Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 16, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 55 of 63 Borup: Second. Moe: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue RZ 06-007 and PP 06-043 for Danville Place to the end of the P&Z meeting of November 16th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. It will be continued until the end of the meeting. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Baird: Mr. Chair, since we are near the end of our agenda and everybody who wants to testify is in the room, I'm going to suggest we go ahead and close the doors. I don't think any open meeting hearing matters will be violated. I'll do that. Moe: Although you are going to do that, can we possibly get them to go off to the side, though. Baird: Sure. Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 06-049 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 13.25 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Larkspur South Subdivision by Greenspur Investments, LLC - 230 & 240 Edmonds Court: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 06-051 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 67 single-family residential lots and 7 common lots on 12.81 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur South Subdivision by Greenspur Investments, LLC - 230 & 240 Edmonds Court: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-049 and PP 06-051 for Larkspur South Subdivision and hear the staff report. Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Larkspur South Subdivision. This is an annexation and zoning of 13.25 acres from RUT, which is Ada County, to R-8, medium density residential, and preliminary plat approval for 67 single family residential lots and four common lots. The site is located on the east side of Meridian Road approximately a third of a mile north of Victory Road on Lots 5 and 6 of the Edmonds Subdivision. The Edmonds Subdivision is a county approved plat that was recorded in the 1970s. To the east there is phase three of the existing Meridian Greens Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the north Larkspur Subdivision No.2, zoned R-8. And the south a recently approved subdivision Bitterbrush Point, zoned R-4. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 67 residential lots between 4,000 square feet and approximately 36,000 square feet. The primary access for the development would be from an existing public street, Edmonds Court, which connects with Meridian Road. And this is Edmonds Court right here. There are stub street connections provided both by Larkspur No. 2 to the north and Bitterbrush Point, which will serve as alternate access to the subdivision. The applicant has provided over one acre of the property is open space, meeting the requirements of the UDC. The majority of the proposed common area is provided along Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 56 of 63 the Kennedy Lateral which will be tiled to serve as a multi-use pathway. The first issue highlighted in the staff report for the Commission is that the application does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan for the site, which designates the area as low density residential. However, per the Comprehensive Plan future land use map, the Commission and Council can consider a step up in residential densities on a case-by- case basis without the requirement of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. To approve this development a step up in density from low to medium is required. Second, staff has not received commenting on the project from ACHD. However, staff is aware that the applicant has been working closely with ACHD as the updated plans do reflect a road layout acceptable to both parties. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission determine whether or not it is appropriate to forward on the subject application to City Council without first receiving and reviewing comments from ACHD. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Moe: Any questions of the Commission to staff? Would the applicant come forward, please. Sargent: Commissioners, Ron Sargent, 1883 North Wildwood Street. I guess the first thing to address is the -- I have, actually, received a copy of the ACHD staff report and I guess I was surprised to hear that the city staff has not received that. So, I guess -- we spent quite a bit of time with ACHD and the primary changes that we made is that originally our plan was to bring this road up to this location and, then, put an intersection and, then, come down to Edmonds Court. The highway district didn't like the way this intersection worked, so they suggested that we bring this road down at this angle, so this met here and they felt this intersection would work better under that arrangement. So, that was the primary changes that ACHD had recommended in their report and which we comply to and provided a copy of this changed roadway to the city staff in there. Borup: Was that the November 7th report? Was that the date? Sargent: That sounds correct. Borup: Okay. Sargent: It was fairly recent. There is also -- we had met with -- at Larkspur No. 2 to the north we had met with Meridian Greens Homeowners Association and had come to four items that we had agreed to. The first is that we agreed to a -- and we met with them again in regards to Larkspur south and those four items, the first was that we put a ten foot wide landscape buffer along adjacent to Meridian Green and in our landscape plan it shows that buffer. The second thing is that we would have all of these lots adjacent to Meridian Green would be a minimum of 6,500 square feet and we have done that. They are all at least 6,600 square feet or larger. And the other thing that they have asked for is that the backyard setback be 25 feet, because under R-8 I think it can be 12 feet as the backyard. So, we agreed that it would be a 25 foot back yard setback against Meridian Green. And, then, the fourth thing was that we would use 40 Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 57 of 63 year architectural shingles for the roof and that was a policy that they are trying to put in place throughout Meridian Green and we had agreed to that as well. So, that -- so, I guess we would recommend that those four items -- one is the ten foot landscape buffers is already in the staff report and we'd request that the other three items be added as well, because that's what we had agreed to. In the design of the property we had elected to put the larger lots over here against Meridian Green and the smaller lots, the higher density, we put in the middle of the subdivision and, then, we ended up with sort of a complicated process of trying to deal with this canal here, create some open space and we were electing to tile that and landscape it and that's why we end up with over an acre with the open space. The other thing is that we feel that this is a good transition from the R-4 Meridian Greens to out here along Meridian Road, because right now this is a veterinarian shop that's located here and this property right here adjacent to it is already zoned L-O.We sort of see a long term -- along Meridian Road it will probably be turned to some sort of commercial type of use. So, we sort of feel that this is a good transition from low density, medium density, and, then, to commercial that we feel that would develop overall. I guess I'd stand for any questions. Moe: Any questions, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I do have one and I guess this is addressed to both the applicant and staff. It appears to me that Block 9 -- if I'm interpreting this correctly, is that a private driveway that accesses 16 lots? Watters: Commissioners-- Zaremba: Staff seems to be ready with an answer. Watters: Yes, that will be a common driveway. Sargent: Oh. Yes. Watters: The north three lots will have their frontage off of -- the road is that not Edmonds Court -- or Edmonds Way. I can't read that on my -- Zaremba: It looks like Marlow Way. Watters: -- tiny map. And the southern three will access Edmonds Way. Zaremba: Okay. So, the normal requirement that a common driveway can only have four dwelling units, because this, actually, has two accesses -- Watters: Correct. Zaremba: -- that that's allowed to go to six. Okay. Works for me. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 58 of 63 Sargent: And one other item. When we met with the fire department, Mr. Silva, he requested that this roadway that's through here is 24 feet wide, rather than the standard of 20 and that is under the fire department code it provides two-way traffic. The other thing is the one thing we were concerned about was that even though we put no parking signs along that access that people park in, what we have done is we put some parking spaces here and down here, using a total of 12 parking spaces that we have added on there. So, we think that would discourage people from parking on that common driveway. Zaremba: Good idea. Moe: Any other questions? Thank you very much. At this time there is no one signed up. If there is someone that would like to speak on this hearing, come right up. Well, I guess no one is coming up. Zaremba: Should we hold our breath for a minute? Moe: I'm going to hold that thought for one second here. Anyone want to speak? Biner: My name is Charles Biner. I live at 2485 South Avaco, immediately adjoining the subdivision and there is approximately a ten inch nonpressurized irrigation PVC pipe that's buried in the utility easement that's inside my property line and I was wondering what disposition they are going to make of it. It daylights just north of my property or right at the northern corner of my property and that land will no longer be flood irrigated and I'm wondering if this pipe is just going to be abandoned or if that is even a good idea to abandon ten inch pipe. That's all. Moe: Okay. I'm not sure I can answer that, but I know someone that could. Borup: Mr. Freckleton finally gets to say something. Freckleton: Isn't that cool? Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if there are downstream users on that line, it would have to be maintained. If there are not downstream users, then, it's something that the developer and his engineering staff would have to look at how to abandon it. Zaremba: Come back up to the microphone. Biner: Is it the developer's choice or option of what he does with that abandon line? Borup: Not on your property, but if it's on his property and it doesn't -- Biner: It's inside -- it's in the easement. I think there is, what, a ten foot easement along the property line. It is, in fact, on my property. Zaremba: You may have said, but I missed it. Are you actually using that? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 59 of 63 Biner: No. No. No. I have never had access to-- Zaremba: Is there anybody downstream of you that would be using it? Biner: The supply comes south to north and the north end of it where it daylights is a part of the first phase of this. So, there is not going to be any flood irrigation in there. Now, what happens closer to the source of the diversion, I have -- I'm not sure. But it -- ail along -- all along this -- what you see as development -- they won't have any outlets from it. Borup: No. They are not proposing that. Biner: So, my question is is the developer responsible for an abandon line or is this -- Borup: But you're saying it's not on his property, though. Biner: It's on my property. Moe: He wouldn't be responsible if it's on your property. Biner: Then I can take it out? Borup: Yeah. It's on your property. Baird: Mr. Chair-- Borup: Yeah. It depends on what it goes to. Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Yeah. Exactly. Downstream of this project and downstream of the gentleman's property -- I mean I -- someone would have to make sure -- darn sure that there isn't somebody that's using that water. I think legal counsel made a good point. It certainly wouldn't be recommended. But if the line is not on the property that is the subject of this application, then, this applicant wouldn't have any -- basically any involvement with that line, so -- Moe: Okay. Anyone else want to speak to this hearing? If not, would the applicant come back up. Watters: Commission members, per the applicant's request, I have -- on this slide show provided some sample elevations of what will be -- what is proposed on this development. Is that -- Sargent: Yes. This is some of the other product that we have done in the Meridian area and other subdivisions, just to give you an idea of the type of construction and style that we would be proposing to put in here, to give you some idea. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 60 of 63 Zaremba: I appreciated the pictures that were supplied with our packet. Sargent: With the package. Zaremba: They look fairly expensive. Sargent: Sometimes a picture does better than explanations. Thank you. You know, these are all just recently completed and a similar type product that we would do here in this location. Ma'am, could you put on the vicinity map and I can explain maybe quickly how the -- the irrigation operates in the -- there is -- right here is the Kennedy Lateral comes down here, turns, and, then, goes up this direction. Right here there is a box and there is, actually, two lines that serves the Edmonds Subdivision that goes from here to Calderwood. One line goes here and, then, up this side and, then, moves across the property up here. There is another ditch that comes out of the same box that follows the Kennedy and, then, supplies the surface irrigation for these areas up in here. Since we would be building out all of these homes, providing pressurized irrigation, I guess our thoughts were to abandon this line that was on the east side of the property, but we have to continue to provide irrigation water for the property on the west side. So, overall, that was a -- that's a quick overview of what -- and we had some meetings with the Edmonds Subdivision ditch master and these are some of the things we have been discussing with him. Moe: Any other comments, Commissioners, or do we want to close the Public Hearing? Zaremba: It looks like things have been resolved, Mr. Chairman. I move we close the Public Hearing AZ 06-049 and PP 06-051. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-049 and PP 06-051. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-049 and PP 06-051 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 16, 2006, and specifically referring to the revised plat dated November 1 st, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: I would add to the conditions of approval the four specific agreements that the applicant has made with the homeowners association of Meridian Meridian Planning & Zoning November 16, 2006 Page 61 of 63 Greens. Do I need to spell them out or is that -- they are already in the record, I believe, aren't they? Moe: They are in the record. Zaremba: End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to move forward to City Council approval of AZ 06-049 and PP 06-051. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 18: Item 19: Public Hearing: AZ 06-051 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.94 acres from RUT and R1 to an R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development - 835 and 644 W. Victory Road: Public Hearing: PP 06-052 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 residential lots and 12 common lots on 20.16 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Kilgore Heights Subdivision by Ron Bath of Salmon Point Development - 835 and 644 W. Victory Road: Moe: At this time I would like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 06-051 and PP 06-052, both for Kilgore Heights Subdivision, for the sole purpose to continue the hearings to the regularly scheduled planning and zoning meeting of January 18th, 2006. Zaremba: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to continue AZ 06-051 and PP 06-052, both for Kilgore Heights Subdivision to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 18th, 2007. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 14: Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from October 5, 2006: RZ 06-007 Request for a Rezone of 2.28 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Danville Place Subdivision by Danville Home, LLC - 1812 & 1838 Leisure Lane: Continued Public Hearing from October 5,2006: PP 06-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 residential lots on 2.28 acres in a