Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 6, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 42 of 51 Rohm: Improperly posted. Excuse me. Hood: And so the applicant needs to post the site. Rohm: Yeah. I apologize. Improperly posted. Is there a second? Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue Public Hearing CUP 06-019 to the regularly scheduled meeting of July 20th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed the same sign. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-027 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.92 acres to an R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC- 635 and 675 South Linder Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 06-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 residential lots and 4 common lots on 3.92 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by Raftis Tapestry, LLC - 635 and 675 South Linder Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the last hearing for this evening. It's Public Hearing AZ 06-027 and Public Hearing PP 06-026, both related to Tapestry Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Veatch: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. Before I begin I just want to say that in the staff report, in the section where it says history of previous actions, it was pointed out to me that this subdivision had come in in the past, I guess it was seen last year, and at the time it was denied and, I'm sorry, I did not know that, so -- I'm going to let Caleb -- Hood: Just to follow that up a little bit, since I was here. It was not my project, but this last year what was reviewed by the city and eventually denied by the City Council and also this body recommended denial of was the southern three-quarters or four-fifths of the property that's before you tonight, they have acquired that strip north of -- which was a big point of contention and in talking with Commissioner Zaremba again, this is the other item that he wanted me to kind of express some of his concerns about this item -- or the two reasons that he felt that it was denied last time and he still thinks that those two items still exist on this site and one of them is that there is limited access for emergency vehicles. The only way you can get into this site is from Franklin Road, heading south on Linder, and he doesn't believe that it's -- the timing is appropriate for any new development in this area until the bridge across the -- I think it's the Nine Mile -- maybe the Ten Mile -- happens, which still hasn't and I know we are working with the Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 43 of 51 property owner here, I believe, to get that bridge so emergency vehicles do have two ways in and out of this area. His other concern was access to the site generally and not allowing an access point to the site from Linder Road. When the overpass gets constructed in the future, it will be fairly close to the base of that and he just doesn't feel it's appropriate to have an access point there. So, I did just want to express those concerns. He asked me to express those for him this evening, so I'll stand for any questions, but I believe I covered his concerns with this project. Veatch: Okay. So, we do have Tapestry Subdivision. The application has brought tapestry and they are proposing 3.92 acres be annexed and zoned from R-1 to R-8. And that would be for 20 single family residential building lots and four common lots. You will see, however, though the number of residential building lots has changed per the staff report, we have some conditions and we -- this is the most revised site plan that we have been given where they have noted some of those changes. So, they have already begun changes from our comments. So, some of the things that are on this property -- there were two existing buildings here and here. The existing building on this side will be removed and the existing building down here, which currently takes its driveway access from Linder, they have proposed to have it take access from the proposed Bayou Street. So, they will be moving that and taking access off of Linder Road. As well, the house encroaches slightly the street buffer, the required 25 foot street buffer, since Linder is an arterial. They are keeping the 25 foot buffer and, then, angling it in just where it is around the house there and I'm actually going to ask Matt to smooth that just a little bit like it was before, as far as not creating kind of a blind spot there in the corner with a 90 degree angle. I had originally asked for that. In any case, to do this they are seeking alternative compliance and they have provided additional buffer width here. I think there is almost 76 additional feet that becomes a common lot, if you will, or an extra wide buffer. Then, there used to be more of a cul-de-sac with a stub at this end and we have some lots taking access from the common driveway. There was concern with both the turning radius in the common driveway and, then, also we had about a hundred foot radius here for the cul-de-sac that was just open paving and so the applicant has redesigned this as a hammerhead here and this will be stubbed down and so we do need to continue with that curb improvement all the way through, so that it stubs to the property there. I'm in the process -- one of the conditions had been to see whether -- with the Peregrine Elementary School whether the school district would like a pedestrian pathway. There is a sidewalk on the outside here that goes to the school and it just seems the natural connectivity would go through here to the school. But I'm going to leave that up to communication between the applicant and the school district as to whether that will come in or not. Let's see. We are recommending approval of this. Let's see. We did look at the previous history of area and, as Caleb mentioned, there had been concern about access to the area. Let me just check my notes here. I think some of those concerns may have been called out in the ACHD report. In any case, I will stand for questions while I'm looking for this and, then, I can always bring it up. Thank you. Rohm: Jenny, you don't happen to have the previous plat that was presented at the last time this same parcel was brought before the Commission, do you? Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 44 of 51 Veatch: I do not. I don't know if -- Borup: One of the design problems in that was the lots were very shallow. Rohm: I couldn't remember what it was, but I knew it was a significant concern by members of this Commission and I couldn't remember what in the heck it was that was different from this application from the previous, so I just -- Borup: I think it was that extra -- extra property that they said is included in on this now. However many feet that was, I don't -- Rohm: All right. Thank you. Any additional questions of staff? Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please. Schultz: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz at 2127 South Alaska in Meridian, with RMR Consulting and I am representing the applicant Raftis Tapestry, LLC, on this site. I just want to make a few points of clarification that our development entity is in no way related to the previous development entity that was denied. The property just never got transacted and it went back to the original owners and they have, in turn, sold it to my clients and we knew from day one that getting the extra -- it's actually about 65 feet. It's a one acre -- long, narrow one acre lot. The whole -- from there down to Waltman is a series of one acre lots done several decades ago and the primary property that was previously submitted was three of those lots. Three acres. Three narrow lots. And, then, there was this one strip that was excluded and what it led to was having just really shallow lots. That's all I know. I wasn't involved in it, but I know they were very shallow lots and that caused some concerns. So, what we have here is, actually, an assemblage of two parcels, two owners, which does make it a standard R-8 subdivision, which the previous one was not. We have lot depths -- we have enough room to put a standard 50 foot right of way and, then, 114 foot deep lots on the north and 100 foot deep lots on the south, which, to me, feels good. You're not going below the one hundred feet, which is when you start to fill like you're getting pinched. We are at a hundred on the south. With all the excess room on the north where we were abutting some existing Meridian very large R-4 lots, there is two lots north of us that were done under the R-4 zone at some point in the past. What we have is on Monday we had a staff report, we knew staff was concerned about our turnaround, we didn't understand how severe that concern was until they said they want to continue it and work with us, we said, hey, I think we can fix this very quickly and we did. We did lose one lot, so we are at 19 lots, including the one existing house. We thought the house was of a value that's worth keeping. And what it provides for is -- if we can flip to the site plan, please. And what it provides for is a good view breakup as well and a good traffic calming measure as well, with a little curve in it. I want to make a point about access. We have taken two driveway accesses and combined those into one. So, we felt that we have improved the Linder access situation with our site plan and we definitely -- even though the driveway currently goes out to Linder from the existing garage, we -- there is room to flip it around the back. It's a Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 45 of 51 detached garage. There is room to put that access out to our internal road, instead of directly out to Linder. There is -- there was a need from staff to provide interconnectivity to the south with a future stub street. The reason we -- the right of way goes all the way and stubs to the property line. The curve curves just in case that property doesn't develop for 10, 15 years, so people can walk around and if that ever did develop, it's all within the right of way, that curb gets removed, the road gets extended and so it's a little deceiving what it looks like. We have allowed for that road to be extended, but in working with ACHD on other projects, they like this design, because it allows for something that looks finished until that project does decide to develop to the south. It could be a long time, it could be next year, who knows. And, then, there was the issue about pedestrian interconnectivity to the east -- or, excuse me, to the west, Peregrine Elementary. I have been in communication with Wendell and voice messages -- we kind of haven't been able to connect quite yet. We -- our site plan allows for it. I mean it's a very easy connection. It's just ten feet away -- ten feet to the property line, probably another ten feet to the pathway they have back there. If they will allow it, we will build it. If they don't want it -- in the past they have not wanted rear access to elementary schools. They want to control their access to the front. They don't like unsavory characters hanging out in the back and, you know -- but he may in this case, since there is already a pathway there. It's a very logical place to put one. We just need to ask the school district as to their -- what they would like to do. It's an R-8 sub. It's master planned for medium density, so it does conform. There was some access issues mentioned by the Commissioner who is not here. There is some regional issues about, hey, there is only one access down Linder. We heard about another bridge being planned. I know the Ten Mile interchange properties will probably pull Waltman over from Ten Mile here in the near future to Waltman to Main, it's a quarter mile north of the freeway and that's going to probably go west to Ten Mile. So, I don't know if 19 lots breaks us down there right now with the existing situation where we have however many lots coming down Linder. I don't know if this project breaks that. I'm saying it doesn't. And as far as distance from the overpass, this thing is probably 1,600 feet -- it's over a quarter mile north of 1-84. I don't see there being any conflict whatsoever with any overpass and what that would be as far as -- if it was an interchange, even then I would probably say no, but it's an overpass, I don't know if there will be any improvement conflicts, especially being over a quarter a mile away from 1-84. So, I notice Commissioner Moe is looking at an older site plan. We have revised that one. That was what was in your packet. We hope we have made the revisions in a timely manner such that you could act on this tonight, that we can move forward tonight, hopefully, with a recommendation for approval. We have felt that we have taken the steps necessary to overcome maybe some of the disadvantages the previous site had. With acquiring the additional piece of property, it really makes it a real subdivision, instead of something where you try to -- have to provide variances or R-15 or whatever they had to do to try to get what they were doing. But I guess with that I will stand for any questions and ask for your approval. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this applicant? Newton-Huckabay: Not at the moment. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6. 2006 Page 46 of 51 Rohm: John Arizabal. Would you like to come forward, please? Arizabal: My name is John Arizabal and I live on the back lot of Joshua Lane, 1700 Joshua Lane in Meridian. So, I'm to the north of this small acre lot that sold. I had a couple of concerns. One of them was the number lots and the impact on increased traffic on Linder Road now, along with what was a finalization of privacy fence down that -- it's got to be six hundred feet there, roughly. I know we had spoke in the past of possible vinyl fencing, but I don't -- I haven't heard anything definite on what type of fencing, landscaping provisions, or so forth. I have lived there for five years. I don't know what the width of the lots are now, but I certainly, from my opinion, don't want narrow lots. I realize they are deeper now, but I don't want to look out my back door to two story homes forever and ever down that entire stretch of the lane. That's about alii have to say at this point. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Arizabal, are you the -- so, your property is on the south side of Joshua Lane, the first or second one? Arizabal: I'm in the back. Newton-Huckabay: You're in the back. Okay. Arizabal: Just a little over an acre. Actually, that lane -- the Joshua Lane is mismarked. It should be the upper blue line there, that's the private lane that runs next to that narrow acre. Borup: But you're right here. Arizabal: Yeah. That's mine. But the entrance actually parallels that narrow acre, not where it's shown up there. That's probably a canal access, the Kennedy Lateral. Rohm: So, Joshua Lane is along here? Arizabal: Correct. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify before this hearing? Would you like to come back up? Schultz: Yes. Chairman and Commissioners. If I can respond to the gentleman's concerns. We are proposing six foot vinyl fence the whole entire length of our north boundary. Currently -- I haven't measured it, but there is probably at least five feet. if not more, between our property line and the lane that has some -- or some kind of rock landscaping. It actually goes onto our property. It kind of splits between the two. Going to put a fence in. We would repair any landscaping that was damaged and there will be a small buffer there between the lane and our -- and out six foot vinyl fence is what we are proposing for the full length on all sides, except for the school side, which has an Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 47 of 51 existing five or six foot chain link fence right now. But as far as the lot width, there is only two parcels along 600 feet, it's kind of hard to match that with any kind of zoning within a city. As far as single store versus two story, we were planning on having our builders to have the ability to put two stories. We thought the 114 feet -- I'd rather have a deeper lot than a wider lot. You know, be further away than have it just wider and closer. So, we do believe the depth is a more advantage to any kind of thought of extra width on those lots in terms of the separation from the actual structure -- from structure to structure would be greater with our depth of lots, with normal setbacks. So, I will stand for any additional questions. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair? Borup: Just one question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hood, why don't you go ahead. Hood: I was just curious, Matt. Do you know -- is that Joshua Lane, is it an easement and does your property have any interest in that lane? Schultz: We have none whatsoever. It was done as a two lot subdivision, I believe, with an easement granted across the one lot to the other in the back and that easement does not go on our property. It's solely contained on the property to the north. It is not part of that one acre strip that we acquired whatsoever. So, they don't share any access at all. Borup: I had a question on the -- you said 19 lots? That includes the lot with the existing house? Schultz: Yes. Borup: So that -- I think it's Lot 2, the other lot, is an open space lot? Schultz: There is two -- there is technically four lots. There is a buffer lot in front of the existing house. Borup: Oh, there we go. Okay. The landscaping plan answers my question. Schultz: Right. There you go. And staff wanted me to -- we have kind of gone full circle on the -- the designs of the fence in front of the house. We are going to -- I believe it's alternative compliance or -- I can't remember the proper term. And we will angle that, so it's not an abrupt right angle, but we do need to jog out the fence around the existing home and, then, we are offsetting with that 75 feet, in addition to 25 feet of landscaping. So, I think it's a hundred feet of landscaping total on the north side. Where the current existing house is it's going to go away. It's an older home that doesn't really have any value to keep and it would be a substandard lot if we did keep it anyways. So, it will be improved with open space and landscaping. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 48 of 51 Borup: Thank you. Schultz: Thanks. Cole: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Mr. Cole. Cole: I have one question for the applicant, if I may. Rohm: Absolutely. Cole: On your site plan, the ditch along the bottom says retain, protect -- it says to leave open. It looks like from the site plan that a part of it actually lies on your property, which would require it to be tiled by our ordinance. Do you know the end user, the owner of that, did he want it left open on your site? Schultz: I don't believe it is. I mean it says retain and protect and my engineer puts those terms on there and that just means leave it alone and don't fill in. From what I can tell there might be an answer to one portion that's maybe technically on our side, but the majority of it is -- or all of it, in my opinion, is on the other property owner to the south site. It dissipates after you get -- you can kind of see the lines disappear. It kind of goes to nothing and I think he's the end user and he gravity irrigates out of it. Cole: You're not familiar if it's a drain ditch or a delivery ditch or -- Schultz: It's a delivery and we are tiling it from our north property line to our south property line along Linder. We are tiling it there. But as far as east-west, it appears to me to be entirely on his site. There might -- from the topography shots it may look like there is a -- you know, like I said, a few inches on ours, but I believe it's all on his site and we are tiling it all the way down to our southeast corner. Cole: Thanks. Rohm: Okay. Any discussion? Borup: A couple items, maybe. And one just informational. I don't know if this is accurate. I'm looking at the site plan from the previous subdivision and it appears to me that was 21 lots in that one, so this is two less lots with an acre more property. Rohm: If memory serves me well, the primary objection last time was the fact that it didn't have the width to have the number of lots and it just seems like they were just awfully small and this appears to address that major concern and it look like a pretty good development to me. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 49 of 51 Borup: The other comment that I would have is I believe -- and even though it's a different applicant, so it doesn't really matter, but I think the comment from what I remember from the Commission was if they had that other property, then, it would be a doable deal. Rohm: And I remember it that way as well. I drive through that intersection quite frequently to the north, the Linder and Franklin Road, and I can -- as I seen in the past, there is significant more traffic coming from the west and from the north and east than there ever is coming from the south headed north into that intersection. So, maybe yours will provide more balance. I don't know. But it doesn't appear as if there is a significant amount of traffic from that south entrance to that intersection. So, I don't think it will be too bad. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Caleb, can you go back to the aerial shot? I would have liked to -- I'm just kind of looking at this whole piece of property here and I really would have liked to have seen some kind of stub with the possibility to go to the north. In. the future, if any of this decides to redevelop into the more urban density that you see all around it, we are going to be able to connect from here and we -- I mean I think if we don't connect here, we are losing the potential of being able to connect, you know, bring it all the way down through this -- this piece of property, which, if Waltman, at some point, does continue over here to the west, I just think we are doing a disservice to this area if we don't provide some ability in the future to have some alternative to Linder to get down through this area. This is a fairly large piece of land here and I would just like to see the option for that, because we could potentially run into the same kind of problems we have with this up here if we don't, because we are limited here on what we can do. So, I -- as I -- Director Canning is known for saying that sometimes development is forever. We are -- that's my comment on that. Veatch: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I actually spoke with Anna regarding a north access and I'm having a hard time recollecting her reasoning, but I know that she said that -- I believe it's because there are R-4 parcels located above and because they are such large parcels and they have a private lane there, it didn't make sense to stub up top to the north there through -- through their property. Schultz: Can I address that issue real quick, as far as my thoughts on that? Rohm: Sure. Schultz: Thank you. The property to the north is zoned in the City of Meridian. It's not a -- you know, a county to be developed in the future. I mean it was brought into the city of Meridian and it was developed to R-4 and, yes, it may be a little bigger than R-4 lots than you would see, but, you know, I guess -- and maybe to your point, maybe, it was a bad decision on their part not to put any access to us when they came in and, you know, I don't believe we are continuing that, because there is the Kennedy Lateral there to the north of them. They are supposedly happy where they live on their R-4 Meridian lots right now. That could change in the future, but if they did they would have Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 50 of 51 to come in with -- or not come in. And the property to the south we are providing interconnectivity to, so they don't have to take access off of Linder and just from Waltman. So, I believe we have addressed all those concerns. If that property to the north was just vacant county land, I think it would be a different issue. It is in the City of Meridian, zoned R-4, you know, and approved by the city, as it says today. So, I don't know if that helps or not, but just our thoughts as we were looking at the regional connection issues ourselves_ Rohm: Any additional discussion? If not, then, I'd certainly-- Borup: Yeah. What's going on with that right there? Is that really a county subdivision? Just mislabeled? Hood: Don't look at that. Borup: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I'd like to close the public hearings on AZ 06-027 and PP 06-026. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-027 and PP 06-026. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Question for staff, Mr. Chairman. I understand the applicant has submitted new site plans. Veatch: That is correct. Moe: That we do not have? Veatch: That is correct. Borup: Isn't that what was on the screen, though? Veatch: Yes. Yes, it was. And we received electronically those versions on the 5th. Moe: So, they were in our packet. Veatch: That's your current revised. Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting July 6, 2006 Page 51 of 51 Moe: Yeah. Okay. That's fine. Borup: If you -- you're thinking there is concern because we didn't have the site plan. Moe: No. I'm just trying to verify where we are at. Borup: But it looks like to me that all this -- there doesn't need to be any modification of any staff recommendations, because it says -- on the most part already complied with the comments on the redesign. Veatch: That is correct. Mae: And that's all I wanted to verify there, so -- Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-027 and PP 06-026, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 6th, 2006. End of motion. Borup: Second Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-067 and PP 06-026, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of July 6th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Newton-Huckabay: Aye. Rohm: Motion carried with one dissenting vote. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: One last motion. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:51 P.M.