Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 31, 2006 P&Z Minutes Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from August 3, 2006: AZ 06-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 4 of 59 folks in the audience talked about, at which time, then, the Commission will review all that information and make decisions at that point. That was the long and short of that. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from August 3, 2006: PP 06-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 35 residential lots and 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: Moe: So, therefore, I now would like to continue -- open the continued Public Hearing on AZ 06-030, request for annexation and zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development and also the Public Hearing for PP 06-030, request for preliminary plat approval for the Northborough Subdivision and hear the staff report, please. Veatch: Thank you, Commissioner Moe, Commissioners. Tonight Gemstar Development, LLC, is seeking annexation and preliminary plat approval for 8.3 acres from RUT to R-8 zone. This property is located off of Ustick and Linder. Linder being here and Ustick here. The annexation and preliminary plat for this will require the vacating of a private lane, Momma lane. Here is an aerial view of that. The preliminary plat -- this is, actually, north, but it's on its side, is for 35 single family residential building lots and four common lots in the proposed R-8 zone. You have been provided with a revised preliminary plat by the applicant. We have met recently with the applicant after the report came out and they have made some changes. The primary changes being that in -- in the block along the common lot, Block 8 was removed and they are now providing more open space in that area along the drainage basin. So, there used to be a residential lot right here. That's been removed to provide more usable open space. They will also be providing a tot lot there. They have also taken the property line for Lot 5 and smoothed that out. There were some right angles in there and there were some security concerns that blind spots were being created in the open space area and so for visibility they are going to smooth that out and kind of eliminate those. They have also widened some of the more usable open spaces here in Lot 1 and -- in Block 1 and Lot 1 of Block 2. So, those are due to some of staff's comments, creating more usable space, taking out the Block 8 -- or, excuse me, Lot 8. The only thing that staff has an issue with -- and all of this meets the UDC requirements for the R-8 zone. This is a difficult lot to design with, it's an odd shaped lot, and they have tried to provide many points of access to different things that will be developing or may develop in the near future. They have Southwick Way over here that they will also be developing. This is going to align with their main access road here. We have a rural parcel up here. We also have rural parcels below. Excuse me. Down here. And, then, we also have an existing home in this section that used to take its access through Llama Lane. They will now be Mae: Any questions from the Commission? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 5 of 59 using the subdivision public streets to access their home. And this -- we have already had preapplication with this gentleman and he may develop into quarter acre lots. The one thing that staff takes issue with -- and, like I said, even though this meets the UDC requirements, is the block length here. There is no minimum requirement on block lengths and we definitely discourage long block lengths, but I actually went out to the Settlement Bridge Subdivision off of Locust Grove and McMillan and this is also an R-8 zoned subdivision with a very short block. This one actually has four lots on it, whereas in the Northborough they are proposing six here. It's hard to see. One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Six. Even within the Settlement Bridge lot design the length is slightly longer than the Northborough and the width is just a little bit shorter here, but yet when I stood on this corner and took a picture back, you basically -- these are kind of townhome types, but this is one corner and, then, to the other side you can see the post down here, hopefully. That's the end of the block. So, it is a very short block and with the pavement it just makes for quite a lot of pavement out there, I guess, in the main concern and that perhaps there might be another way of designing the site, so that there would be less pavement in such a small subdivision. So, that was one thing that we wanted to look at. And I know that the applicant has tried to compromise and make some other adjustments. So, with that I will stand for any questions. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, is this the best picture we are going to have? I mean not this particular -- but can the screen get any brighter? Veatch: Most of the problem is with the bulb. Borup: The city is out of money and can't buy a light bulb. Veatch: I know that the applicant has also brought a large color rendition of the site. Borup: Mr. Chairman, the only thing I -- and I think you probably answered it, but the existing house to the north of the property, that was not -- that outparcel was not created when this -- when this property was -- Veatch: Originally they had come in with a preliminary plat that would include this piece here, but due to some difficulties they have split it apart, so it was actually just this piece. Borup: So, until just recently it was one parcel? Veatch: No. I'm sorry. This owner was just going to come in as part of the annexation and rezone for the preliminary plat. I think the applicant can maybe confirm that. Borup: Okay. I will ask him about that. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 6 of 59 Veatch: But he owns this piece back here, as well as this triangular piece that abuts up to the school to the north. Veatch: Uh-huh. Moe: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Nickel: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 148 North 2nd Street in Eagle, representing Gemstar Development. To clarify, I did hand staff over a more recent revision than the one actually in front of you, with a couple very minor changes. I can just go over these real fast and staff already indicated that. Borup: The one we have is dated the 29th. Nickel: Yeah. The new one was actually sent in today. Borup: Okay. Nickel: I will just hold up the color version here. You probably can't see it. Just to indicate what those new changes were from the revision you have, these two lots on the north boundary were increased in size to provide more of a transition to that outparcel to the north and the other change was -- I think that would be the only change. Oh. That's right. And, then, that to avoid creating an open space that has hiding places in it, we revised that lot line right here so there is no -- there used to be a corner, kind of a hiding spot right there, so that's at staff's request, so you can see the open space now, visible as you turn the corner right here and you can see all way down through it and that's per the request of the police department. They want to make sure there is no hiding places in the open space. The plat that you have does show the addition of the tot lot and the deletion of that Lot 8 that staff spoke of to provide some more usable open space within the development. In designing this project -- and it's our understanding that staff's not real overwhelmed with the design, but considering everything that we have to work with, including the odd shape of the property, the drainage ditch and the easement lining up with the Southwick Subdivision to the south, there is big cell tower right here on this parcel to the east and so we have to locate a stub street for future access to the eastern parcel and access to the western parcel and to provide a future stub to the north, that really made it quite a task to try to get frontage and access to all the lots. I think we have done a good job. This is a -- it is a rather small block, but it does -- it doesn't go against any requirements of the code, as staff has indicated. We think it actually kind of adds to the development. There is six lots, you have three lots on each -- on each side and I think it does provide with the ability for neighbors to get out and see each other and walk around the block without having to go too far of a walk and it promotes more togetherness in a subdivision. It's not -- I don't think it's anything that really should -- really should be a concern in such a small development and having only one block like this I think -- I think we have done the best job we could. The developer has to look at Nickel: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 7 of 59 four other designs and just didn't -- it just worked out with all the other issues we have with the surrounding properties. To answer Commissioner Borup's question, there is actually two stand-alone parcels to the north owned by a separate property owner, so those were not -- that parcel was not created as a result of this subdivision. I don't really have anything else, with the exception of staff's comments on the design, we are in favor of the conditions of approval. I believe we added to the quality of the project by providing some usable open space, in addition to what's already proposed along the drainage ditch. We will fence that off, of course, to provide a safety issue and that's a nice pocket park there now. And I will stand for any questions you may have. Moe: Questions from the Commission? Borup: Just one. The two lots on the north you say were increased in size, so was that extra space -- did come out of the drainage lots or some other lot? Nickel: No. We had two open space lots here and here. Borup: And those come out of that? Nickel: And those were decreased by-- Borup: That's what I assume. Nickel: Yeah. If you look at -- I have pointed on the vicinity map on our plat, that shows the configuration of those two lots to the north. It's kind of hard to see on the screen, but you can see -- Borup: It looks like there is three parcels. Nickel: At one point we did -- or the developer did have one of those parcels tied up and we originally submitted with that -- with that parcel, so our road -- we actually went a little bit further to the north and we had a couple of additional lots. That deal kind of fell through and those property owners backed out and we just went forward with the one piece that we have. Mae: Thank you. Moe: Okay. We have a couple of people that signed up to speak. Les Vogel. Vogel: Yes. My name is Lester Vogel. My wife and I live to the west. 3610 North Linder Road. And I'm concerned -- where is the street coming into our property? I can't see it. And if that person to the north develops will there be another street come into our property? That's what I'm concerned about. Also the irrigation department -- I talked with Mike Shepherd, the engineer, and he -- we came to kind of an agreement Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August31,2006 Page 8 of 59 and he's supposed to have it designed to where it would work. Right now we are on a rotation with the water in several parcels and I guess he's going to put a diversion and pull his out and the rest us will do with what's left. Has that been brought to your attention? Moe: Mr. Vogel, in regard to irrigation, however you're getting water now-- Vogel: Yeah. Moe: -- it is required that you still get that water the same, even after this development is in place. Vogel: Well, it won't be quite the same, because we won't be on a rotation. There will be a diversion in the main ditch and he assured me they would do it right and I met with him out there on the property. And the fence -- and we are going to need a fence in there at all times, even if they put another fence up, because we have got livestock in there all the time and who is the -- who does the inspection work on this? Is it the city? Moe: Yes, it will. Vogel: Okay. And I have talked with Shawn at Gemstar Development and he said that fence would be taken care of. Also, the elevation of the dirt along the fence line, they said they would try to keep high enough so our irrigation water wouldn't drift over into theirs and we'd like to develop the -- welcome the developer as a good neighbor and a development. We have no problems with that. Is there any questions? Moe: Commissioners? Moe: Thank you very much. Next on the list would be Betty Vogel. B. Vogel: I'm Betty Vogel. I'm Les's wife. We live just west of the property and I think he covered pretty much what we were concerned about, but I do have one more thing, along with the fence, what recourse do you have when they are constructing and things go over the fence, when people live there and you throw things over the fence. I know this happens, because friends of ours have had it. What do you do? Who do you contact? Moe: Well, basically, I would anticipate code enforcement or the city would have to go out and take a look at that and, basically, I would anticipate that they could shut down the construction until things are cleaned up. B. Vogel: No, I don't really think the construction is much called for as it is when you get houses in there. But -- and I know wind can cause havoc with construction. They are usually pretty good. But I guess that's probably all along with the fence, we wanted to Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August31,2006 Page 9 of 59 be sure, because we usually have livestock in there and when the school, which is just north of us, put their -- well, they did put their fence in, they asked us to take our downs, so they could put theirs in. We took ours down and it was almost four weeks before they put one up. And we had to contain livestock or -- sometimes they ran onto the school yard. And this is not -- so, the fence is another big item. Borup: Madam, just a question on your fence. B. Vogel: Yes. Borup: Is it a barbed wire fence that's on there now? B. Vogel: No. It's a hog wire with a hot wire on top. Borup: Okay. And is that -- did the -- I was just curious why you had to move it for the school? Was it a property line situation? B. Vogel: They wanted to put a chain link fence. Borup: But they couldn't put theirs up and leave yours in? B. Vogel: They could have, but they asked us to take it down. I presume ours didn't look good enough for them. I'm not sure. And, then, if I could really sound off, we took ours down, which went to Linder Road. Well, of course, the school widened the road, didn't go that far, and they left a blank spot and we still had to fit -- Borup: You had to put your fence back up. Well, they are showing on the plans a cedar fence going in, but I -- I don't know if you have talked with the developer about whether your fence would need to come down or do you still leave both fences there. And it may not be bad to have both of them there. I don't know. B. Vogel: Thank you. Moe: Thank you very much. That was all that was signed up. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this? Would the applicant like to come back up? Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, again, Shawn Nickel. And we have spoken with Mr. Vogel several times and just so he knows that the -- the stub street to his property has not changed location substantially from the neighborhood meetings when we showed him that location. We will continue to work with Mr. Vogel on both -- regarding the irrigation and with the fencing. We will make sure that there is no gaps either in time, nor in the actual construction of the fence, so no livestock will be harmed and we - - like I say, I have talked to him several times and he's a good person to work with, so I think we will have no problem meeting his approval for those. And, again, with the irrigation we will make sure that Mr. Shepherd from Bailey Engineering works with him and confirms that he will not lose any water at anytime and continue with his irrigation. Nickel: So, to answer his question, there probably will not be a second stub street. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 10 of 59 Borup: But he had indicated that the timing may be different. Is that -- Nickel: I'm not aware of that. Borup: I assume that the water is going to be diverted for -- to go to a pump station for the subdivision or-- Nickel: Yeah. We will have to work that out with -- we will get with Mr. Vogel out on the site and kind of explain how it's going to work and, you know, make sure he's aware of everything. Borup: And I assume that -- do you know whether the fencing -- whether the new fencing can go up and theirs can stay in place to -- Nickel: I don't -- I can't recall what kind of fence Mr. Vogel has. Borup: It's a -- they said it was a hog wire. Nickel: It's the intent of the developer to actually put the fence up up front -- Borup: Right. Nickel: -- as opposed to waiting for the builders it put it up, so -- Borup: Right. That's what the plans indicate. Nickel: Yeah. So, we will get that up and make sure there is no problems with it. Borup: And I realize that it doesn't strictly have anything to do with the other question as far as stub streets, if the parcels to the north are developed, but it doesn't look to me like there may be any need for any other stub streets. Nickel: Mr. Chairman. Probably not, because he does own all of this property right here. So, one stub street is probably going to be sufficient to meet ACHD and the city's interconnectivity requirement. Borup: Okay. Borup: But this is not the meeting to decide that. Thank you. That's alii have. Moe: The only thing I would ask -- a question in regards to the building pad elevations and such to where it concerns the irrigation and whatnot at the property line. Moe: No. Two and five will -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31. 2006 Page 11 of 59 Nickel: Yes, sir. Borup: I think you're going to want that for a subdivision. Nickel: For a lot of reasons, yeah. Newton-Huckabay: I don't think your microphone is working. Moe: Time out. Nickel: Were there any further questions for me, Mr. Chairman? Moe: Are there any other questions? Borup: I have none. Moe: I have none also. Thank you very much. Nickel: Thank you all very much. Moe: Well, Commissioners, what do you think? Borup: The only comment I would have is I agree with this -- what the staff said on design, but I also feel that on these in-fill subdivisions you're restricted by -- by what you got to work with. I don't know that a lot different can be done. The other -- and there is probably not -- it's not going to be high traffic through there either, so I -- Newton-Huckabay: Well -- Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Now these houses will just -- all six of them will face the road; right? Or -- Borup: I don't know if it's -- probably, but -- Newton-Huckabay: There is no common driveway? Moe: No, there are not. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That's what I understand. Newton-Huckabay: Would face north and south. Mae: That is correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August31,2006 Page 12 of 59 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Moe: Yeah. When I reviewed this, you know, I think they did pretty much the best they could, quite frankly, with the area they had. I think if you were to reduce a few lots and whatnot, then, you might have some problems as far as getting around the subdivision any better, so I realize there is a little bit of concern on those six lots, but I think, again, that they pretty much have done the best they can in the design and I don't have any problems with this subdivision now. I'm glad they did get rid of the lot number eight that was up there. It looks a lot cleaner the way it is now. Borup: I agree. Moe: Well, having said that, then, can I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes, sir. Freckleton: Sorry. Chairman Moe, Members of the Commission, just a couple of the items I wanted to touch on. In our staff report Item 2.13 we talked about the White Drain along the eastern boundary of the subdivision. In our staff report we asked that the applicant clarify their intention for this facility at the Public Hearing. So, that's one item. And, then, just real quickly on the issue of Mr. Vogel's ditch, just wanted to mention to maybe give him a little bit of peace of mind on this thing, too. Prior to Public Works approving construction plans for this development, the applicant will be required to provide us written documentation of approval from Mr. Vogel that he's happy with the design. So, he will have a lot of say in the way that this is done, so -- Moe: Thank you very much. Freckleton: Thank you. Moe: At that point I'd like the applicant, maybe, to come back up and address the issue. Nickel: Mr. Chairman, again, Shawn Nickel. The intent of the White Drain is really to leave it as it is right now, because it is completely within an easement, half on our property and half on the property -- or the parcel to the west -- or to the east. Excuse me. We are planning to fence it at the easement line, but we aren't intending to do any improvements or really get in there at all on the drain. Moe: Okay. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 06-041 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.95 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Harpe Subdivision by Larry C. Harpe - 4715 N. Locust Grove Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 13 of 59 Borup: Did that answer his question? Nickel: Mr. Chairman, did staff just want that on the record or there -- okay. Moe: Thank you very much. Staff have any other questions? Would staff have any other questions? No? Okay. No other questions. Newton-Huckabay: Do we have changes to -- we have no changes, then? Moe: I see none. Borup: Right. The only question is that one that -- yeah. There is no changes that I could see. Newton-Huckabay: Did we close the Public Hearing? Moe: No, we have not. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030. Borup: Second. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 31 st, 2006, with no modifications. Borup: Second. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of August 31 st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.