm: Fair enough. Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the last Public Hearing on AZ 06-004 and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The last item on your agenda this evening is just a small little 358 acre annexation, requesting several zones, an R-2, which is the two low density residential, 66 acres; an R-8 medium density residential zone, 167 acres; an R-15, medium high density residential, 79.8 acres. And a neighborhood business C-N zone, 17.26 acres. And, finally, a C-C, community business district, at 28.45 acres. The site is located on the north of Chinden Boulevard. It's approximately a quarter mile west of Black Cat Road, extending east and, then, continuing east. So, this is the western boundary. Continuing east they have about 5,300 feet of frontage on Chinden Boulevard. It's composed of ten separate tax parcels and five different property owners. There are some existing uses on the site. There is an existing tree farm in this approximate location and there are some other homes on the site. I think there is another one back over here somewhere. I did want to just mention this property is not currently within the city's area of impact. It is up on the City Council's agenda for this next Tuesday, the 7th, as part of the north Meridian comp plan amendment the city is proposing to annex in the subject site on this map and I apologize for the scale. The subject property is going in this approximate location and