Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 16, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16,2006 Page 40 of 82 Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-010 and PP 06-008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 06-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 06-009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 88 building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-011 and PP 06- 009. Both of these items relating to Basin Creek Subdivision and begin with the report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Basin Creek Subdivision lies generally northwest of the intersection of McMillan Road and North Locust Grove Road. Surrounding area consists of an older county sub named Larkwood. Recently approved Tustin Subdivision came through the Commission and Council last fall. Saguaro Canyon to the west. The Reserve to the north. Arcadia to the north. And the previous item that did have to be continued is Cardigan Bay and is directly to the south of the site, located on two lots here. So, Basin Creek consists of 29.69 acres, currently zoned RUT. The applicant has requested to rezone -- or to annex and zone to an R-4 district for the preliminary plat approval of 88 single family residential lots and the request states ten common lots, but there is -- I did confirm with the applicant that there is only nine common lots in the request. The preliminary plat has -- was modified from the original submittal at staff's request to match up with a stub street proposed by Cardigan Bay. The initial submittal did stub the road to the LOS Church, which we felt it was more appropriate to connect to the proposed stub in Cardigan. This site does have some really good connectivity, end up with an access -- a new access off of Locust Grove Road, connecting to an approved stub in Saguaro Canyon and an approved stub in Arcadia, stubbing to an undeveloped parcel to the north and, then, connecting to Cardigan Bay to the south. So, the traffic circulation is quite excellent on the site and they have -- staff is quite pleased with the number of stubs and the layout of the subdivision, with the changes that were made with the revised plat. A few things I will mention. The submitted preliminary plat did not have an adequate landscape buffer along Locust Grove Road. As an arterial, Locust Grove Road does require -- well, it's actually, an entryway corridor on the Comprehensive Plan. So, that does require a 35-foot landscape buffer. The submitted plat did have a 25-foot landscape buffer, so we would condition the plat to increase that to the required 35 feet to be included in the common lot along Locust Grove. The parkways with trees that were proposed as part of the subdivision -- and I can go into some landscape plans , 1~ - Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 41 of 82 " here. The application has proposed a detached sidewalk with a parkway on all the local streets within the subdivision. However, ACHD requirements and City of Meridian requirements do require that those are eight feet wide. They were shown as seven and a half feet. So, in order to include the trees within those parkways, those do have to be increased to eight foot wide and those trees would be restricted to class two trees. The Meridian fire department had concerns about parking along the entry road from Locust Grove due to the landscape island and the configuration of the roadway. They did include a condition that there would be no parking from -- and that is East Halpin Street, that there would be no parking from Locust Grove to the intersection with Pasa Tiempo at this location. The open space for the project consists of a -- sometimes referred to as T-shirts. This one really isn't so much one, but you have a larger area of open space that acts as a landscape target for that entry drive into the subdivision that, then, extends with a pathway down the middle of this block of homes and intersects with another neighborhood park in this location. Get to some landscape plans. Unfortunately, they are kind of chopped up, so it's a little bit hard to see -- a lot hard to see. I'll let the applicant -- they have an overall on the board, maybe they can point out a little bit easier there. But we are supportive of the open space design. It does meet the -- it does meet and exceed the minimum requirements for landscape open space and has amenities that will -- that will benefit the neighborhood. I will just mention, too, that the R-4 zone does have a minimum house size of 1,400 square feet and all homes within the subdivision would be required to be at least that size. I think with that I will end staff comments and take any questions from the Commission. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just one. In the first paragraph in the staff report you mention that there is discrepancy whether there is ten common lots or nine. Has that been resolved? Wilson: Yes. The applicant did confirm that there are only nine. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Ford: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I'll try this again. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Ashley Ford, I'm a planning project manager for WRG Design. My office address is 453 South Fitness Place, Eagle, Idaho. And I'm here tonight on behalf of my client Pacific Landmark Development. As staff has stated, we do have a proposed 88 lots within this development for an overall density of just less than three dwelling units per acre. We are really proud of this development and we worked very hard on this and we believe that this has maintained the delicate balance of being compatible with the surrounding developments in this area and meeting your Comprehensive Plan, which says three to eight dwelling units per acre for this site. We envision this development to be more upscale. It is a single family residential development. The CC&Rs will require a minimum lot size -- or a minimum home size, ....... .~ Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 42 of 82 excuse me, of 2,500 square feet. And we will have very strict architectural standards. While it is difficult to speculate what our end prices will be, we assume we will be starting in the 400,000 dollar range. So, this will be a very nice development. The architecture will reflect that within the controls and I think the landscaping will go above and beyond. What you have in front of you is, basically, just a concept plan that we have right row. We will be refining this even more as we work through the final plat and the construction document base. We will be providing vinyl fencing within the development. The only exception for this will be all the lots adjacent to open park areas and, then, wrought iron fencing will be required. We have provided detached sidewalks throughout the entire development and we will provide -- we think this will provide a much more enhanced streetscape throughout the development and will look very very nice. From a pedestrian and vehicular connectivity standpoint, we have worked with both the city and ACHD to provide adequate stub roads and pathway connections. We have proposed stub roads to the connections -- to locations planning staff requested early on and to provide for future interconnectivity to Cardigan Subdivision to the south. Would are proposing an extension of the ten foot pathway, which will -- sorry, I forgot my laser pointer, but will start at the west end of the site from Saguaro Canyon all the way to Locust Grove. It will meander through the large park site through the center T- shirts park site if you will and onto Locust Grove and to the south and, basically, this is the last leg of the Comprehensive Plan pathway and so we will be finalizing this connection. We do understand that we will need to be tabled this evening, because we do not have an ACHD staff report. We just hope to open the Public Hearing, hear if there are any concerns on your part, and if there were, then, we could address those before coming back for our next meeting. We do have tech review with ACHD tomorrow. It is my understanding, from what the proposed conditions will be, that there will not be any issues with our site plan and we will be on the consent agenda for March 29th. I guess all in all we are in agreement with the staff report. Josh has been great to work with and makes -- has made the process relatively painless for us and we appreciate that. And I'm just happy to stand for any questions you may have this evening. Rohm: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Ashley, you had made the statement in regard to the wrought iron fencing, you said will be required? Are you not planning to install that? Ford: It will be placed upon the development -- the home builders at the time and so it will be placed in the CC&Rs and the ACCs that that will be required for each homeowner. Moe: Okay. Thank you. --- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 43 of 82 Rohm: Any additional questions of the applicant? Ford: Thank you very much. Rohm: Good. Thank you. Ryan Tuttle. Tuttle: Thank you for your time, Commissioners. I'm Ryan Tuttle, Pacific Landmark Development. I just wanted to make myself available to answer any questions. I think Ashley covered everything for the most part. And we appreciate staff's time and input on this subdivision and we are very proud of the outcome. Rohm: Good. Thank you. There is nobody else signed up for this, but at this time you're certainly -- anyone is welcome to come forward. Lee: My name is Grant Lee. I live at 5603 North Locust Grove Road right in the middle of this project. I think it's a darn good project, as I thought of our last subdivision proposal, which was passed by this good body of people, and I think our minimum lot sizes -- there is no Conditional Use Permit this round, which is -- should be in our favor. The minimum home construction size far surpasses the subdivisions of lessor quality across the street and behind us and I think it's a good project and look forward to your passing this as you did our last proposal. Thank you. I'm in favor. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Discussion amongst the Commission? Moe: I really don't have any questions, other than the applicant -- you said you're going to ACHD March 28th? Ford: Commissioner Moe, we are planning on going to tech review tomorrow morning and planning on the March 29th ACHD commission. Moe: So, as far as the continuance, you would pretty much be ready on our next meeting the 6th, but I realize our hearing is full. So, the 20th would be the next one that -- Rohm: Well, what I'm wondering is if -- if ACHD approves this as designed, why we can't just forward to City Council with the assumption that ACHD's response will be in the affirmative and, if not, then, it will be kicked to us from City Council at the point in time. Borup: I was wondering the same thing. I mean normally I like to see the ACHD report. I think it most times is pertinent and could affect, but here they tied into every -- every adjoining stub street and they have provided one extra to the undeveloped property. I don't know what ACHD could do any different. Has there been any preliminary discussion with ACHD staff? ., Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 44 of 82 Ford: Commissioner Borup, yes, there has been. We met with them very early on to let them know that we were planning on -- the stub streets that we were planning on doing and also there were reduced street sections that we are planning on doing throughout some of the development and parking on one side and just to make sure that they were okay with that and we had their buy off at that point in time verbally. Of course, I did try to get a draft staff report for tonight's meeting, but, unfortunately, they are a little under staffed and are rushing I think to get -- put things together for tomorrow's tech review. Borup: Because people keep quitting. Ford: I know. I know. Rohm: Thank you. Ford: Thank you. Rohm: Maybe at this time we will ask our legal counsel if he sees any problems moving forward with this with some assumptions in mind. Baird: Mr. Chair, I think the applicant would have to go on the record and agree to this, because they are taking a risk, because if it doesn't turn out as you think it will, there will be additional delays, because it will have to go up to Council be -- possibly be remanded back. Whereas the sure thing to do would be to continue it for a date certain, so that you could review the report. So, you can go either way, but I think there is additional risk to the applicant for further delay if you make an assumption about how the ACHD report will turn out. Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward once again, please. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I could just -- real quickly just kind of talk about what was done in the past in this situation and, then, in the recent past. If you remember Bear Creek West, and Knight Hill Center, both within the last couple of months, same situation, didn't anticipate any ACHD problems and there ended up not being any ACHD problems on those. But we did continue those out until we had that approval before this body gave their recommendation. So, just kind of some history there. You can do as you may, but I thought I'd just mention that. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would add that I'm one of those that really does like to see the ACHD report before we move it on. It's unfortunate that ACHD is having problems and that impacts developments, but I feel it's -- even if it's going to be a slam dunk, it's still important to see it. Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to provide comment? .. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16,2006 Page 45 of 82 Ford: We will agree to whatever the Commission deems is best. If you do feel that you can recommend approval to the Council this evening, we would be willing to take that risk, just because of the level of conversations that we have had with the ACHD staff and the comfort level we do have that we are meeting their requirements, but, accordingly, we will respect the decision that you make this evening. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Ford: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I would recommend that we continue this, but I think it will be a small enough order to put on the April 6th -- Borup: I'd agree with that. There shouldn't be anymore testimony or anything. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Beca!Jse it was a similar situation with Bear Creek West, we were able to move that through pretty quickly. Rohm: With the sole provision of obtaining the Ada County Highway District's report, so that there would be no other issues open at that -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, before we do that I would add one very small comment, probably a typo, and that is that on their revised preliminary sheets, the cover sheet, page CO-1, still shows the original design. All of the other pages, C-2 through C-5, show the new representation that I believe we all prefer. But the cover sheet is not correct. Rohm: Okay. All right. With that I would entertain a motion. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Wait a minute. I'm sorry. We are not doing that. We are going to continue it. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: I didn't make a motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue AZ 06-011 and PP 06-009, relating to Basin Creek Subdivision, to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006, for the sole purpose of receiving and assimilating the ACHD report. ! " Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 46 of 82 Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we continue Items No. AZ 06-011 and PP 06-009 to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: Public Hearing: PP 06-010 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 18 single- family residential lots and 4 common lots for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: Rohm: Okay. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing of AZ 06-012 and PP 006-010, both relating to Hendrickson Subdivision, for the sole purpose of continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we continue AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010, both relating the Hendrickson Subdivision to our regularly scheduled meeting of April 6, 2006, to allow us to receive and assimilate the ACHD report and have full discussion at that time. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010 to April 6, 2006, regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: Public Hearing: PP 06-007 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 85 single- family residential lots and 12 common lots for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: