Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 3, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 10 of 56 the ground. If it's a Settler's or a Nampa irrigation ditch, they have to provide something from that district. If it's a downstream user, the next property downstream they are the ones that have to get written permission from those people Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you very much. Rohm: Any further discussion among the Commission on this application? Okay. ., Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. . Moe: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-034. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-034. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: 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 number AZ 06-034 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 3rd, 2006. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-034 to include the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~~U; ~n~ Item 5: Public Hearing: AZ 06-033 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.6 acres from RUT (Ada County) to 6 acres of R-4 (MeElium Low-Density .:.--:::-:r:~ Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 11 of 56 Residential) and 1.6 acres of R-8 (Medium Density Residential) for Benelli Springs Subdivision by Rob Godsil/- 3420 South Locust Grove Road: Item 6: Public Heari~g: PP 06-041 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 17 single-family units in the proposed R-4 zone, 8 single family units in the proposed R-8 zone and 5 common lots on 7.6 acres for Benelli Springs Subdivision by Rob Godsill- 3420 South Locust Grove Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-033 and PP 06- 041, both related to Benelli Springs Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'd like to begin with a brief .. summary of the project and, then, we will move into any specific issues that we may have. The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning of 7.6 acres located on the east side of Locust Grove Road approximately 600 feet south of Victory Road. To the north is the proposed Casa Meridiana development, which has requested an R-15 zone .. on the corner of Locust Grove and Victory. To the east are approved single family lots within the Tuscany Hills Subdivision, kind of to the southeast right here, which have been constructed. To the south is a single family home on a large parcel, currently zoned -- it's that triangular parcel right there. Currently zoned RUT in Ada County. And to the west are single family homes on large parcels here on the corner and portions of the Tuscany Vii/age Subdivision. With that context, the applicant is requesting two different residential zoning designations on this property. The requested zoning is R-4, which is medium low density residential for six acres and R-8, which is medium density residential, for the remaining 1.6 acres. All of the property is currently zoned RUTin Ada County and there is currently one single family home on the property that will be removed from the project. This is just the aerial photograph. It gives a picture of what I just described, basically, and we will move on to the plat. Along with the annexation and zoning, the applicant is also requesting a preliminary plat approval of 25 single family building lots. Seventeen of these lots are located in the proposed R-4 zone in the southern portion of the property, which is all this area here. And eight lots are located in the proposed R-8 zone in the northern portion of the property, which is this row of lots right at the top there. Five common lots are also proposed for the development. With this number of build-able lots the total gross density for the project is 3.3 units per acre, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of medium density residential, which allows between three and eight units per acre on this site. All of the . proposed lots meet the minimum dimensional standards described in the UDC for the proposed zones. We will move on to the landscape plan. The applicant's proposing to set aside .92 acres or approximately 12 percent of the total site area as common usable open space. Most of that is located -- there is a -- kind of circular park-like feature in the cul-de-sac there and the applicant's also proposing to extend this multi-use pathway from Locust Grove connecting towards the Tuscany Subdivision. This -- kind of moving on to some of the issues. This was one of the main issues ttrnt came up as staff reviewed this application was the location of this proposed pathway. It's -- currently it's located on the southern side of Ten Mile Creek, which is inconsistent with the Tuscany Subdivision to the southeast where the path is located on the n9Fl:h side of Ten Mile Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 12 of 56 Creek. Staff has included a condition to relocate this path to the north side of Ten Mile Creek to remain consistent with Tuscany -- the Tuscany Subdivision to the southeast. What happens with this path is as it crosses Locust Grove it, then, jumps to the other side to the south side of Ten Mile Creek, so that's why there may have been some confusion. But on this side it should remain consistent with what has already been constructed. One other issue that came up in staff's review was the proposed buffer. The applicant proposed a 20-foot landscape buffer along Locust Grove Road, but staff is recommending that be bumped up to 25 to meet the -- to meet the landscape buffer standard for an arterial street, which Locust Grove currently in the most recent Compass map Locust Grove is identified as an arterial and which is consistent because .of.the overpass that's going to go in, that's going to be a very heavily traveled road. Other than those issues, staff is generally supportive of the design and recommends .: approval and I stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, Justin, do you have a picture with -- the southern piece of property below this? It seemed like we were leaving rather strange outparcels. Is there access to that if it redevelops? Lucas: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yeah, that outparcel that will be created -- I think I actually -- it shows better here. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Lucas: This triangular piece -- it's a good question and, yes, the only access it looks like will be off of Locust Grove Road and I -- there is no stub proposed to the south because of the Ten Mile Creek that runs through there. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Lucas: But that's kind of the dividing line. So, that outparcel -- and it doesn't look like there is a stub proposed to that parcel from the Tuscany Subdivision either. So, yes, it is an odd outparcel that will be left there, though mostly because of the creek feature that runs through there. Newton-Huckabay: I know there was another piece of property in north Meridian that had a similar instance and we -- was at Ten Mile and Ustick and it bumped up against a creek and did we 'go ahead and put a stub there anyway? Because it did -- or did that landlock that piece of property across from Autumn Faire? Lucas: I'm not familiar with that. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, no, that would have been before your time. Lucas: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 13 of 56 Newton-Huckabay: That's okay. I guess my concern is that puts a lot of accesses to Locust Grove. If there was any way, I would prefer to see some kind of opportunity to take an access off of Locust Grove with its future as being a main north-south route. I'll leave that for -- we will let the hearing go on and we can discuss it. Lucas: Yeah. Staff can consider that and we may bring it up in the future. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Lucas: Thank you. .. , Rohm: Any other questions? Borup: Yes, I do have one for Mr. Cole. Two. things. One, any comment on groundwater concerns? And, then, maybe just for my information, the definition of an off peak pumping station. Cole: Commissioners, Commissioner Borup, there are concerns on the groundwater out here. I contacted the applicant's engineer a week ago when we -- when I started reviewing this project and said -- the groundwater report that you have submitted shows some very high groundwater levels. We have a requirement that they sign a stamped -- the professional engineer has to submit a signed, stamped, document stating that there is three feet of separation between the highest established groundwater through groundwater monitoring and the center line of the road. I asked him how he thought he was going to accomplish that and he was unaware of our requirement at that time. I asked him if he should probably be thinking about it and maybe give us some idea of how they were planning to do that, fill the site. In the past you remember Bellingham in the south that was -- had high groundwater, they actually -- it wasn't required, but they went to all slab on grade construction out there to try to minimize any groundwater in the crawl spaces. I'm reluctant to place that condition on a development. It's definitely an option that they could use to try to minimize those concerns that we have. Getting rid of the storm water on this site is going to be difficult, too, as there is many DEQ regulations between the height of the groundwater and where you discharge it to. So, there are some -- there are some engineering issues with this site. I think they can be overcome. It's going to just take some work, some -- some work, I guess. To your second point, an off-peak pumping station is a term that we have used for -- you will see it again tonight in another report. Down here in the south these mains are all planned to go to the Black Cat shed. The Black Cat shed is not here yet, so they are temporarily flowing out of shed into lines that weren't actually designed to take this much flow. So, what happens during peak flows from 6:00 until 9:00 o'clock in the morning, on weekends when people are doing their laundry, lots of showers being taken, the lines actually become full and it's a problem. So, one of the ways that we have -- to temporarily fix this until the Black Cat Trunk comes across is an off-peak pumping station is what we coined them and what it is it's basically a lift station. It doesn't lift sewer, it has an oversize wet well, so it actually stores it -- holds it during those peak Meridian Planning & Zoning Augus13,2006 Page 14 of 56 flows when it's pumping to these over full lines, so that they are not adding to the problem, and, then, once the peak flow's over and there is more capacity within those lines, it actually lifts like a lift station, but it just lifts it up high enough to dump it back in the gravity line and, then, flows down through gravity. It's basically a -- it's a way. to hold and store the in-flow for a couple three hours a day. We have put the condition on three or four projects now. We have seen just a few designs come in. There, actually, hasn't been one built yet. We are waiting to see our first one built. We are almost hoping that we can get the Black Cat trunk across before these actually have to be built. . Borup: Okay. Cole: I don't know if we are going to make it or not, though. I hope that answered your , question. Borup: Yes, it does. Thank you. . Rohm: Good. Any other questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? McCarthy: Good evening. My name is Kevin McCarthy, I'm with Toothman Orton Engineering, 9777 Chinden Boulevard. As far as addressing some of the comments made by staff there, we are pretty much in agreement with everything that they have set forth as far as just complying with the Comprehensive Plan as far as our zoning designations go. To address some of my concerns regarding the engineering, he was -- he did make me aware of that three feet of separation issue, which we will, obviously, comply with. To help in that regard we will be probably proposing slab on grade construction for the homes that will be proposed out there. The other things that came up were the pathway that we have currently shown on the south side of the canal. We were made aware that we'd like to have that on the north side, we don't have any problem with that. We will move that pathway to the north side, in addition to widening the buffer from 20 feet from Locust Grove; we will widen that to 25 feet as mentioned. We don't have any issues with that. Trying think if there is anything else that was made mention of. I guess if you guys have any questions I'd feel free to answer those. Rohm: I have none. That's pretty easy. Any questions of this applicant? Borup: I think you have, essentially, said you agreed with the staff report. McCarthy: Yeah.. We agree with the staff report and the items that they have brought up. You know, we are going to -- agree that we would address in our discussion with Justin. One other thing, I guess, would be to the south as far as a connectivity issue, what was prohibiting us from doing that was the Ten Mile Creek there was crossing that. That piece, I'm assuming would take access off Locust Grove, ideally, because the creek, being the barrier, would have been better to take access from the properties to the south, but it doesn't look like that's possible any longer. I can't tell from that map, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 15 of 56 Borup: It's not. It's developed. McCarthy: Yeah. So, it's Qur intention not to provide a stub street to the south at this time. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, does that pretty well answer your questions about that the outparcel or do you still have some concerns? Newton-Huckabay: It's not the answer I wanted, but-- Borup: Okay. Thank you. All right. Let's see. Thanks very much. There is nobody . 'signed up to testify to this application, but at this time if someone would like to come .' . forward and offer testimony this is that time. Seely: I'm Renee Seely and we own the property south of the development and you . had mentioned landlocked. What concerns should we have about that if we want to develop this property later on? Newton-Huckabay: Oh. If a property becomes so surrounded by development that they have no access to a road, then, they are landlocked and you have access and they wouldn't take it away. Seely: From Locust Grove. Okay. Newton-Huckabay: But if -- my preference would be if you chose to redevelop that your development would be accessed through this development and your Locust Grove access would go away, because it's going to be a very busy road and the less accesses directly onto Locust Grove there are -- Seely: Right. Newton-Huckabay: -- then the less traffic hazards. So, that's what -- that's what I would like to see is some access made available to your property and know that the canal creates a challenge there, but that's why I'm concerned. Your property will not be landlocked by this development. Seely: Right. Okay. All right. Thank you, , Baird: Mr. Chair? I might add for this person's information that Ada County Highway District would be the jurisdiction that would say where you would take access and how you would take access. So, if you're concerned, I would encourage you to meet with their staff and certainly nothing that was said here can guarantee access when your development comes forward. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Good point. Sorry. That's why he's here. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 16 of 56 Rohm: That's why he's here. Thanks, Ted. Any other testimony to be taken before we move forward? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a couple more questions? . R.ohm: Absolutely. . 'Newton-Huckabay: Justin, I had heard -- on Casa Meridiana what did we end up with '. on that development? Has it been -- has it made it through City Council? Lucas: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that -- the Casa Meridiana development has not gone through City Council. It has currently been continued for another month and it is in limbo I guess is the way to say it. I don't know, I don't think I need to go into the whole background of what's going on with Casa Meridiana, but ACHD was very happy with the stub street that this development, Benelli Springs, is proposing to the north and Casa Meridiana will have to comply with that stub street whenever it does end up going through. And so that's kind of the status of that. Newton-Huckabay: Now on the -- the original one had access on Locust Grove and Victory, but the one that actually went to City Council pending has access only to Victory; is that correct? Lucas: Yes. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that is correct. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: What is the size of the ditch that's parallel to this southerly line? Is it a -- Borup: It's big. Rohm: It's big? So, it's not something that you would put -- Borup: A culvert in? Rohm: -- a culvert in -- Borup: No. Rohm: -- and cover it up and be done? Okay. Borup: It's got a major bridge over it in Tuscany. Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 17 of 56 Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. I'm not -- Borup: Mr. Chairman? Oh.. Rohm: Go ahead. Borup: I move we close Public Hearing AZ 06-033 and PP 06-041. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 06-033 and , PP 06-041. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. , Moe: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I am kind of curious in regard to the discussions of on grade slabs. Do you want to -- Borup: Well, maybe that's a good point. Is that something that should be clarified at this point or is that something the developer has a choice, either three feet -- well, maybe I was premature in closing that hearing, because last time they came up with that prior to finalizing the application, didn't they? The other development. Cole: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, they actually at this body did not decide how they were going to take care of it. Borup: Okay. Cole: Slab on grade or not. At the City Council meeting is when -- after they had a chance to do more ground water monitoring, do some more engineering on the site, is when they decided that they wanted to go slab on grade. Borup: Okay. So, that's essentially, the same as here, they said that may be an option they would look at. I remember it did come up. Did that answer that? Moe: Yes, it does. Borup: Okay. Do we have any other concerns before we move on? Moe: I have none. Newton-Huckabay: I have many. Moe: Pardon me?