Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 6, 2003 Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6. 2003 Page 10 of 94 Zaremba: Before we vote, I thought of a question I would ask the developer, if I may. Would you be amenable to having a small neighborhood meeting? It sounds like there may be some objections in the neighborhood that you could workout before you come back for the Public Hearing. Hepworth: Yeah. I'm certain that the owner of parcel would have no objection to that. Zaremba: And get this lady's name and number. Hepworth: Okay. Yeah. He's -- he's more than willing to try to workout any complaints or disagreements with the neighbors, hence, his leaving that lot that's buffering or next to the homeowners as L-O. He does -- you know, he feels that's right -- Borup: Well -- but I believe that was one of our requirements last year. Hepworth: Not to leave that lot L-O. Borup: It was discussed. Hepworth: It was -- we were just denied the whole rezone to a commercial site and, then, we -- after talking with staff, they recommended, you know, perhaps leaving this one lot to L-O as a buffer to that, you know, and he has no problems with that and I think he would be willing to work with any neighbors. Zaremba: I just wanted to suggest that before we move on to the next item. Hepworth: Okay. Zaremba: I call the question. Borup: All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 02-034 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.0 Acres from RUT to R-3 zones fro proposed Bleak Subdivision by Kent And Nancy Bleak - 4920 West Cherry Lane: Public Hearing: PFP 02-005 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat Approval of 1 building lot and 1 other lot on 5 acres in a proposed R-3 Zone for proposed Bleak Subdivision by Kent and Nancy Blaek - 4920 West Cherry Lane: Item 6: Borup: The next project, Items 6 and 7, Public Hearing AZ 02-034, request for annexation and zoning of five acres from RUT to R-3 zones for the propose Bleak Subdivision by Ken and Nancy Bleak. Is that -- that's not the address, is it? 4920 West Mertdian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 11 of 94 Cherry Lane? And Public Hearing PFP 02-005, request for preliminary/final plat approval of one building lot and one other lot on five acres in a proposed R-3 zone. Same applicant. Open both these public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Mr. Bleak is proposing annexing the current two parcels that he owns into the city and creating a two-lot subdivision. The location is at the intersection of Cherry Lane and Black Cat in the configuration you see outlined. If you look at the aerial photo, you can see that the existing house takes access off of Cherry Lane, thus, the address 4920 West Cherry Lane. The proposed preliminary plat would create two lots in a new configuration, one running from Cherry Lane back to the north and the remainder of the parcel being 1.2 acres going out to Black Cat. A very simple plat, thus, the ability to be submitted as a preliminary/final plat combination. This is the final plat. And you should have a staff report, dated March 6th -- March 6th. No. Received March 4th. I think it was just printed out late. But from Wendy Kirkpatrick and Bruce FreckJeton. It is two building lots on 4.8 acres. The requested zone is R-3. This is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, which designates the land as low density residential or less than three dwelling units per acre, so it matches that. The parcel is currently unsewerable and would require a septic system. Just so you know that this arrangement is acceptable at Public Works. However, when the sanitary sewer service becomes available, the owners of each lot will be required to abandon those septic systems and connect to Meridian sewer system. On page six there is one additional consideration, that is, that the plat has a note restricting the minimum house size to 2,600 square feet. It's recommend that the note be deleted or modified to the R-3 zone per code. It already has a minimum house size of 1,500 square feet. That is reflected already in site specific comment number four as revised plat notes and, then, the first change mentioned that, so that's already covered in the site-specific comments. The only other one that I'd like to point out is number seven on page seven, which says to revise the plat map to reflect the existing right of way, I believe what's shown on the plat is 43 feet of existing right of way -- or a future right of way. Excuse me. Let me back up. Part of number seven says you need to show a portion of the transportation corridor, additional right of way that will be -- to be dedicated with the plat in the future. ACHD is not purchasing the right of way today. We would I ike to have it P reserved. I t's a minor tweak that needs to be made. It's actually 48 feet from the center line that needs to be shown, instead of the 43. That will just have the effect of shifting the 25-foot landscape buffer in slightly on both Black Cat and Cherry Lane. So we would just like to have that modification made, but with that one tweak it's in compliance and we would recommend approval with the conditions noted in the staff report. Borup: Okay. Questions? Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Mertdlan Planning & Zoning March 6. 2003 Page 12 of 94 Centers: Yeah. Mr. Siddoway, why -- if he wants to leave it at 2,600 feet minimum, do we care? I think I know why he wants to do it. When he sells off the other lot he doesn't want a small house in there. That's my opinion. Siddoway: He still can with his CC&R's, but I think if the city -- we should have the plat state the ordinance minimum house size. If he wants to go beyond that with the CC&R's, he may. Centers: Okay. Borup: And I had the same question. So you're saying you just want the plat notes to -- Siddoway: Reflect ordinance. Borup: Yeah. Siddoway: Yeah. Borup: Any other questions, Commissioners? Does the applicant have anything? If you'd like to come forward, sir? Bleak: My name is Kent Bleak and I'm the owner of the proposed subdivision. I have just a couple of comments. We would have no problem with the 1,500 square feet designation. That's fine with us. Borup: Are you planning to have covenants? Bleak: There would be some covenants, but -- Borup: Okay. Bleak: -- really limiting that. That was a number that we just thought was a good number and it wasn't anything that was cut and fast and a hard rule. Borup: Okay. Well, your covenants can state any size you want, so -- Bleak: Okay. Borup: -- you would have control over that. Bleak: Very good. And, then, the other comment I wanted to make is that we have in the past had some domestic animals on the property and we'd like to continue to do so in the future. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 6. 2003 Page 13 of 94 Zaremba: Is that permissible in an R-3? Borup: Comment on that? Siddoway: Yeah. The code addresses that and I asked Mr. Bleak to go on the record tonight with the fact that he has existing horses. Livestock is technically prohibited in the residential zones within the city, unless they are there at the time that it's annexed, in which case they can be continued, but if the use is abandoned for a year or more, then, the right to have animals on the property goes away. And you cannot increase the number of animals from what's there. Zaremba: Would you tell us, sir, what animals you do have? Bleak: Horses. Well, there are no horses on it currently, but as of November we have had some on there. They are off the land right now, but there would be -- we have had as many as five horses on the property. Usually, it would probably be more like four. Borup: So that would be your intention, to keep horses on the property? Bleak: Right. Zaremba: Limited to five horses? Mathes: Is that on both pieces of property or just the one he's going to be on? Zaremba: Between the two. Bleak: One thing we had considered is either selling that one -- the little L -- top of the L shape off, or also keeping it ourselves and if we can't -- or well, if we wanted to, you know, be able to preserve that ability to have animals on that as well, and build a house on that, instead of -- not have any other house. Zaremba: Would we, then, want to say a maximum of five horses in the subdivision? Siddoway: I think that would be fine. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Mr. Bleak, anything else you would like to add? Bleak: No. That's alii have. Borup: Thank you. Same as anything else. The same as anybody else with horses. Zaremba: We now have a compliance officer. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6. 2003 Page 14 of 94 Borup: And, you know, a lot of them are enforced by complaints from neighbors, if it's a nuisance type thing or if it's real blatant, then, I guess the city would be -- Rhom: I'm curious about one thing. If you limited it to five horses and, then, there are no horses placed on the property for over a year, does that, then, preclude their right to bring them in at a later date? Borup: That's the way it's written now. Rohm: Okay. I just wanted that to be so stated, so in case they don't have any horses, then, at some point in time that right would be relinquished. Borup: So he better get horses there for at least one day a year. Rohm: Bingo. Centers: Well -- and what if he wants a couple steers? You know, a cow? Zaremba: We are going to specify horses. Centers: Which he's probably had in the past, maybe before him. I don't know. Borup: He said before him there were cows on the property was the applicant's statement. So it sounds like he's okay with the horse. Anything else, Commissioners? Did I ask -- was there any additional testimony? I'm sorry. Come forward, sir. Law: My name is Brent Law. I own the piece of property that basically the little L is going right around. That's 4888 West Cherry Lane. My concern with what's going on here is -- I understand where the home is going would not be affecting my property as far as my animals. Right now the home is not lived in. There was a fire in it approximately a year ago. It's being -- it's almost to the point where it's being finished. Our intentions will be to move back out there, which would be probably in the next -- we are hoping two, three months, but -- Zaremba: You're talking about your own home? Law: Yes. Borup: Your own home had the fire? Law: Yes. Uh-huh. The home there at 4888. We will be having -- I do have horses. I own them. I will be moving them back out there. The renters that were in there had horses. I don't know if it specifies, the code, as far as we are talking animals, do these animals have to be owned or is it okay to use the property, let somebody else basically lease or even just use the property as far as the animal situation being on the property? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6. 2003 Page 15 of 94 Borup: You're talking about on his property, not on yours? Law: Right. Uh-huh. Borup: Maybe we can get some clarification. My understanding is just animals period. Doesn't matter who owns them. Is that correct? That was the way I interpreted that. Zaremba: I think we have been through this before and boarding animals is acceptable, as long as it doesn't go over five. However, if this lapses at anytime, then, the only thing he can have is family pets. Law: Okay. The other -- you know, the other thing I'm concerned with -- I'm kind of -- my property is kind of getting boxed in here. At this point my intentions are not to be annexed, my intentions not to be developing or anything of that nature at this point, but, who knows, everything changes. In a matter of six, eight months it could be a whole different situation out there. But my concern is right now, currently, the services are not available, so as far as developing, I -- my personal opinion, I feel like maybe we are a little too early in getting the jump on this. At first my concern was safety. Of course, when I saw the zoning a nd the ability of going three homes per a ere, if that acre of property -- or basically acre and a half behind me, if that sells, if it goes -- if they put three homes in there -- Borup: They can't right now, because it's one lot. Law: Right. But I mean in the future if it does get -- Borup: Well, they'd have to come back and have another Public Hearing and be replatted and resubdivided and a new subdivision created. Law: Okay. Well, the concern right now, the home just to the north of even his -- of Kent's property, they currently have horses there also, so it's still kind of a -- you know, there is still some of us out there that enjoy pets and animals and, I don't know, it really shouldn't be a safety issue, but the real concern I have is the services aren't available yet. Borup: Water is available. Sewer is not. Law: All services aren't available yet. The idea of covenants -- and I don't know -- I don't get into trying to develop property or anything like that, but my concern is on -- if we start putting covenants on that property, how is that going to affect my property? Is it going to be anything that in time could run over into mine? Borup: No. Law: Okay. Well, that kind of pretty much answers mine. Are there any intentions -- are there plans at all as far as development out that way as far as the city is concerned? Mertdlan Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 16 of 94 Borup: The city doesn't do any developing. Law: It's just pretty much whoever comes in and asks for whatever -- Borup: Yeah. That's all done by private individuals, so -- Law: Then, it's up to them to get you to -- or try to convince you to approve it? Borup: Right. Zaremba: Well, the Comprehensive Plan does give guidance as to what is approvable in an area, so there are some -- there are decisions that have been made about what the city would like see happen there. The city doesn't take an active part in making anything happen. Law: Okay. Borup: Other than sewer lines, but mostly it's after the fact. Law: Okay. That pretty much answers -- I was - Borup: Do you understand that they are, essentially, just splitting off that one parcel, which would allow one home to be built if they so choose? Law: Right. Borup: One additional. Law: The situation is where the home is -- that property used to be all owned by one property owner. Currently, if I had the records -- and I don't, because this home was built probably 50 years ago, where my home is, the actual septic system for my home does go across into that other piece of property. Borup: The property to the north? Law: No. To the -- Borup: West? Law: Yeah. Right there. That's where my septic system goes. Centers: Currently? Law: Uh-huh. As best I can tell. I have -- in fact, there is an irrigation ditch runs down there now. My septic pipe -- and we have found it in that ditch, in the irrigation ditch. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6. 2003 Page 17 of 94 It's gotten dug deep enough to where my pipe is actually exposed a little bit and Kent is currently filling that back in a nd putting pipe in t here and everything tom ake ita lot nicer, but the concern is -- and, honestly, I don't know exactly where that septic goes. Centers: Excuse me. This annexation and a plat of two lots do not affect that situation, You have that situation whether we act tonight or not. Law: Well-- Centers: But the property line is still right there. Law: Right. But-- Centers: And if your septic system -- it has nothing to do with that. Law: But if it's approved and they go in and start digging another septic hole or when they come in to put in the water or the sewer line -- Centers: The city is not going to - they will have to comply with Central District Health regarding the septic tank, but not the City of Meridian. Borup: They can do that with or without this annexation. Law: I'm saying this wrong. It's not my septic. That's actually the drain field. Centers: I figured that's what you meant. That's going to be there whether we act tonight or not. You have that situation to resolve with your neighbor. Law: Okay. Centers: And whether we act tonight or not, you have the property line there and if you're encroaching on neighbor with your drain field, that's something you have to work out. Borup: If there is a new home built, it would be on this parcel up here to the north. Law: Well, I thought the home was being built on the other piece -- Borup: No. Law: -- over towards Cherry Lane. Borup: No. Not the way it's platted now. This whole parcel here is staying one lot and, then, this -- and, then, this is the other lot right here. So all he's doing is -- Law: I misunderstood. Mertdian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 18 of 94 Borup: Right there. See, he's just splitting off this lot right here from his property. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the red lines that were shown on the previous map were the existing property lines as they exist today. Borup: Oh. Freckleton: Mr. Bleak's property is two separate parcels. Borup: Oh, it's two parcels now. Well, he's not doing much more than a lot line adjustment. Centers: Exactly. Freckleton: Essentially. Borup: Other than it's a replat, but - he has two parcels now, he's still keeping two parcels, it's just this one got bigger and that one got smaller. Law: Okay. Maybe I mis -- I thought the building was actually going on over towards the Cherry Lane side. Borup: No. No. That's staying the existing house that's there now. Law: Okay. Borup: And at this point he stated he doesn't know if he will sell it or use it as pasture, but he has the option. Law: Right. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I could just maybe address the drain field issue just a little bit. Borup: Please. Freckleton: Do you currently have an easement on your neighbor's property for your drain field? Law: I couldn't tell you. Honestly, I don't know. Freckleton: Your concern that you have regarding that thing getting dug up in the future, it might be a good idea to look into getting 0 ne, if you don't have 0 ne. That would protect you for that future situation. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 19 of 94 Law: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Borup: Did that clarify-- Law: Yeah. I was under the impression the home was being built in the other area. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Law: Okay. Zaremba: Question for staff, I guess, and maybe the applicant. The property to the north and I think maybe to the west does have animals on it. The property across Black Cat is often farmed. Would it be appropriate to add a Right To Farm Act note on the plat? Siddoway: It's already -- it is note number two on the plat already. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this? Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. Where is the city right now? Right here? Siddoway: Everything with a color on it is city. Centers: Okay. Borup: So this would be the contiguous area there. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Okay. We have no more testimony, Commissioners. Centers: I would move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Well, the applicant has agreed that the plat can state the ordinance house size. I think the only note we need to add is the five horses. Borup: And maybe the highway right of way. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 20 of 94 Zaremba: Is that already in the notes? Siddoway: That's already in there. Maybe just to reiterate for the applicant, we would like to receive a revised plat that incorporates those ten days before the Council hearing, but I think that's -- that's already in there as well. Zaremba: The applicant understood that. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our agenda, AZ 02-034, request for annexation and zoning of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-3 zones for proposed Bleak Subdivision by Kent and Nancy Bleak, 4920 West Cherry Lane, to include all staff comments, and would it be on the zoning on the plat that we have the note about the horses? Zoning, probably. Siddoway: Probably zoning. I would do it here. Zaremba: Along with a note that -- in line with other provisions of the ordinance, if he continuously keeps animals, he may have up to five horses. That's the motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on our agenda, PFP 02-005, request for preliminary/final plat approval of one building lot and one other lot on five acres in a proposed R-3 zone for proposed Bleak Subdivision by Kent and Nancy Bleak, 4920 West Cherry, to include all staff comments. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 03-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 Building lots, 1 existing house lot, and 2 other lots on 9.996 acres in an R-4 zone for Setter Cove Subdivision MKH Development, Inc. - east of North Locust Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road: