Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 2, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 17 of 53 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 06-046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.7 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: Public Hearing: PP 06-048 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 61 single-family residential lots and 6 common lots on 21.7 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Harcourt Subdivision by Great Sky, Inc. - 3465 & 3595 E. Victory Road and 3432 & 3467 E. Falcon Drive: Rohm: I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048, both items related to Harcourt Subdivision, for the sole purpose of continuing them to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 21 st, 2006. Moe: So moved. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward -- or to continue Items AZ 06-046 and PP 06-048 to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 21 st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: There were a number of people that came in after we opened our meeting tonight and there is another project that is to be continued tonight and that's the Una Mas Day Care, CUP 06-033, and it's going to be continued to 11/16. And the Spurwing Patio Home Subdivision has already been continued to 11/16. So, if any of you have come in to hear those items, they will not be heard tonight. Oh, and the Lochsa Falls project, RZ 06-008 and MCU 06-002, are to be continued to December 21 st, 2006, as well. So, if any of you came in after we opened the meeting, those have all been continued. Item 9: Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: AZ 06-038 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.53 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Nursery Subdivision by Gary Fors - 570 S. Linder Road: Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: PP 06-036 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 residential lots and 3 common lots on 5.53 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Nursery Subdivision by Gary Fors - 570 S. Linder Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 18 of 53 Rohm: Okay. Let's see. Where am I? Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-038 and PP 06-036, both items related to Nursery Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. This project is located on the east side of Linder Road, approximately 1,900 feet south of the intersection of Linder and Franklin Road. Right here on the screen. The application includes a request for annexation and zoning of 5.59 acres from RUT, which is an Ada county designation, to R-8, medium density residential within the City of Meridian and preliminary plat approval of 25 single family residential lots and four common lots. Just to give some context of what's going on out there, the project is almost completely surrounded by The Landing Subdivision, which is zoned R-4, which is, basically, all of this area around here. To the south there is one larger parcel that contains a single family home that is zoned R-4, but hasn't been developed yet within the -- hasn't been -- no new buildings have been constructed since that zoning occurred. And to the -- to the west there are various rural residential properties in the county and also some -- some city land that is zoned also R-4. We will move onto the aerial photograph. This just gives another view of what's going on in the area. As you can see, this property is almost completely surrounded by houses, except for this area over here. The preliminary plat request consists of 25 single family residential building lots and four common lots. The total gross density of the project is 5.06 dwelling units per acre as proposed. The access to the development will be from an existing stub street, which has been extended from The Landing Subdivision, which is called South Kilee Way and The Landing Subdivision currently has direct access from Linder Road. And one stub street will be provided to the parcel to the -- to the 2.27 acre parcel to the southwest that currently contains an existing home. This is the stub street right here and this is the stub street that is going to be extended -- or proposed to be extended. Another feature on this site is the Kennedy Lateral, a Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District facility, runs along the southern boundary of the site through here. The lateral is piped up to the edge of The Landing Subdivision and, then, is uncovered up until it gets to Linder Road and the applicant is proposing to cover that through the subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is medium density residential and the proposal is generally -- generally complies with the Comprehensive Plan. We can take a look at the -- the landscape plan. As you can see here, the common lots proposed -- there is one common open area here. There is the storm drainage lot proposed here. This is the required buffer. And those are, basically, the common lots that have been proposed for this -- for this site. There are a few issues that came as staff took a look at this project and I will go through those one by one just, so they are made clear. Staff is concerned about the storm drain lot. Actually, I think I even have a blow up. What I'm looking at -- and we will go back to the plat. This area of the plat is kind of confusing. There is a lot going on there. So, I did a little bit of a blow up, which can be seen on this sheet, which shows that this is the northwest corner of the plat. This is the cul-de-sac. This is shows the storm drain lot. This storm drain lot, which is located behind Lot 20, Block 1, has an access point that runs up through here and this access point has been placed in an easement on Lot 20, Block 1. Staff is not supportive of encumbering this single family lot with an easement that basically makes this part of the lot unusable for that homeowner. Also, ACHD has a policy that -- it didn't Meridian Planning & Zoning . November 2, 2006 Page 19 of 53 necessarily come out in the conditions that they included with this report, because they only do a cursory review, we call it, of the street section. But in their design when they do the design of the storm drain facilities and when it gets farther along in the process, ACHD does have a policy, which is outlined in the staff report, that doesn't allow these storm drain facilities to be included within residential building lots. So, staff is not supportive of having this easement be placed on this Lot 20, Block 1, and staff recommends that it be placed into a common lot, so that there would be a common access to the storm drain lot in that area. The second requirement -- ACHD -- and it calls out in the staff report -- is requiring an additional 18 feet of right of way to be included with this project and when that additional 18 feet is included, it basically shifts everything a little bit to the east. The required landscape buffer will have to shift and that will also decrease the size of this Lot 20, Block 1, significantly. So, basically, what I'm saying is these two things -- requiring this to be in a common lot and shifting over this -- the landscape buffer, will reduce Lot 20, Block 1, well below the minimum lot size standard for the R-8 and staff recommends that this area be redesigned to meet all of the UDC standards, which currently it appears that it does not. The final thing I'd like to point out is the existing 20 foot wide easement in favor of the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District that runs along the southern boundary of the project. As proposed, each of the lots basically shares a portion of that easement or the lot line runs all the way back to the far edge of the easement and includes that easement in the rear yard of these lots. While that, inherently, is not a problem, it can be a problem if, indeed, the applicant is unable to get a license agreement from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District allowing those homeowners to fence all the way back to their rear property lines. If that license agreement can't be obtained, basically, that area becomes kind of a no man's land where the property owners can't fence it and they would -- as what happened in the past, would basically extend along the easement line and own this piece of property behind their fence, that they would be responsible to pay taxes on and maintain. And it's just not seen as a favorable situation. If, indeed, this area can't -- if, indeed, the applicant cannot get a license agreement from Nampa-Meridian, staff recommends that that area be placed into a common lot, where the burden of that -- of that maintenance and everything of that area is placed upon the entire subdivision, rather than each of those individual homeowners who happen to purchase that lot in the future. I think those are all the things that staff would like to bring up at this time and I stand for any questions. Rohm: Back to that Lot 20. If, in fact, you put a common lot to cover the easement area, can you -- if you were to eliminate the lot all together and just make that one large common lot, can you have an easement within a common lot and have that just one unit? Lucas: Absolutely. That would be the -- the preference would be to have it placed in a common lot, because, then, ACHD, when they come to maintain these facilities, isn't crossing over any specific homeowner's property, they are crossing over the homeowner's association property, which is favorable to them. So, the answer would be yes, Chairman. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 20 of 53 Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Just a comment and if you would go to the slide that follows this one. Thank you. The Nampa-Meridian easement that you have talked about as currently being depicted where each property owner has part of it, we have an example of that, which, in my opinion, supports staff's statement that it should not be as presented and that is along Cherry Lane on the north side of it, between Ten Mile and -- not as far as Black Cat, but Interlochen, maybe. The situation is the same. The people whose houses back up to Cherry Lane actually own to the right of way. However, there is a Nampa-Meridian Irrigation pipe underneath that ground and an easement over the top of it, they can't fence it, so all of them have built a fence along the north side of the easement and even though they own more property than it appears that they own, that area is not being maintained by anybody. The homeowners don't go out there and take care of it. Nampa-Meridian doesn't feel it's their responsibility. Our parks department doesn't feel it's their responsibility and I'm speaking in support of staff's request to make this a separate piece of property that is maintained by the homeowners association, everybody knows that -- where they could put their fence, which is not across this and I think that's a good call on staff's part. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba, would you be in support of the project as proposed if, in fact, they can obtain a license agreement with Nampa-Meridian and build the fence right up to the edge of the property and, then, it will be fully maintained by the property owners, as opposed to a common lot, if they can obtain a license agreement? Borup: If it can be attained I could support that one subject before I commit on the whole. I'd like to hear the presentation -- Rohm: Oh. Okay. Zaremba: -- and the public testimony. Rohm: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And that might be a good segway into the next part of this. Would the applicant like to come forward and give their presentation. Reliford: Kurt Reliford, J.J. Howard Engineers. I'm representing Gary Fors. One thing I would like to note about this easement here that we are talking about, The Landing No. 7 Subdivision has an easement on the same magnitude on their north boundary. They have a fence along that common line there. They have a license agreement as well. So, I have dealt with this situation many times. I see no need that we would not obtain a license agreement in this instance. I mean it's just not common for them to give one guy one and another guy not, so I don't see an issue with that. As far as Lot 20 goes, I knew about this going into the hearing. What we would probably propose is to eliminate the Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 21 of 53 easement for the storm drain. We are proposing to put the sewer along that same easement in Nampa-Meridian's easement for the City of Meridian. We could put our storm drain adjacent to the sewer and, then, into -- through the common Lot 19 and, then, back into the storm drain system and, then, we would lose that 18 feet and move our buffer over, but, then, we would get that 20 feet back on that lot. So, there might be some designs that could be worked into that lot, if not and it has to become a common lot, then, I guess that's the way it is. Rohm: It appears as if you understand the issue. Reliford: Oh, yeah. Definitely. Rohm: Okay. And if, in fact, you can move things in such a manner to maintain enough square footage within that lot, then, working with staff seems to be in order, but if not, then -- Reliford: Then, we'd have to come in with some resolve. We understand that. Yeah. Rohm: Okay. Reliford: Any questions? Rohm: Anything else on the subdivision as a whole that you would like to present or are you satisfied with the staff report as -- Reliford: Yeah. Pretty much it. Rohm: Okay. Okay. Reliford: I didn't see anything unusual or out of the ordinary than any other subdivision, so -- Rohm: Okay. Good. Thank you. Any questions of this applicant? Thank you. Reliford: You bet. Rohm: There has not been anybody that has signed up to speak to this application, but if you would like to now is the time to come forward and say your name and address for the record once you come forward, please. Buisman: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Julie Buisman. Sorry. B, as in boy, u-i-s-m-a-n. And I currently live in The Landing Subdivision. I actually reside on 1287 West Gandor Drive. I just have one main concern with this subdivision and that would be the main access -- actually, the only access being through our subdivision through The Landing. If you could go back to the main map that shows the access road through Kilee, how you access that is through Gandor up to I believe Otter and Waltman Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 22 of 53 and, then, through Kilee. There are three main roads right now into The Landings Subdivision and it is I think -- I believe it's got a 200 plus home subdivision, so you can imagine those roads are, you know, fairly well trafficked right now. My concern is with the addition of 25 homes accessing Gandor, each home having two cars, that's an extra -- that's an additional one hundred trips a day if each car makes one trip back and forth on that road. And that is a main road for children accessing the elementary school, which is just right across Linder on the west side. So, I would just ask that perhaps you address the issue, with that being the only access. It is an usual situation, I believe, with The Landing surrounding that subdivision and I would ask you to consider perhaps making an additional access to that subdivision or making Gandor not being the only access. That's alii have. Thank you. Rohm: The only thing I would say to that is at the time that The Landing Subdivision was built that cross-access agreement or the stub street was put there specifically with the intent to serve that adjacent property and -- and that's the requirement that we try to make on every single development in a residential perspective as they come through is so that we minimize that number of ingress and egress to the main arteries and build out just as this is designed and I can certainly understand your concerns, but at the time that that was -- your subdivision was built, it was built with the intent of servicing that adjacent property. Just information for you. Any anybody else like to speak to this application? Okay. Any additional questions of staff or any comments by Commission members? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, comments, not really questions. Assuming that the easement problem can be worked out and I'm happy to have it go either way, you either get the permission from Nampa-Meridian for each property to fence it all the way to the end of the easement or they put it in a separate common lot, one way or the other, I think. I don't want to end up with fences along the north end of the easement, but whichever way it can be worked out is fine with me. I think adding a variety of housing in this area is a good idea. If this project were standing on its own I would be happy to support it. It, however, runs into one of my very serious bugaboos, that at what point Linder, as currently a cul-de-sac, should we stop adding residences until it connects across the interstate and there are two ways in and out of it. As a cul-de-sac it has already far more than the 50 homes that the fire department would prefer. Once you hit south of Franklin, there currently is no other way in or out of the area and we have struggled with this before. I don't know for myself where I think the straw breaks the camel's back. It's difficult to add more houses. Cole: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Cole. Cole: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Mike Cole. Go ahead. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 23 of 53 Cole: It might be interesting to know for Commissioner Zaremba that there is now an actual emergency access that runs out of the back of the subdivision. It's not a -- Zaremba: There is a connection that heads across, did that happen? Cole: It's goes across -- a developer has bought up the property underneath Waltman Lane, south of Waltman to Meridian Road, and has granted that easement -- gave it to ACHD -- gave them an easement. It's not platted right away yet, but it's an access easement and approved for emergency access. So, there now is the second way out. It's not a cul-de-sac anymore. Zaremba: I'm thrilled to hear that and I withdraw that objection from this and all future projects along Linder. Good. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Moe, do you have any final thoughts on this application? Moe: Probably not comments or -- just a couple questions. I'm kind of curious in regards to the common lot issue and whatnot. Are we wanting to move the thing forward or waiting -- Zaremba: I forgot to answer that on my part, but -- Moe: My biggest concern is is that before this goes to City Council I would like to see what they finally do to this lot. Zaremba: Well, the two things. I'd like the easement resolved -- Moe: Right. Zaremba: -- and the lot that you're talking about. Moe: Exactly. So, I guess my point is -- and I'm not -- we continue enough hearings as it is, but I guess my point is is that until I see what they do with this, I don't want to act on this tonight, other than to continue it. Zaremba: For the purpose of seeing how those two changes are made. Moe: That is correct. Yeah. I'm in favor of the project, other than the fact I want to see what is done with that. Rohm: Okay. Would the applicant like to come back up, please? Basically, its kind of the consensus of the Commission that we want to see the answers to those questions before we make any motion forwarding onto City Council. What kind of a time frame do you think you're under to obtain an answer? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 24 of 53 Reliford: Well, certainly, I could get Nampa-Meridian to act on it within a couple days and just get me a letter saying that if they will grant us a license agreement -- and if that's all you need, that's fine. As far as figuring out that Lot 18, 19 and 20, sometime next week I could have something to you. Would it go on the Consent Agenda for -- Rohm: Okay. All right. So, within this next week you should be able to have answers to both. Okay. Let me ask staff, then. Caleb, can you tell us when you think the next opportunity to finish this out would be? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I did just pull out our agendas for the upcoming couple of months. We have continued or will continue a couple items tonight to the 16th of November. I don't want to put Justin on the spot here with -- if you get something, as the applicant's testified, next week, you know, our print deadline is next Friday for the following Thursday for the 16th. The 16th looks a lot better than the December 7th, which is our next hearing. Now, this is the first time I will talk to you all about it, but there is five Thursdays in this month. I don't want to have to have another agenda for just this. If -- and I don't know the direction that you're fully going or if you want to go this way, but if you wanted just -- although we don't have a Consent Agenda necessarily for development applications that you haven't officially acted on yet, but if you want to limit the testimony to just discussing those two items, I feel confident we could probably get through it on the 16th, if Justin thinks a day or so is enough time to evaluate a revised plan if the applicant could promise to have us something by Thursday -- by next Thursday. And, like I say, we have 24 hours, anyways, a working day, to at least update the staff report and give you an updated memo or whatever. So, the 16th would -- if it's not the 16th, then, we are looking at December 21 st would be the next hearing that I would recommend. Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Caleb. Reliford: We can meet that. Rohm: Okay. Well, good, then. I think we are done. Reliford: Okay. Great. Thank you. Zaremba: Just so I understand, information to staff by the 9th would get it on the 16th; is that right? Reliford: By the 8th. Zaremba: 8th is fine. Reliford: No. The 9th. You're right. I'm sorry. A week from today. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 2, 2006 Page 25 of 53 Hood: Next Thursday. Zaremba: Make sure we are all thinking the same thing. Rohm: Good. Thank you. Commissioner Zaremba, would you like to make a motion to -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue Items AZ 06-038 and PP 06-036 relating to Nursery Subdivision to our regularly scheduled meeting of November 16, 2006, for the purpose of reconfiguration of two years that we have talked about or a letter from Nampa-Meridian, either way and expecting it to be a short discussion. Mae: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 06-038 and PP 06- 036 to the regularly scheduled meeting of November 16th, for the sole purpose of discussing right of way issues and Lot 20. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 06-031 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for lighted fields adjoining a residential district for Heritage Middle School by Joint School District NO.2 - 4990 N. Meridian Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-031, Heritage Middle School and begin with staff report. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. The application before you is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and variance for Heritage Middle School, located 4990 North Meridian Road, on the northeast corner of North Meridian Road and McMillan Road. If you look up here on the screen, we are looking at that property right there. To the north of the property is Ventana Subdivision. To the east is Saguaro Subdivision. And to the south is recently approved Solitude Subdivision. All single family residential subdivisions. Across Meridian Road there to the west is vacant commercial property, zoned C-G as part of Paramount Subdivision. The City of Meridian Parks Department is requesting that the school provide -- schools in general provide lighted ball fields for the benefit of the community to increase the number of fields available for evening sports activities. Per this request the applicant is applying for a Conditional Use Permit as required by the UDC for lighted fields adjoining and within a residential district. To minimize or alleviate the adverse impacts that this use may pose to nearby residential properties, staff has requested as a condition of approval that the ball field lights not be lit passed 11 :00 p.m, at night. Additionally, the applicant is applying for a variance from UDC 11.3A.11.C that requires light fixtures that have a maximum output of 1,800 lumens or more to have an opaque top to prevent uplighting and requires that the bulb not be visible and have a full cut-off shield. The applicant states that they