Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 3, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 26 of 56 Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-040 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.38 acres to an R-8 zone for Bellabrook Subdivision by JE Development, LLC - 300 South Locust Grove Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 06-038 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 20 residential lots and 4 common lots on 4.38 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Bellabrook Subdivision by JE Development, LLC - 300 South Locust Grove Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing AZ 06-040 and PP 06-038 and begin with the staff report. Veatch: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Tonight we are looking at Bellabrook Subdivision. The applicant JE Development, Inc., has applied for annexation and zoning of an RUT parcel in Ada County to R-8. The site is 4.38 acres. And they would also like to submit for a preliminary plat of 20 single residential lots, with five common lots. The subject subdivision is located on Locust Grove Road just south of Franklin and as you can see in the area there is quite a mix of uses. We have some commercial here, which, actually, is an LOS church site. We have some county with R- 1 and some other R-1 parcels over here. A little light office and commercial and, then, we also have an R-4, which is the Woodbridge Subdivision. As well I think this RUT parcel comes down for both those pieces there. One thing that the applicant did want me to note -- and I guess after we get through this we will see. We do have the Ten Mile Creek that runs along here and this site has provided quite a lot of open space. I think total open space for the site is 24 percent, 18.3, which is usable. Quite a lot of that is this area up here, which is in the flood plane. There is existing fencing from the church that runs along this section here to approximately midway down and, then, for the southern property here there is fencing that runs to about here. So, normally, we would not have fencing around that common area. The applicant will not be putting fencing in addition around the rest of that common area, but they wanted us to know that there is an existing for other property owners that's there. Most of these lots are going to be with common driveways. The applicant has also submitted a letter for changes that we have spoken with the fire department to confirm this and that is that normally there is condition whereby there has to be a certain turning radius for common driveways for the fire services, but fire services would be able to park on the road and be able to get within 150 feet of the furthermost corner of each of these homes and so, therefore, even though they are beginning with it, the driveway is 20 feet, it narrows to 12 and so that 3.7 condition under the fire department we will go ahead and -- with your permission we'd like to strike that, since they can reach to the back of the houses from the street level. Let's see. So, they are asking for an R-8 zone with this site. They will be providing access to Locust Grove here. There will be a right of way with the Torino Avenue that comes down to here, at which point when this parcel develops, then, they can connect to that. And I think if you have any further questions I will be happy to answer those for you. Rohm: Any questions of staff at this time? Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 27 of 56 Borup: Just which is the -- do we have two different plats? Veatch: As far as like a revision? Borup: Well, the one I have is different than that one. Veatch: How many site does it show? Borup: Same amount of sites, just the stub street's in a different location. Veatch: I don't believe so. We had a revised -- Borup: This is the latest version? Veatch: The latest would be of July 20th of 2006, which Mr. Erickson is very good about forwarding current plats, so I believe the one that we have on the screen is the most current. Oh. Borup: I don't think we got a copy of that. Veatch: I'm sorry. Mr. Cole is saying that that probably is an older version and the one that you have is the most current. Borup: Okay. That's what I wondering. Thank you. Rohm: Well, if not, the applicant will certainly be able to clear that up. Any other questions of staff before we ask the applicant to come forward? Would the applicant like to come forward? Erickson: Good evening. Ross Erickson, 1854 East Lanark Street here in Meridian. Thanks for the good staff report, Jenny. We, actually, massaged this plat around as we developed it, working with city staff and ACHD, and just to clarify, this is an old copy of the plat. As a result of some coordination with ACHD we decided to dedicate the right of way for Torino all the way to the east property line to offer some flexibility to the adjacent property owner for when they come in to develop, they will, basically, be able to locate that stub street along that property line, because their right of way will be all the way to the east. So, they can come in and actually connect to Torino at whatever desirable location they can work out with the city and ACHD in the future. We don't really have a lot of outstanding issues with this project, so I'm not going to go through a whole bunch of things, but I'd like to hit just a couple of the high points. The project does offer a lot of open space. We have got about 20 -- just under 23 percent of green space in the project and of that about 18.3 percent is actually usable. A lot of that is the flag or the easterly portion of the site. It just was kind of a natural fit with the flood plane for Five Mile Creek running through there, rather than try to go in there and move a lot of dirt around and alter the existing condition. Our plan is to go in and just do some Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 28 of 56 minor grading, possibly place some top soil and put some trees and irrigation. We will do a portion of -- a very short portion of the multi-use pathway along Five Creek that runs north and south on the project and, then, provide a micropath connection from that back up into our project so people will be able to access that in the future when it does connect through along the -- I guess there are many portions of Five Mile Creek. The common driveway is actually a pretty unique feature to the project. Our vision was to create a really nice streetscape for the project and not have a lot of driveways or a lot of concrete out front and, rather, have some nice building elevations that -- I brought some copies that I could hand out to you. I don't think they were included in the staff report. You can see that with the project built out you're mainly going to see our architectural features of the design of the homes, rather than garages and the concrete, and that's one of the things that we think will really be an attractive feature about this project. The street section for the public roads within the project is a 34 foot width that does provide for parking on both sides, so there will be overflow parking that's available for guests or whoever, you know, would need that. I guess with that I will stand for any questions. I don't really have a lot of other items, I guess, other than Jenny had mentioned the condition of the fire department that we would like to amend. We wrote a letter that you should have in your report that kind of explains the reasoning why we want that change. So, I guess with that we will just ask for your approval tonight and stand for any questions. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of this applicant? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Erickson, how -- on your -- the front part of the flag that's green space, I can't really tell by looking at your map, but what is that going to look like? Erickson: Right here? Newton-Huckabay: The front plane I think is what messes me up here. Erickson: Are you looking right here? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Just that whole front section of that. There is not actually houses -- right there. Erickson: This here is a building lot. Newton-Huckabay: That is a building lot. Erickson: It is a building lot and it is a 20-foot strip from the north line of that building lot to the north property line and within that strip we are going to build a micropath and landscaping and this landscaping, actually, continues out along East Kalispell Street to Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 29 of 56 the west. So, it will kind of -- from this corner here you have kind of a flared out micropath that, you know, people can just kind of walk down, go do their thing. Newton-Huckabay: How many -- one house goes on that lot? Erickson: Yeah. It's a really unique lot. It's just the topography out there. I don't know if you can tell from the contours, but it's got a lot of relief and it has a really nice view looking this direction at the Boise front, Bogus, and it overlooks a lot of this flood plane land here. So, it kind of made sense to make that lot a little bit larger, just because I think it's a lot more desirable lot and you can put a pretty cool house on it. Newton-Huckabay: It just doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the development to me. Oh, it's 12,000 square feet. Erickson: A lot of this lot -- Newton-Huckabay: You can't do anything with it? Erickson: -- isn't actually build-able. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, you can't do anything with it? Erickson: Yeah. A lot of it will be partially backyard. It sort of depends on what sort of an architectural plan is designed for it, but you can see it drops off really quick here. Some of this will be feathered out a little bit, but it's likely that the home will actually sit right here on a similar footprint to what these lots have here. Newton-Huckabay: And, then, the path was 20 feet you said? Or that distance 20 feet? Erickson: Yeah. There is a 20 foot strip right here with a micropath connecting it. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Borup: Are these homes in a project in the valley? Are they -- Erickson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup. Yes, they are. They are in a development called Winding Creek down in Eagle and it's a similar concept where they have shared driveway. Their lots are a little bit narrower than ours, but the concept for the driveway and things is very similar. Borup: Thank you. That's alii have. Newton-Huckabay: This development doesn't have street trees, though, does it? Erickson: Actually, there are no street trees, just the 25-foot landscape buffer and, then, the trees back there. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 30 of 56 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Would Rod Cullip like to come forward, please. Cullip: Mr. Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission. My concern is -- Baird: Name and -- Cullip: Rod Cullip. 1821 East Franklin Road. Excuse me. I live adjacent to the north on Five Mile Creek. And it is Five Mile, not Ten Mile. And it does run right up -- excuse me. I will show you here. Right here on this property here. And my concern is -- you talked about not having any fence on this area and we do have livestock, horses, cattle, everything in here. My concern is kids getting over into this area here and all around the rest of it -- right here where the church is it's all white vinyl fence that they put up around that. Over here at Osborns he's putting white vinyl fence around his property there. Also, over here on Marshall he's got it fenced on this section here. So, my concern is kids getting into where the livestock is. Okay. Borup: Excuse me, sir. What contains the livestock that's there now, then? Cullip: It's just a barbed wire fence -- Borup: Okay. Cullip: -- is all it is. On that where it abuts to him to that section. Borup: Okay. Cullip: And, of course, you have got the creek with the culvert there, too. And I'm not sure -- that culvert was put in and it doesn't really handle the water flow that goes through that and that floods around that culvert and it's washed it out a number of times. So, that might be something you want to consider, too. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Cullip: Thank you very much. Rohm: Rod is the only one that signed up, but would anybody else like to come forward and testify on this application? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions of staff if I might. In reviewing this project I guess a couple things came to mind. Number one, as far as the Comp Plan, you know, that it's, basically, designated as a mixed use community in that area and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3. 2006 Page 31 of 56 Veatch: Yes, it is. Moe: I'm just kind of curious. I mean we are within the designation of mixed use community it seems like we are putting all our eggs in one basket with an R-8 design on the thing and the other thing I'm a little bit concerned about is -- quite frankly, I'm very surprised that we don't have other testimony tonight for the simple fact that Woodbridge being an R-4 designation to the south and this being basically right above it, I'm surprised that no one's here commenting on that tonight as well and, basically, this development here is really showing no transition whatsoever between an R-4 into this property. And I'm just kind of curious as far as on the mixed use community no problems with staff with that? Veatch: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, I think the thought was that since it is mixed use with some of the other properties here being commercial, light industry, and that they might redevelop some of these outlying parcels and that there were other R-8 in the vicinity, that it would work, basically. And because of the amount of open space, too, I realize that the transition is up here at the top to these parcels and not down below by Woodbridge, but we haven't received any letters and I know that a neighborhood meeting and postings were done, so -- Moe: They were done. Okay. Thank you. Borup: Commissioner Moe, I think another reason might be the section of Woodbridge that's to the west, the lots aren't much larger. There was conditional use and it was a planned development, so a number of those lots were quite small. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? And seeing none, would the applicant like to come forward? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just -- I'm not understanding the fence question. Where is there fence, where isn't there fence -- Veatch: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: -- around the flag and -- perfect. Erickson: Again, Ross Erickson. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I can clarify. It sounds like I should have done that the first time on the fencing, but the existing fencing that staff mentioned when they first presented the project -- I'll just kind of run through that first. There is six foot closed vision white vinyl fence that is right along their property line to about right here and there is a -- the same fence, actually, is just right along this lot to about that point here. We will be providing fencing with this project. The reason why this was even an issue is I just wanted to bring it to staff's attention that a portion of this common lot has a six foot closed vision fence on it that's Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 32 of 56 not on our property. The way the code reads you have to provide either a four foot -- I think it's -- is it a six or a four foot open vision fence or a four foot closed vision fence. I just wanted to bring that to their attention. We will be constructing fencing around the entire boundary of the project. This common lot likely will have a four foot open vision fence around the entire boundary of it and, then, match it with the existing fence right here and right up here at the LOS church site. Newton-Huckabay: So, it's going to be like a metal -- or like an iron -- wrought iron or -- Erickson: That's an option. We could use the wrought iron fencing or even like a rail fence or something that -- whatever, I guess, we decide to put in that would fit and look nice for the project. There is -- this fencing up here is white vinyl, so I kind of think I'd like to carry that through with something that would be allowed for a common lot fencing, you know, on the boundary. So, it will probably end up being like a white -- like a rail fence or open vision fence. Newton-Huckabay: I guess my thought is that a rail fence wouldn't discourage people from crossing over, but, you're right, it may not look good to have anything else, so -- Erickson: That's kind of what we are up against. You know, I guess we can look at a lot of different fencing types and we'd just like something that would look nice for the project. Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and the open vision fencing in like Heritage Commons -- but that's wrought iron and black and cedar, but I think that looks very very nice. Something like that I think would look nice there, if you -- Veatch: Commissioner Rohm -- excuse me -- Chairman ROhm, Commissioner Newton- Huckabay, I think staffs concern was because this is a flood way that that fencing would restrict that area. I know that the director -- we have looked into the code with that and also being a common open space, we do normally around the common space require a shorter fence, like the four foot or to have an open vision fence, you know, we realize we normally would have someone fence the entire perimeter of the subdivision, but -- and I think maybe Caleb wanted to add -- Newton-Huckabay: I'm not asking them to put a solid fence all the way around it, I just - - a spit rail vinyl fence is going to be nothing but just visually appealing. I don't know that it's going to be a deterrent, but I don't know that the option -- I agree that it does need to be open, especially that long of a common space, it needs to have open vision for safety purposes, so -- I'll end my comments. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Ross, my question -- and I haven't walked back there. I have driven down Locust Grove. I haven't walked back there. How do you set posts in the floodway, then? I mean is it -- that's where I'm failing to see how that fence goes all the way through and you have got a micropath shown through the floodway and is there not water, you know, running through the floodway? I Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 33 of 56 mean the five mile creek I think as being a creek that has water in it sometime of the year. Erickson: Yeah. Let me answer your question. Yes, it does. In fact, right now there is flows -- you know, Five Mile Creek flows from ground springs, from irrigation return, from storm water, from a number of different sources, and there is a mapped flood plane through here. Currently the actual flows for Five Mile Creek are contained within just the channel and there is still some freeboard on that. I think just the tributary area of Five Mile Creek alone is fairly large and that's why you're seeing a flood plane that's mapped like this. And, then, also the banks are pretty flat as it comes off of the flow line of the -- of the actual drain. You know, as far as setting fence posts, you would set them the way you would typically set a fence post. I don't think, you know, the flood proofing measures for fence posts, I don't think there is really are any. I guess you could imbed the post hole deeper and maybe reinforce them, so that, you know, if there are fast moving waters coming through that it would knock the fence over, but I think if you're going to get an enormous flood coming through there, like a 500 year flood, it's probably going to blow anything over, you know, if you get some big -- some big flows coming through there, so -- Hood: Yeah. I was just wondering if there are any provisions for that. You know, as the testimony was stated earlier, that culvert gets breached and you got water going around. Are you just looking at a maintenance headache for the homeowners association in the future if the fence goes down every year or -- I mean I see them wanting to keep people kind of contained within this common area, but at the same time you have got almost that far end of the common area that isn't really accessible in the first place to the homeowners -- I mean they have got to walk across this culvert to get there and, then, there is not much there anyway. So, I'm wondering if it -- maybe it just makes more sense to even fence off, you know, on this side, the west side of the culvert or something and -- I don't know. Erickson: For the pathway connection we kind of need to get across and I think, you know, this development alone will kind of bridge a piece between Woodbridge when their pathway connects and this will probably ultimately connect out to Franklin Road would be my guess. I think it's important that we put it in there. As far as that culvert and the breaching, I spoke with the property owner and I asked him have you seen flooding out there and he's like, well, we haven't seen it in years. So, you know, as far as the frequency of major floods that would cause a lot of maintenance -- I guess requirements, it's probably pretty minimal. I think, you know, throughout the years you probably -- I'm sure you will see some, you know, if you did get a big flood you would have to go out and clean things up if it damaged a fence or something for sure, but I think that the frequency and the amount of maintenance required would be pretty minimal. Borup: We don't have major floods here, but you had mentioned the culvert again and it sounds like there is a concern there. Is that undersized? They are talking about -- I mean is there plans to put a larger culvert in there, then? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 34 of 56 Erickson: At this time we don't have plans to enlarge the culvert. It's already in place, it's got some nice -- it looks like someone built up some like nice rock around it for the head wall, but the inlet and the outlet kind of actually supported the bank a little bit around it, too. Borup: Do you know what the size is? I mean what size it is where it goes under Franklin? Are they both the same size? Erickson: I believe that Franklin it's actually a bridge. I don't think it's -- Borup: Okay. Yeah. That's right. Erickson: I'd just answer your question if we were to try to accommodate the flood water that came through there, you would be building a bridge with probably, you know, a 20 foot span or something to get across there and I think it's just not -- not too realistic for a pedestrian footbridge to, you know, to go -- Borup: Well, I agree with that for flood water. I guess I had the -- I thought -- I took out of the other testimony that it wasn't -- it wasn't during flood time, it was during heavy irrigation or something that was doing that. Now, maybe I misunderstood. The chairman's going to have to -- Rohm: Yeah. Go ahead and come up just to help clarify the -- Cullip: The culvert's probably -- Newton-Huckabay: You need to state your name again. Cullip: Rod Cullip. 1821 East Franklin Road. Sorry about that, Mr. Chairman or Commissioners. It's about a three and a half foot culvert that he had put in there and -- Borup: That's big. Cullip: Yeah. And the water -- you know, the creek is six foot wide and when you have a wet spring with snow, when it melts off, the creek fills up and what happens there is more water in the creek than can go through that culvert, so it goes around the culvert and that's why he put concrete around all that and the concrete was to keep from washing the bank away, so now what it does is it overflows and goes around the culvert and back in the water. But the problem is it's washed our area out, so I ended up putting railroad ties there to keep from washing the whole bank out and everything when it happens. So, that was my concern and yours, too. Borup: So, how often has it done that? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 35 of 56 Cullip: Not very often. Every 15 years, probably, you will have a bad water -- you know, melt off with snow and heavy rain. Borup: Back in the days when we used to have snow. Cullip: Absolutely. Back when we used to have it the way it was. But it doesn't really overflow the banks, it is in the creek, but the culvert is too small to handle what comes through the creek. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Borup: That answered my question. It sounds like it's just during times of flood, a melt off. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Erickson: Thanks. Rohm: Discussion? Borup: No. I don't know, I think they have off -- I mean, obviously, it's kind of a difficult site, an odd shaped piece, so I think they have done a good design to accommodate the site they have had. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, did you have additional thoughts? Newton-Huckabay: Oh, no. I think it's a nice -- I really like the elevations and I think it will be very nice when it comes together, actually, but just the flag piece -- I hate it when we have these odd-shaped parcels come through that it would have been nicer to have the other property to the east, but I know -- as we are witnessing tonight, I don't get what I want every time, so -- Rohm: Well, I think just when you're looking at the flat on a piece of paper it looks like it's a potential for a different type of lot to that area. It looks like it, but when you get out there on site and you see the elevation changes, it's just not feasible and I think that that's the reality of the situation. Newton-Huckabay: No. I understand. I'm familiar with that area, but-- Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Newton-Huckabay: -- I'm happy with it. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 36 of 56 Moe: I really don't have much more. As I said earlier, I'm a little bit concerned about this property within the mixed use community and whatnot. I do like the elevations that were submitted. I'll leave it at that. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-040 and PP 06-038 for Bellabrook Subdivision. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-040 and PP 06-038. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Now, we had no changes to the staff report. Rohm: There was one. I think -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, the fire department. Rohm: To delete 3.7. Newton-Huckabay: Just delete it altogether? Rohm: I believe so. Veatch: That's correct, Commissioner, Chairman Rohm. Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to reference the -- Jenny, the letter? Veatch: No, I don't believe so. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Veatch: I mean we noted it within the discussion and I think if you go ahead and make it part of your motion to delete that condition 3.7 that would be okay. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-040 and PP 06-038 as presented in staff report for the~ hearing date of August 3rd, 2006, with the following modification. That condition -- fire department condition 3.7 be deleted from the staff report. End of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 37 of 56 Borup: Second. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-040 and PP 06-038, both relating to Bellabrook Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you folks for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.94 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Bitterbrush Point Subdivision by Majestic, Inc. - east of Meridian Road and north of Victory Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 06-039 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 27 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots on 10.94 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Bitterbrush Point Subdivision by Majestic, Inc. - east of Meridian Road and north of Victory Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-036 and PP 06- 039, both related to Bitterbrush Point Subdivision and begin with the staff report. And welcome one of our new staff members here. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject application before you is the Bitterbrush Point Subdivision. The applicant has requested annexation and zoning of 10.94 acres from RUT Ada County to R-4 medium low density residential and as well as preliminary plat approval for 27 single family residential lots and four common lots. As you can see, Bitterbrush Point is generally located north of Victory Road and east of Meridian Road. The site is currently vacant agricultural land. To the east there is the existing Observation Point Subdivision and zoned R-4. To the north a platted Ada County subdivision right here. And south of the Kennedy Lateral right here is the Mussell Corner commercial subdivision. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 27 residential lots ranging between 9,600 square feet and 25,250 square feet. There is stub street connection provided by Observation Point that will serve as the sole access to the proposed development and if you can see down here residents will enter Observation Point and head up along east Observation Drive and, then, access South Andros Way and, then, get into Logger Pass Street right there. The applicant has provided 7.4 percent of the property as open space, meeting the requirements of the UDC. The majority of the proposed common area is provided along the Kennedy Lateral, which is tiled, to serve as a multi-purpose pathway. The issues highlighted in the staff report for the Commission are, first, the lack of the perimeter fencing plan. There is currently existing fencing running the length of the north and eastern boundary. However, the applicant has not indicated whether permanent fencing will be installed around the remaining perimeter boundary. And the applicant will need to state this tonight. Additionally, the applicant proposes four foot