Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 6, 2003Meridian 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: Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 21 of 94 Borup: Next item is Public Hearing PP 03-001, request for preliminary plat approval of 15 building lots and one existing house lot and two other lots on approximately 10 acres in an R-4 zone for Setter Cove Subdivision by MKH Development. This is east of Locust Grove and north of Ustick Road. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report at this time. Siddoway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed Setter Cove Subdivision was earlier at one point known as Yukon Subdivision, Hollister property. It is just on the southeast corner of the Charter High, School site that's currently got the Charter High School along Locust Grove and recently approved a n elementary school up in the northeast corner of the property. It's also surrounded on the south by Summerfield Subdivision and the proposed Parkstone Subdivision, which was before the Commission last month, is on this subdivision's east boundary. You can see the existing Charter High School in the aerial photo, as well as the existing house that exists out there on the property. The proposed plat is for a larger lot subdivision. Not quite as large as the one we just considered, but, still, they are in the neighborhood of a half-acre, plus or minus. They do have 15 single family building lots, one larger lot for the existing home, and two lots for landscape buffers along the public road that's being constructed as part of the Education Campus Subdivision. You should have a staff report from David McKinnon and Bruce Freckleton. I have just a couple things to point out. One, on page two, conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, note that is in compliance. I would just like to note on the record that, technically, the Comprehensive Plan is -- shows this as medium density. This is low density. However, there is the provision on the map that says that the density is allowed to go up a step or down a step without a Comp Plan change. So, that is how it is able to go in at a lower density than what the actual Comp Plan land use map shows. I think the major issue to be discussed tonight is the additional consideration at the bottom of that page regarding the pedestrian pathway. The staff report recommends adding in a pedestrian pathway between Lots 4 and 5 to line up with the pedestrian pathway connection that was required by this Commission of the Parkstone Subdivision. That would need to be -- to be added. I know that the applicant does not wish to do so and will probably bring that up tonight. The only other ones that I need to bring up -- item two on page three, there is a discrepancy in the stated acreage. The application states 9.996 acres. The preliminary plat states 10.384 acres. We'd like to resolve that discrepancy tonight. Item number seven. We do require that a variance request be submitted for the block length. There is an incomplete sentence at the end of that statement, which I'd probably just strike. I'm not sure where he was going with that. There are really no places for this to connect, but still a variance will be required for the block length issue. And, then, the last one would be item 12, where we ask the applicant to explain the purpose of the existing irrigation and access easements that are shown on the subdivision's south and west boundaries. It's not clear if these easements are encroachable and may have to be excluded from the lots and put into a common lot if they are not encroachable. And I believe t he a pplicant's b een aware o f t hat a nd h e c ame p repared t onight to address that. Upon resolution of those issues, we would recommend approval with the conditions in the staff report and I will stand for any questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2D03 Page 22 of 94 Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Mathes: Yeah. I have question. Part of the property goes that way. What are they doing with that? Siddoway: There has actually been a land swap. My understanding -- and the applicant may be better to address this than me, but my understanding is the long sliver that went out to Locust Grove has been given to the school district in exchange for some land atthe north sideofthis boundary, which you can see--that boundary, I believe, is right here and, then, the landscape lot that goes off at an angle is additional land that was swapped to them from the school district. The configuration still shows like this in the assessor's data base that we use, which is why it's still showing up like that, but we will have the applicant address the lot and the land swap there. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Siddoway, you last spoke about the irrigation and access easement, et cetera, and, then, the Settler's Irrigation District mentions item four, development must supply irrigation access to all lots within Setter Cove and you might want to be thinking about it, should that be a note on the plat itself for future buyers? Which I found a little interesting with -- I guess every irrigation district is different. Siddoway: We will read through that and let's come back to that after we hear about the easements from the applicant. Centers: Yeah. Right. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Pat Tealey. My office. address is 2501 Bogus Basin Road in Boise, Idaho. I'll take the -- try to take the points of discussion in order. If you can go back to the original, Steve? Go back to the original layout. That was the layout that was 9.96 acres and because the applicant is pretty sharp, we ended up with 10.2 acres in the land swap, so we got a little more land than what we gave away, basically. And that land is, in fact, along the north edge of the subdivision in those landscape lots adjacent to the road thaYs being built as part of Education Campus and that's where our access will be taken. The applicant has made arrangements fora p ressurized i rrigation s ystem. Previously, we h ad a w ell a nd a n easement down in the southeast corner of the subdivision. It's sort of hard to see on that map. Down in the southwest -- right there. And we have -- in conjunction with the school district, we have moved that well up to -- right next to the access road in that common area and that's where we will pressurize the irrigation system from, so that we don't h ave to have t he a ccess d own i n t he a ast I ine o f t he s ubdivision. That w as a trade-off there. I'll come back to the micropath, because that's probably where most of the discussion is. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 23 of 94 Zaremba: Let me clarify that, if I may. I'm sorry to interrupt you. But you're saying that what is -- what is shown as an easement along here can actually be abandoned, it doesn't make any difference if that's within people's lots and fenced across it and -- Tealey: No. That's an easement for Summerfield Subdivision. That's where they get some of their irrigation. That won't be abandoned and it's piped right now. It's not an exclusive easement, so we can encroach upon it. But the owner just gave them the use of -- of that easement to transport their water. Actually, the developer of Summerfield Subdivision wasn't able to get access for pressurized irrigation originally and the owner MKH Development gave them that easement to get -- transport his irrigation water. So it is encroachable. It's not an exclusive easement. And as stated before, I guess to clarify, the well, again, that was down at the southeast corner of the subdivision, has been moved up to the northeast corner of the subdivision and it will be shared with the school district. Centers: Settler's will be maintaining your pressurized irrigation? Tealey: That's correct. Centers: Okay. So they will need access to every lot? Tealey: Yes. Centers: Okay. Tealey: Where ever their -- for maintenance of the line, if they are broke or whatever. And, basically, go in an easement at the back of the lots. The real point in question is the micropath. We don't see any benefit to our subdivision for that micropath. We have got lots that range in size from 16,700 to 30,000 square feet, but with the lot on the -- on the existing home being 73,000 square feet. We feel that the open area on these lots, after the house is built, is enough for these people and if they do want to get to a park in Parkstone, which lunderstand -- I don't have a plat that's dimensioned, all. I have got is the traffic study that we got from the staff. The one public lot is close to a quarter mile away. The benefit to Parkstone isn't there. If they were to come through -- between our two lots and walk up the street to get to the campus school and the open area that will be there for the school, it isn't any longer or shorter than walking up their own road and going down the sidewalks that are provided along the roads. Does that make sense? Borup: Yeah. That -- that does. I think that was -- that comment was made last month. The reasoning for that from the staff was it would be of benefit to this subdivision to allow them access -- Tealey: The developer and owner of the subdivision do not see it as a benefit and he's willing to market his lots without that, quote, unquote, amenity. That benefit is solely for Parkstone, the way I see it. And, again, the walking length is no different whether you go through this micropath --which would, then, force people along a sideline of a house Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 24 of 94 and it's just not desirable. The other point is that -- I don't know if staffs got it or not, but I don't think the alignment with the lot lines in Parkstone is going to line up with our lots in Setter Cove Subdivision, which would force us to change lot sizes and lot dimensions -- I don't know if you have got that or not, Bruce. Borup: I was wondering the same thing. Tealey: And looking -- I got the testimony from the application for Parkstone and it appears that there was some discussion on it by McKinnon and Borup and, basically, they said, you know, we don't care, you know, it was not important to them to get it and I think some of the same points were brought up at that time by the Commissioners of why we d on't want t his s ubdivision a nd I t hink w hat t hey a re d oing was -- i t d oesn't bother us, let's not make this a point of discussion, let's get our subdivision approved. You know, it may not have been a sticking point, but I can see that as a -- as a concession they would make, because, again, we don't even know if the lot lines line up and we really don't want to change the lot lines that we have on this subdivision. Centers: How about if they did line up? Tealey: We still don't want it. Centers: You know they are going to have asix-acre neighborhood park there. Tealey: Yes. Over in the Campus. That's correct. Centers: No. No. Tealey: Over in Parkstone. Centers: In Parkstone. Tealey: Yes. We just don't feel -- and from a marketing concept -- and the owner of MKH Development is here and maybe if he wants to throw in a few words, but we don't see that as a benefit to us. These 17 -- basically 17,000 to half-acre lots and the mix with Parkstone is -- what are those, Bruce? Eight thousand? Siddoway: Yeah. There is a mix of lot sizes. About 8,000 square feet, probably, average. Borup: At the north end. Tealey: Yeah. So, you know, even if they did line up we wouldn't be agreeable to a path. So, I guess that's the point of discussion. And if we do have the discussion and decide that a micropath isn't needed on number eight, third bullet there, as a requirement for the plat, note for fencing of the micropath, so we'd like -- if you decide to Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2D03 Page 25 of 94 grant our request that, that also be deleted for the staff recommendations. If there are any questions I would be glad to answer them. Zaremba: I think a question for staff while you're still here on the subject of the micropath. The thought was -- this is an extremely long block length. Is a micropath usable as a fire access, to give a second access to this property? Siddoway: Well, they can be. They have had requirements placed on them in other subdivisions to be constructed such that they will support a fire truck and et cetera, et cetera. I don't think that that condition was put on the -- on the Parkstone side of this pathway, though. Tealey: That would also require a minimum of 20 feet for that micropath for that access. Siddoway: Yes. Tealey: And in all truth --and we had discussions with staff. This discussion of a block length is just a little hard to understand. We did apply for the variance. We don't understand it. Basically -- Zaremba: You are applying for the variance in the block length? Tealey: Yes. Yes. Because our application wouldn't go forward without it. What happens when you measure the block length with a subdivision that doesn't have an outlet, you measure the total frontage of all the lots. Zaremba: The whole exterior square. Tealey: Right. And it just doesn't make sense. I mean those -- from cul-de-sac to street is about 750 feet. So I think using the block length as a requirementfor the micropath just doesn't really make the sense that you might think it does on paper. Borup: And I have the same problem with the block length. There are only 16 lots here. Even though you measure around the perimeter it is over a thousand feet, but those are really short streets. Anything else, Mr. Tealey? Tealey: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this? Come forward, sir. Epps: Commissioners, my name is J. R. Epps, I'm an adjacent landowner just south of Block 6 on the plat here. What I'm looking for -- maybe staff can help me -- is clarification on the o verhead power lines. T he m ap I h ave shows them to be going along the south boundary of that and I don't know if that's correct or not. Borup: You mean you think there are going to be new power lines put in? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 26 of 94 Epps: Yeah. I was just going off the map I had that shows the legend and the -- Borup: Sir, we need to get any testimony on the -- you want to repeat that for us? Epps: Basically, the overhead -- from what you said, the overhead power line is going to the well on the northwest side -- or southeast side. So it would not affect that Summerfield Subdivision. Given that, I bought my property looking out over that field, hope that Mr. Hollister wouldn't develop as quickly as he did, but what -- with what they are proposing, two things. With the discussion tonight, I agree with the developer that the micropath wouldn't be an added benefit as far as I'm concerned, living right behind them. And the second thing is I --from what they are proposing, I think it's a good thing for me as an adjacent property owner and I like what they are doing with the larger lot sizes and I think it's going to help my property values and the surrounding property values and my recommendation to the Commissioners, as someone testifying here, is that it gets approved. Borup: Thank you, sir. Who would like to come next? Anyone? Okay. Commissioners, maybe a little discussion on the pathway would be appropriate, before we close the hearing, in case we want to perhaps talk with the applicant. Zaremba: Well, I think I participated in the previous discussion on the other subdivision and my feeling about the portion of the pathway that was put on the other subdivision was that it really didn't do them that much benefit. Anybody trying to leave that subdivision walking to the schools would follow the roadways. My thinking in requiring it of the other subdivision was it was going to benefit this subdivision -- Borup: I agree. Zaremba: -- as a secondary access as a way to access the parks. I can easily be swayed by the applicant's comments that these lots are so big enough that the occupants won't need to be seeking a park. I could happily go either way. Centers: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I -- I wouldn't want to force it on them if they don't want it. I think the big point is it's going to match up with the lot line and, you know, they have extremely large lots there for the area and if they don't want people from that other subdivision walking through, I guess I can't blame them. They are going to market their lots without the micropath and that's their choice, in my opinion. Zaremba: And, then, retroactively let the other subdivision know they don't need to do it, if we don't do it here. Borup: I was going to ask that. The other subdivision wouldn't be required to put that pathway in, then. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 27 of 94 Siddoway: It will be required unless Council changes it. It's a condition already in a formal written recommendation from this body that it go forward, so -- Borup: Can you notify the other applicant to let them know -- well, I guess we need to make a decision here first, but -- Centers: Mr. Chairman, there is -- it could be noted when it goes to Council that -- what we did on this subdivision and that could be noted to the Council and to -- so they could remove it if they wanted to. Siddoway: Yes. The recommendation has already gone to Council without that, but it could be done verbally at the hearing. Centers: Yeah. If it hasn't gone to hearing. Borup: Mr. Tealey? Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have already had discussions with the applicant --applicant's representative and they don't have a problem not having it. Borup: The other subdivision? Tealey: The Parkstone Subdivision. That's correct. Borup: Right. We -- Centers: Well, we know that. Zaremba: What I'm saying, though, is if we delete it as a requirement here, somehow we want to get the word to the other applicant to bring it up when he has his. Council hearing. Tealey: I will guarantee you we will be in touch with them tomorrow. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I would accept that as a path of communication. Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed. Centers: Second it. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 28 of 94 Zaremba: Did we resolve to staffs satisfaction the question on page four, item 12? Borup: Yes. I believe so. They said that it was an easement -- well, I guess I should ask s tall as t o their s atisfaction. The a pplicant t estified that i t w as, b ut B o w e n eed some more information there, Steve? Zaremba: Maybe I closed the Public Hearing too soon. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm a little bit vague on the easement. It's an easement, from what I understand, for access to the -- to the well that is being moved? There is a head gate down there. Centers: SummerFeld. Borup: I don't know about the head gate, but there is an existing piped ditch. Centers: The way I heard the applicant was that there easements for Summerfield Sub and their pressurized irrigation system. I see this. Meaning a nod of the head. I guess the applicant has stated for the record that they are encroachable, which answers your question mark on the staff comments. Freckleton: It's a private easement for Summerfield's access. Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate to have the applicant come over to the table and we'can talk about this a little bit? Borup: Yes. Maybe both of you - it sounds like you had some information, too, sir. Zaremba: I moved to close the Public Hearing prematurely. Borup: Oh, but they can work that out. Any other discussion we may have, if we are -- a proposed motion? Are we leaning towards deleting the requirement for the micropath? Centers: I am. Borup: So, then, that would also -- so that would -- item number six would be deleted and eight, third bullet point. Centers: Well, I was going to ask them if they had decided -- Mr. Siddoway, if they had decided on a note on the plat that Settler's Irrigation would have access to all the lots. I think it has to be on there, because they're going to be running the pressurized irrigation for the homeowners association. Don't you think? Siddoway: You're talking about just in an easement; right? Across the -- Centers: Just an access agreement. I guess it would be an easement. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 29 of 94 Siddoway: I'll let Bruce address it, because this is the same easement that he's been talking about. Centers: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's clear now. Basically, what this easement is for that goes across the southern boundary of the Hollister property and up this side is for pressurized irrigation pipe for Summerfield Subdivision. It's no different than the pressurized pipe that runs down the middle of this block. It's properly a three or four inch pipe with taps coming off of it to serve these lots. At the time Summerfield was built, evidently, this was an oversight, they didn't get it put in and so they approached Mr. Hollister to get an easement to put it on his side of the property line. So, we don't have a problem with it. It's no different than a pressurized irrigation line running down the middle of a block. The lots in this subdivision, Hollister Subdivision, will have an easement across the back of the lots anyway to cover public utilities, drainage, and irrigation. So I have no issue with it. Zaremba: But -- s o what you're s aying i s they d on't need to be s eparated from the buildable lot and put into a separate common area? Freckleton: Correct. Correct. Zaremba: They are fine the way they are? Freckleton: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. So we delete item 12 entirely or do we need to rephrase it? I think we can just delete it; right? Freckleton: Staff would be fine with just deleting that comment. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Centers: Well, getting back to -- getting back to the supply irrigation access to all lots for Settler's Irrigation, you want a note on the plat or what do you want? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the way I interpret that comment is that each lot in the subdivision shall be supplied irrigation water from Settler's Irrigation District and the applicant is going to be doing that via a new pressurized irrigation system through Settler's Irrigation District. So I think -- I think it's covered. Centers: Did you read their letter? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 30 of 94 Freckleton: I did. Are you interpreting it differently? Centers: Well, maybe, maybe not. It reads -- have you found it? Number four? Okay. Because it says access. Doesn't say must supply irrigation. It says irrigation access. Freckleton: Commissioner Centers, Members of the Commission, each lot will have easements on their lots. Typically, you will have aten-foot easement across the back of your lot and afive-foot easement up the side and ten foot across the front for public utilities, drainage, and irrigation. This is pretty standard stuff here. Centers: Okay. Freckleton: I don't read into it anything more than just standard access to irrigation and provision of irrigation water to each lot. We are still teaming on Settler's. Centers: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Do we have someone ready to proceed? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, PP 03-001, request for preliminary plat approval of 15 building lots, one existing house lot, and two other lots on -- the correct acreage is 10.284 acres in an R-4 zone for Setter Cove Subdivision by MKH Development, Inc., ,east of North Locust Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments, with the following changes: On page three, site specific comments preliminary plat item two, the discrepancy has been resolved. It is 10.284 acres. Paragraph six may be deleted. In paragraph seven, the partial sentence that the variance is denied by the City Council may be deleted. In paragraph eight, the third bullet, add a note to the face of the plat requiring fencing, et cetera, is deleted. We are now at page four where that bullet appeared. On page four, paragraph 12 may be deleted. That's the motion. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 03-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for An additional public school classroom building in an I-L zone for Meridian Academy by LKV Architects - 2311 East Lanark Street. Meddian Planning & Zoning March 6, 2003 Page 30 of 94 Freckleton: I did. Are you interpreting it differently? Centers: Well, maybe, maybe not. It reads -- have you found it? Number four? Okay. Because it says access. Doesn't say must supply irrigation. It says irrigation access. Freckleton: Commissioner Centers, Members of the Commission, each lot will have easements on their lots. Typically, you will have aten-foot easement across the back of your lot and afive-foot easement up the side and ten foot across the front for public utilities, drainage, and irrigation. This is pretty standard stuff here. Centers: Okay. Freckleton: I don't read into it anything more than just standard access to irrigation and provision of irrigation water to each lot. We are still learning on Settler's. Centers: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Do we have someone ready to proceed? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, PP 03-001, request for preliminary plat approval of 15 building lots, one existing house lot, and two other lots on -- the correct acreage is 10.284 acres in an R-4 zone for Setter Cove Subdivision by MKH Development, Inc., east of North Locust Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments, with the following changes: On page three, site specific comments preliminary plat item two, the discrepancy has been resolved. It is 10.284 acres. Paragraph six may be deleted. In paragraph seven, the partial sentence that the variance is denied by the City Council may be deleted. In paragraph eight, the third bullet, add a note to the face of the plat requiring fencing, et cetera, is deleted. We are now at page four where that bullet appeared. On page four, paragraph 12 may be deleted. That's the motion. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 03-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for An additional public school classroom building in an l-L zone for Meridian Academy by LKV Architects - 2311 East Lanark Street.