Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 2, 2003 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 23 of 57 McGuinness: I know that. Centers: He nods yes so I think we should approve it just as submitted. I would make that recommendation to approve CUP 02-044, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a sports bar and grill in a C-G zone for Muggsy's Bar and Grill by Michael McGuinness, south of East Fairview Avenue, east of North Locust Grove, on East Wilson Lane, including all staff comments and the fact that he will make the trash enclosure a little bigger to satisfy SS!. Zaremba: Second. Centers: End of motion. Zaremba: I second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Anyopposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 8. Public Hearing: AZ. 02-026 Request for annexation and zoning of 35.94 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Burney Glen Subdivision by Properties West, Inc. - east of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road: Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 02-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 117 building lots and 15 other lots on 35.94 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Burney Glen Subdivision by Properties West, Inc. - east 0 f North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road: Borup: The next two items, Items 8 and 9, Public Hearing AZ 02-026, request for annexation and zoning of 35.94 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Burney Glen Subdivision by Properties West, east of North Meridian Road and north of Ustick. The adjoining application is PP 02-025, request for Preliminary Plat for 117 lots on the same property. We'd like to open both Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You should have a staff report dated December 24, 2002, on this. Let me also state that there was a revised plat that you probably received that was dated December 30th. Some of the issues in the staff report were addressed in that revised plat, others were not. I'm going to try and walk you through that with as little confusion as possible. First of all, location wise, it's on the east side of Meridian Road between McMillan Road and Ustick, just north of the approved Sundance Place Subdivision. The site is just about 36 acres. They are proposing on that 36 acres 117 building lots and 15 other lots, and include several landscape and open space lots. This is the proposed Preliminary Plat. This is the original one, not the revised one. Let me just walk you through the staff report Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 24 of 57 briefly. I'd like to focus on the additional considerations that start on Page 5. The first one is an issue with some of the stub streets. That one has been addressed by the __ by the revised plat. This stub here has been removed, because it's adjacent to Havasu Creek and there is nothing for it to connect to. On Page 6, the traffic round about is in the center. We just had some issue with the design of the adjacent lots on the north side, which on this plat they were, Lot 2, Block 9, and Lot 17, Block 1, basically fronting on the round about so that cars pulling out of these driveways would be pulling out into the round about. In the revised plat, the landscape buffer extends up around the round about this way, so that access would be required to be taken off the stub street just north of the round about. That has not been addressed yet on the property to the east. Also, I'd point out that in the revised plat there is a change in the numbering of the lots, so the lot numbers don't exactly match up. I believe that this one, which is 17 on this plat, is 16 on the other plat, on the newer one. The next one is regarding a temporary turn around. We requested a temporary turn around be added to the north end of this stub street. In the revised plat that temporary turn around was added, so that has been addressed. What has not been addressed yet is that there would need to be a Non- Build Agreement on those two lots, probably a note on the plat, not on the Development Agreement, but until such time as the need for those turnarounds go away. Once there is a second point of access and the need for the emergency turnarounds goes away, then, those building lots would go back to being buildable. The next item on the street names has been taken care of. The street names were corrected, so that one is no longer an issue and the pedestrian pathways have not yet been addressed in the revised plat. Staff is recommending that along the blocks there are -- there is this nice linear open space in the center, but no connection to it from the adjacent streets. We recommended that in line with the -- their is some islands -- it's hard to see it at this scale, but there are a couple of islands mid block in the road and we are suggesting that at that point it makes sense to punch through a micro path between the lots to the open space. If you turn the page to Page 7, all of these changes and things that have been complied with would fall 0 ut in the following way 0 n the site-specific comments. 0 n Comment Number 6 with the 13 in parenthesis, that note can be deleted. Going down to Number 7 with the stub streets, that condition can be deleted. Number 9 is the one that's the blocks and the lots that are on the round about, we still need to address that one for Lot 2, Block 9. Number 10 is the temporary turn around. That turn around has been included, but we still need to talk about the building restriction on those lots as a condition and add that. Item Number 12 regarding the street names can be deleted. With that, upon resolution of the remaining issues, we would recommend approval with the conditions in the staff report and I will still stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I do have one. Hang on just one second. Mathes: Can you explain the building restrictions on those lots? Siddoway: Just to state that they are a non-buildable lot until the temporary turn around has been removed. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 25 of 57 Mathes: Okay. Zaremba: So when the stub street goes someplace. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: My question is, actually, a general question. On Page 8, Item 7, talking about the streetlights, it comes to mind on commercial properties we say any exterior lighting needs to be down shielded. Can we make that a requirement for streetlights as well? I see in some subdivisions where they have pretty looking retro lights, but most of the light goes up, instead of down, and I have seen other subdivisions that have very attractive lighting that only goes down. Can that requirement be added? Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, our standard shoebox fixtures, the 25-foot fixtures that are the square shoebox, those are a downcast light. Zaremba: Yes. I like those. Freckleton: The historical lighting that you're referring to, those are approved on a case-by-case basis. We currently don't have any standard for them to be downcast. Zaremba: Okay so if the applicant doesn't mention that they want that exception, then, it's automatic that they have to be the downcast kind? Freckleton: They have to be the standard shoebox. Correct. Zaremba: Okay so we don't need to add that. That answers my question. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Steve, back -- a comment on Lot 2 and access onto the round about. Can that be handled just with not allowing access to Burney Glen, access only to Donovan? Siddoway: It may be. They also may be able to add a landscape buffer around there, much the same way they have done with the other three sides. Why don't we have the applicant address that? I think they may have prepared something. Borup: Anything else from the Commission? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you very much. My name is Daren Fluke with JUB Engineers representing the applicant in this matter, that's at 250 South Beachwood in Boise. In general, we agree with the staff report, have no real problems. It's sound like they have explained the application pretty well and we are down to maybe just two issues I think we can dispatch pretty easily. With regard to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 26 of 57 access onto Burney Glen by these two lots right here, I'd just point out a couple things. We were thinking along the same lines as the Chairman, in that we could handle this with a restriction on access, rather redesigning the lot. The reason for that is we have two design issues with these. One is we have to keep the driveways 50 feet from the back of curb, 50 feet away from that intersection. We can do that with the redesign that we did that you have in front of you now. The other thing that we have to deal with is we have to have 65 feet of frontage per your ordinance and if we go in and put a new lot here that's a landscaped lot, we have a very hard time maintaining that 65 feet of frontage. I'd just point out a couple things for you. One is that we are going to have vertical curb and gutter along the entire length of this road through the round about so the vertical curb here will restrict access better than a rolled curb would. In addition, we'd certainly put a note on the plat restricting access, because we are going to have to have a note restricting the driveways to this north lot line anyway. We would prefer to handle it in that manner, rather than going in -- we will even put landscaping in if you want to put a condition of approval to that effect, we would be happy to do that. With regard to the temporary turn around, your drawing does show it on there, we just anticipated it would be a condition of approval that we provide one. We would like the flexibility to speak with this landowner to see if we could put that temporary turn around on his land right here. If we can get that, great, we have provided it. If we can't get that easement from him, then, we will go ahead and show it -- or we will go ahead and build it as shown on those two lots and at such time as the land develops to the north, then, we could develop those lots. I think that handles any issues -- oh, as far as the pathways into the park, we would have to -- we are going to have to squeeze this road over to the east a little bit and pick up some area off of these lots, but we think we can fit them in here and do that per the request. That's alii had. If you have any questions, I would be happy to take those. Borup: Questions from the Commission? You need to pick up 20 feet is that correct? Fluke: Yes. Centers: So you would be willing to put in two micro paths? I think they were wanting one here and one in this area. Fluke: I think they wanted one on the north and one on the south, both into this area. Centers: Okay just the larger area? Fluke: Right and it's likely that this area is going to even get a little bit shallower, as we mentioned, so that we can provide that 20 feet. Unless you would rather see 10 feet, we could do that, on the paths. Siddoway: Well, the micro path lots themselves would have to be 15 feet by ordinance, with five-foot pathway and five feet on each side. Borup: Okay so how about 15, instead of 20? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2. 2003 Page 27 of 57 Fluke: Okay. Sold. Borup: Nothing else from the Commission -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have one question just for clarification for Daren. The application requested that they be approved for just five-foot side setbacks. The staff report says that that should be changed to be five-foot per story. I just wanted to make sure that that was not an issue that needed to be brought up. Fluke: It is not. We are planning five-foot per story. Siddoway: Okay. Centers: Well, which is the present code. Presently. Borup: Okay. Fluke: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify in this, come on forward? Riderman: My name is Bonnie Riderman and one question I have is, is there is only just one entry and exit to this entire property, or is there more entrances to that prope rty? Borup: There is only one entrance from Meridian Road. There is an entrance here and here from this subdivision and an entrance here from this subdivision. Riderman: Okay. Borup: No, I'm sorry. That one - so there will be two coming -- is that -- coming in from Cedar Springs -- or I mean Sundance. These two. Riderman: Now, what is that lane on the bottom there? What is that lane right on the bottom right there where - Borup: On here? Riderman: On the bottom, Borup: Oh, that's the property line. Riderman: I know, but where does that property line -- where is that? Borup: That's Sundance Subdivision proposed so this is adjoining the other subdivision there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2. 2003 Page 28 of 57 Riderman: Another subdivision. Okay. Thank you. That's alii have. Zaremba: Well -- and to fully answer your question, what we call stub streets, streets that don't appear to go anywhere, do connect to similar stub streets in the other subdivisions. There are a lot of other accesses. Riderman: Okay. That's what I - Zaremba: Only one onto Meridian Road, but other ways in and out. Borup: Anyone else? Seeing none, Daren, I don't know if you had anything else you wanted to add? Fluke: No, sir. Centers: Mr. Chairman, it flew right over my head, the solution you had for the -- Lot 2, traffic round about. Yes. Borup: Well, Daren had mentioned -- and I think the one that probably had the most influence you said that was going to have a vertical curb clear around the round about, but, then, there would also be a note restricting access to the north of that lot on Donovan, and not allow any access to the round about. Zaremba: And am I right that we are, at this point, only talking about Block 9, Lot 2? It appears that Block 1, Lot 16, has been solved by the new Landscape Plan. Borup: Yes so those would be two things. I mean one of them they would have to do a curb cut and ACHD Permit and the whole thing, if they wanted to have access. Plus, the plat would also restrict that anyway, so -- Zaremba: Well, it's acceptable to me just to make a restriction on that lot that the driveway has to be at the north property line. Borup: Well, I think that covers it. It sounds like you were already planning on doing a vertical curb anyway was the design. The vertical curb was part of the original design anyway, I believe. Now, are we - are we comfortable sending this on to the City Council, in light that he's going to have a redesign? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd like to bring one thing to your attention if I can direct you to the Fire Department's memo. This is something that might cause some problems here. I'm not sure exactly how many lots are proposed in the first phase of this development, but the requirement for two points -- minimum of two points of access prior to the 51st home being built. In other words, there is a restriction on access to 50 homes until the secondary access is provided so unless -- and I don't Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 29 of 57 know what Sundance's time lines are for their development for that connection to the south, but just thought that was something that might be worth pointing out. Borup: Does the Fire Department have a - is that 50 -- is that their standard -- Freckleton: It is now their standard. Borup: Now? Freckleton: It is now their standard. Borup: That's what I was wondering. It doesn't seem like 'it was very long ago it was 150. Centers: How long has that been, Bruce? Freckleton: The Fire Department and Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department, got together on this issue, what, three months ago -- three weeks ago -- well, awhile back and tried to come up with a number. The new Intemational Fire Code that is in the process of being approved, I believe, limits the secondary point of access on 20 or 25 homes. We all felt that that was way too restrictive. The number we landed on was 50 and I believe that the Fire Code does give the Fire Marshal or the Fire Chief that flexibility for the local jurisdiction. Fifty was the number that we have approved -- that we have adopted. Zaremba: Just making a wild estimate, that would mean if they built from the front, from Meridian back, they could go about this far. Centers: No, it wouldn't be that far. Freckleton: It wouldn't be that far. Zaremba: It's not that far. Borup: I show 53 in the first phase. Is that -- 51? Freckleton: The applicant is saying 51 in the first phase, so we are there. Centers: Do you recall a subdivision within the last year that was approved -- and I happened to have been the only dissenter. It looked just like that with no access from any other sub and there was no restriction put on it. I voted against the subdivision because of one access in and out, period, no stub streets, no subdivisions around it, period, and we had no restriction on that subdivision and it was passed by the City Council and I think it was Baldwin Park. Freckleton: I remember the one you're talking about and staff did recommend a restriction. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 30 of 57 Centers: I think it was Baldwin Park. Freckleton: Yes. It was. Centers: Was it? Okay and I guess that's what I like about this subdivision. We have another one right next to it, you're going to have other access from another subdivision in and out, and you only have one way in, one way out. The other sub didn't have the circular. You went in to a dead end and, then, you come back and it was -- anyway. Borup: Daren, have you had any discussion with Sundance? Do you know their time frame at all? Is this adjoining their - it's adjoining their next one. Zaremba: Yes. This is Sundance Place. Borup: Sundance North or - Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Daren Fluke with JUB. They are currently constructing that now, so they are well ahead of us. Borup: They are constructing this - your adjoining property? Fluke: Correct. The roads are graded for the north portion of their subdivision in here, they have got all the fencing in along the Meridian Road frontage, and so they are way ahead of us. In any event, if it's 50, you know, we can easily adjust our phase line. I think we show 51 right now. Borup: Well, I think that's close enough. Is staff okay with one extra? Well, then, the question, then - you have got no problem with restricting it to the first phase? Fluke: No. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I personally think that kind of requirement is certainly reasonable for safety considerations and I may have voted against Commissioner Centers on the one he's talking about, but I have since voted for such restrictions on other -- Borup: I thought we had talked about a temporary access on that other one. Zaremba: Well, on some of them we have, but, you know, a non-build on a lot, this one doesn't appear to be configured that way, but -- Freckleton: The one that you were talking about did get approved with a temporary. Zaremba: Another way out. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2. 2003 Page 31 of 57 Freckleton: Yes so it did have secondary access- Centers: By the Council. Freckleton: -- through lots. Mathes: Right. Borup: That's what we discussed, too. Okay. Commissioners, we have not closed the hearing. Zaremba: I move that the Public Hearing be closed. Mathes: Second. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: I think the only issue is whether the revisions that are going to be made, such as putting in the pathway and stuff, is that a significant enough change that we need to see the Preliminary Plat again or are those minor changes? Siddoway: If it's just the micro paths and the fact that it may be shifting a little, we could probably review that just at staff level right before Council. As along as it's not something that's going to alter the configuration of the road system, lotting pattern, things like that. If it's just a micro path, which it's sounding more and more like it is, then, I think we could review that at staff level prior to Council. Borup: Okay makes sense. Centers: I think the project, as the staff points out, meets the Comprehensive Plan. We don't have any neighbors here objecting to the project, which surprises me not that it's not a good project, but that's surprises me. Zaremba: You put up a sign you draw a crowd. Centers: Wanting a fence and the like, but, anyway, I'd like to see it go through and you kept good notes, Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: I probably can do it, yes. Centers: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 32 of 57 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 02-026, request for annexation and zoning of 35.94 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Burney Glen Subdivision by Properties West, Inc., east of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 02-025, request for Preliminary Plat - request for Preliminary Plat approval of 117 building lots and 15 other lots on 35.94 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Burney Glen Subdivision by Properties West, Inc. East of North Meridian Road and north of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments, with the following exceptions. Under site-specific comments, Preliminary Plat, on Page 7, Paragraph 6, Subparagraph Parenthesis 13, can be deleted as satisfied. Paragraph 7 can be deleted as satisfied. Paragraph 9, Lot 17, Block 1, can be removed and this would be changed to state that an agreement would be on the plat that Lot 2, Block 9, will have access only to -- was it Donovan? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Item 10, as a temporary turn around is required, but may be satisfied in one of two ways, either by the hammerhead shown on the plat, in which case there will also be a Non-Build Agreement for Block 1, Lot 16, and Block 9, Lot 1. That those cannot be built until that street connects somewhere, or the applicant can provide an agreement with the adjoining property owner that the turnaround can be placed on the property to the north. Paragraph 12 -- we are still on Page 7, staff comments. Paragraph 12 is deleted as satisfied. I believe that's it. Centers: The Fire Department. Zaremba: And the ped paths were a requirement. Centers: Item Number 8. Zaremba: Yes. They are already stated as a requirement. I'm assuming that among staff -- when we say staff comments that include the Fire Department and Public Works and school district or anybody else that contributes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2, 2003 Page 33 of 57 Borup: Maybe one minor thing -- Zaremba: Unless we want to modify -- the applicant has asked for a Phase 1 of 51 building lots and I would modify the Fire Department requirement to say that 51 lots, the first phase, could be built until they are two accesses. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, the applicant is indicating that in the revised plat, when they modified the lotting pattern on the revised plat to conform with ACHD and other things, the number of lots changed from 117 to 119 lots, so we want to make sure that that is just clarified, that there are 119 building lots and not 117. Centers: Well, I was going to ask - Zaremba: Are there still 15 other lots? Siddoway: Twelve other lots. Zaremba: Okay so the maker of the motion amends the motion to say that there are 119 building lots and 12 other lots. Centers: And it's based on the revised plat received by the city on December 20th. Zaremba: Dated December 20th. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Centers: Which I never had. Zaremba: Have I missed anything? Siddoway: Just one point of clarification. On the discussion about the Non-Build Agreement for the temporary tum around, we'd just like to clarify that that's not a Non- Development Agreement, but it can be simply satisfied with a note on the plat, that that would be unbuildable if it is provided on those lots, until such time as it connects through. Zaremba: That's fine. Siddoway: As a note on the plat. Zaremba: And is it satisfactory if, before this gets to the City Council, the applicant has an agreement with the property owner to the north -- Siddoway: Yes. That part's fine. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 2. 2003 Page 34 of 57 Siddoway: I just wanted to clarify that a note on the plat and not a -- Zaremba: If it's the hammerhead on this property, then, a note on the plat is satisfactory for that. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. I believe I have done it. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ. 02-028 Request for annexation and zoning of 81.54 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Cedar Springs North Subdivision by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation - south of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 02-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 197 building lots and 33 other lots on 81.54 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Cedar Springs North Subdivision by Howell- Murdoch Development Corporation - south of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road: Borup: The next two items, Public Hearing AZ 02-028, a request for annexation and zoning of 81.54 a cres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Cedar Springs North Subdivision by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation, south of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road. Also, Public Hearing PP 02-027, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 197 building lots and 33 other lots on the same property by the same applicant. I'd like to open both of these Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The vicinity map before you shows the location of the proposed Cedar Springs North Subdivision near the intersections of McMillan Road and Meridian Road. The project that we were just talking about is southeast of here and across Meridian Road. The approved Cedar Springs project is to the south and the Baldwin Park project, which was also discussed during the last Public Hearing, is to the west of the proposed project. You have a request for annexation and zoning of 81 and a half acres, as well as a Preliminary Plat for 197 building lots and 33 other lots. This is the layout of the proposed Preliminary Plat. On this orientation north is to the right. This would be McMillan Road and the entrance -- the main entrance comes off of McMillan Road. Up in the northwest corner of the property they are proposing an office park and there is a large remnant parcel on the northeast corner of the property for a future single-family attached project for which