Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 20, 2007 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 4 of 42 Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from November 15, 2007: AZ 07-011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 Medium Low-Density Residential zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from November 15, 2007: PP 07-016 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Rohm: So, with that being said, at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing AZ 07-011 and PP 07-016, both items related to the Belhaven Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. On October 4, 2007, the Belhaven annexation and preliminary plat was presented to Commission for review. At that hearing Paul Poorman testified the applicant would be connecting their property to city services without the out parcel annexing into the city and it came to the Commission's attention that the existing leach field was located within the proposed development. The Commission elected to continue these items to allow the applicant time to resolve the issue. Since that time the applicant has submitted a revised plat and landscaping plan for tonight's review. Staff has updated the staff report regarding the revised plat, landscape plan, and Public Works comments for future service connections to the Poorman property. Just for a quick overview. The subject property is located at 55230 North Black Cat Road on the east side of North Black Cat and approximately a quarter mile north of McMillan Road and south of the approved Volterra Subdivision. Here is the approved Volterra Subdivision. If you remember, too, the front portion of the development was also an existing tree farm and the Commission had some concerns with mitigation for those trees, so we worked. with the applicant to try to work those issues out as well. Now, onto the plat. The applicant, again, is requesting annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval for 16 single family residential building lots and five common lots on 6.84 acres of land.. This has not changed from the previous Commission hearing. New changes to the plat include shortening of the cul-de- sac with the addition of a lot, a small increase in lot sizes and the expansion of a common lot more centrally located within the proposed development. So, the top map is the old plat that we reviewed on October 4th. If you remember at that time we have asked -- we had -- we suggested that the applicant shorten this cul- de-sac, which they have on the new plat, which has allowed them to create an additional lot. Now, they haven't increased the total number of lots, they have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 5 of 42 just created a lot here and by moving this cul-de-sac here, instead of having more open space here, they moved their open space more centrally located to the development and that gave them an opportunity to put a lot here and also add this connection to the multi-use pathway within the development. New changes to the landscape plan include a 95 foot pathway extension between lots four and five of Block 3 and expansion of a common lot to accommodate some of the mature trees on the site, with a loop pathway that connects to the proposed pathway adjacent to Settler's canal. The applicant is also proposing to plant a minimum two trees along the northern boundary of the buildable lots to remedy the requirements of the trees along the pathway running adjacent to Settler's canal easement. Staff is also requiring additional trees be placed along the pathway between Lots 4 and 5 of Block 3 and within common Lot 5 east of Lot 4 and north of Lot 6, Block 1. In addition, staff would like to see the retention of some mature trees on those lots in the location of the tree farm. Staff has made these requirements conditions of approval in the staff report. So, to kind of refresh you, here is the added connection of a pathway, the 95 foot pathway. On the submitted landscaping plan they do not show any trees along there and UDC requires that there should be a minimum of five foot with buffers with trees along -- planted along pathways. If you also recall at the time when we -- on the 4th -- the hearing of the 4th, there were some areas up here that the applicant could plant trees outside of that easement, but not located on the lot. Well, with the new plat the applicant has extended these lot boundaries to be right along the Settler's canal easement, so what the applicant's proposing to do is to plant two trees along that northern boundary to try to mitigate for that code requirement and staff is in approval of that. And here is a common open space. They are proposing to retain some of the mature trees. Staff would also like to see some of those mature trees remain in this location as well. Staffs aware that the applicant doesn't own the trees, but possibly he could work out something with the Poormans that would allow those trees -- some of those mature trees to remain on those parcels when he comes in and develops the site. And, then, also there is some vacant spots, open spaces here that would allow for additional trees to be planted and staffs conditioned that as well. And that's all staff has and that concludes my presentation. If you -- be happy to answer any questions Commission may have of me. Rohm: Thanks, Bill. Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Bill, just kind of going through things, the owners of the property to the south, I assume they will be hooking up to the city services, then? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 6 of 42 Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Moe, we have conditioned the applicant to stub to that property and, then, whenever they go to final plat, those lots, where ever the leach field is located, then, they will have to severe the ties with that -- the Poormans will have to relocate the leach field.. Moe: I can ask the applicant, but as far as fencing along that -- along that northern border, has that been decided what they are going to put in there? Parsons: Mr. Chair and Commissioners, yeah, they will address that tonight. Moe: Good enough. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Bill did you -- in the area near the entrance where you said staff is wanting the applicant to maintain some of the existing mature trees, but they don't -- they don't own the trees, I'm just wondering how is that condition worded? Is it possible -- is there a -- is there an issue there if the owner of the trees doesn't let them maintain those? Parsons: Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, one thing that the applicant -- he will stand up and kind of give an option B with that. If the Poormans don't allow that to happen, then, the applicant is going to propose some additional plantings. Siddoway: I will wait for the presentation, then. Parsons: Thank you. Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 148 North 2nd Street, Suite 101, Eagle, Idaho. Thanks for the opportunity to come back and present this. I believe we have everything worked out. We have had several meetings with staff and my client has had several meetings with Poormans to try to work out the issues with the septic system and the bottom line is the -- per the city requirement and the condition the septic system will be shut off at final platting. The Poormans have an option of working with Central District Health and relocating that drain field or they would have to request annexation or remedied through the city as far as hooking up to the sewer if they cannot get a new drain field.. We are required., per the contract with my client and the Poormans, to hook them up to the sewer once it -- once it's time. And so that was one of the clarifications I wanted to have and, hopefully, you have received my a-mail that I sent to the clerk yesterday, just clarifying that we were not Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 7 of 42 necessarily going to hook them up to sewer at final platting, but, rather, when -- when the time is right, when it's necessary. And that's per the contract with the client and -- with my client and the Poormans. Does make sense or -- I can clarify that if you need to. Siddoway: I don't know if I can jump in with a question., but I wasn't here at the October 4th meeting, so I -- is the Poorman property the one that's just to the south there? Nickel: That's correct. Siddoway: And the issue is that their drain field sits on your property? Nickel: Their drain field sits right about here -- Siddoway: Okay. Nickel: -- over onto our property and we later found out that we cannot have that. We tried some options on putting common area around there and what ultimately came up with with your staff is that we are going to have to remove that drain field -- Siddoway: The drain field. Nickel: -- when we plat. At least that's what our intentions are. Now, as far as how the Poormans get their -- you know, whether they can get another drain field, that's up to them to work with Central District Health. We are required by contract to hook them up to sewer if that is the option that they -- that they go once the city sewer is available. Siddoway: So, they will have the option of building their own drain field or have you connect them to city sewer, which would require them to annex also? Nickel: That is correct. Siddoway: Thank you. Nickel.: And, then, the only other issue was with regards -- and, Commissioner Siddoway, you hit it right on the head with the issue of the trees. My client does not own the trees, they are owned by the Poormans, who own both properties and they had a tree farm. So, the contract that my client has with the Poormans is that the Poormans retain ownership of those trees. Now, the Poormans are going to do what they can with as many of the trees as they can and they may or may not leave trees where they are at or -- we don't know what their intentions Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page S of 42 are right now. We'd love to keep as many of the trees on the property as we can and that's something that's going to be worked out. However, I do not want to have a condition of approval stating that we have to retain those trees, because we have no control over the trees. Again, it's our intention, we'd love to keep as many as we can, I think we probably will, but I just don't want to condition specifically requiring us to. So, if you look at that condition that's proposed, condition 1-2-2 of Exhibit B, where staff is requiring us to retain four mature trees on Lots 1 through 3 and Lots 1 through 4, again, if we can do that, we would love to, but I don't want that as a condition and, then, at the bottom of my letter I have stated a suggested condition for mitigation or replacement in the event that we don't keep those mature trees and so -- and that's open to, I guess, discussion tonight. What I have suggested is replacement could be six two inch caliper trees per each of the four mature trees removed if they are removed.. Siddoway: Say that again. It's what? Nickel: It's a suggestion of six two inch caliper trees would be required for us to mitigate for every mature tree that is removed of those four trees that staff is wanting to keep.. Siddoway: Okay. Nickel: So, if that makes sense. Siddoway: So, either you maintain the four trees staff asked for or if you're not able to meet that condition -- Nickel: We can mitigate. Siddoway: -- you would do six two inch caliper trees per tree that's removed. Nickel: Per those four trees. Siddoway: Up to 24 two inch caliper trees. Okay. And those would be placed on the lots? Nickel: I don't know what -- if staffs intention was to have those on those -- I guess it is, according to the condition, he's saying retain those four mature trees on lots 1 through 3, Block 2 and Lot 1 through 4, Block 1. So, I would imagine we would spread those out on those -- on those lots. Siddoway: Okay. Meridian Planning & zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 9 of 42 Nickel: Everything else we are in agreement with, including adding those -- modifying that pathway, making it wide enough and adding those trees along the pathway as discussed and those additional trees that staff had indicated that they wanted around that pathway and I believe we are in -- we are in support of Public Works requirements that they have indicated. So, with that I'll stand for questions. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Shawn, fencing. Nickel: Fencing. The proposal is to have open wrought iron fencing along the north area -- that area. Okay. And a privacy solid six foot cedar fence around the Poormans boundary. And we are still -- we are still unclear on -- we are still unclear on the fence along the south boundary along the road. Keep in mind that that is a -- that is a half plus road., so the right of way goes right to the property line. Our intentions are to get a license agreement from ACHD to place a fence along that. I don't see a problem with that and I believe that is a condition of approval. Moe: Yeah. And what will that fencing be if that happens? Nickel: That will be a six foot solid cedar as well. And the intent -- the intent there is when those properties to the south develop that will be the way the road will be improved and -- Moe: Thank you. Nickeh Thank you. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. There is some -- I don't know if it's some additional concerns, if you have anything to add to the encroachment that the easements will induce along the north and east sides that might affect the lots or the homeowners there. Is there still an issue outstanding? Nickel: No, Commissioner, and that's one reason we wanted to -- can you put up the landscape plan again, Bill, please. That's one reason we wanted to have those trees outside of that, so the lot -- the lot lines on the north are still -- still short of the -- of our north property line. We are still recognizing the easement and it is on its own separate lot along the north boundary. Lot lines fall short. But all of our trees are going to be within the buildable lots in a landscape easement for consistency, so they will all be in line and those will be placed in -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 10 of 42 so they will be outside of the irrigation easement within the buildable lots spaced appropriately. O'Brien: One further question, please. On the -- the Black Cat trunk -- sewer trunk lift station, how is that going to enter into the subdivision here and what affect may it have on tree positioning when that goes in? It's not scheduled to go in until 2008, but I also understand it's not being funded yet, so it seems like there is some things that are up in the air, according to what I have read. Nickel: I'll let Public Works address that, because I believe it is funded by the developers. Steckling: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, can I get a little more clarification on what your question as far placement and the trees? The routing of the North Black Cat is Black Cat Road. O'Brien: Well, let me see where I am here. Steckling: And as far as capacity for the stationwise, there -- with the Jaykers folks and with Tree Farm we have conditioned until all the upgrades and plant upgrades are in, we are not receiving anything and the applicant's also aware of that. O'Brien: So, it says it's planned to be constructed in April 2008, the trunk to be installed in Black Cat would flow to the lift station is not funded at this time and it's being planned by the development and to be development driven. So, guess when your development starts to go, then, it would be funded; is that what I understand this to read? Steckling.: Is that a Public Works condition or is that a condition that's also in -- that Bill typed up? O'Brien: Let's see. It's under land used. It was on page three of the documentation that Isaw -- let's see.. I don't know what page -- yeah. Page three on Public Works number one. I'll read it if you can't find -- the issues or concerns, according to staff was that this property is currently not severable. This property is in the north Black Cat shed. A regional lift station is being designed to sewer the area. It is planned to be constructed by 2008. The trunk to be installed in Black Cat would flow to this lift station. It is not funded at this time, but it's certainly being planned to be developed -- development driven. So, I assume with that that when you start development after the April 2008 it will be funded, then, and installed, but will that have any effect on the trees, I guess, is my question, where that comes into the development area what effect will that have on -- on this plan? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 11 of 42 Nickel: I don't believe that the sewer extension is going to have an effect, other than when it comes into -- when it comes into our property from Black Cat and we will build that line, obviously, trees are going to be removed when we grade out that road and put in the services. O'Brien: And., then, you will connect up to the -_ Nickel: And, then, we will connect up to the trunk line that's in Black Cat. O'Brien: And to the other property? Nickel: Yes. And the plan for the other property is to have a stub, I believe, from this area right here.. O'Brien: Okay. Nickel: That's what we are proposing. O`Brien; Thank you. That's all I have. Nickel: Okay. Steckling: Mr. Chair, also a little clarification. This report was actually written the Jaykers folks came in, so now that the Jaykers folks have came in and we have proposed and accepted that development to the north, the sewer and the water line have actually been precon'd and also under construction at this point in time. This is just kind of an after fact. I apologize for not being up on my own comments. O'Brien: Yeah. It was confusing. I just wondered where we were with that. Thank you very much.. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I have one more. Shawn., Ijust -- a point of classification for me in regards to the six trees for every one of the four that if, in fact, they can't be retained.. You're speaking of 24 trees, then, right, if all four were gone. Nickel: Correct. Moe: Thank you. Nickel: Yeah. Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Shawn. Paul Poorman. Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 12 of 42 Poorman: Paul Poorman, 5230 North Black Cat Road. And, Members of the Commission, Mr. Chairman, had a few comments on this subdivision. First of all, I'd like to say that it is a lot better than the first one. We like the changes that the Belhaven folks have done to -- to change this. I did want to clarify a couple of misconceptions. One is that we will -- our plan is to not connect up to the sewer and when we sold the land that had our septic system on it, we didn't realize that we would also have to hook up to the water and we didn't realize that it would mean that we would be annexed. So, just to let everybody know, our house is heated with a ground water heat pump, that means it pulls water from the ground and discharges into an injection well and if we use city water for that, the use would be prohibitive, both in the winter and the summer. I thought that we actually had an easement on the -- for our septic system for the one parcel to the other parcel, but, unfortunately, the -- when I refinanced it the easement hadn't been recorded, so at this point we have applied for a drain field relocation permit and we are planning to soon dig a new drain field that will be completely contained within our property. It will probably be in this area right here. Regarding the trees, Don Roberts and I have talked a little bit about this and we have offered to relinquish ownership of any and all the trees that stay on the property, whether they are moved or whether they stay on the property. Our original contract was not to retain ownership of all the mature trees that couldn't be moved., it was only to discuss the trees that could be moved and we wanted to be able sell those if they were going to be moved off the property and so I guess I'd like to ask that this be made a condition. And Don and I can sign a contract or can relieve him of the ownership responsibility, if that's what he would like to see. But we would like to consider that the retention of the trees be a condition of the approval. So, that's pretty much all I had to say and if there is any questions I can stay here. Rohm: I just have a comment, sir. I don't think annexation of your property into the city has anything to do with your injection well and your heating system. I understand how a ground source heat pump works and whether you're part of the city or not, your heat pump system -- I think you will be able to operate it regardless of whether you're annexed or not. And I'm not suggesting that you go that route, that you apply for annexation, but your heat pump system is going to work the same with your injection well just as it does now. Poorman: Thank you, sir. I understand that the system would work the same. The problem is the amount of the water that's used and the requirement that we would have to hook up to the city water. Rohm: Your heating system wouldn't have to use that city water. You can use your existing well just as you are currently for your heat system and your potable Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 13 of 42 water, if you will, would be the only part that would be hooked up to the city. Your -- your HVAC system, you can leave it just as it is now. Poorman: So, the only problem with that is it would mean that we would have to tear up the basement walls and break into Ting the system that's buried down inside the house. Baird: Mr. Chair, I might suggest that these are matters outside the current application and they can be worked out -- Rohm: And I apologize, I just wanted to let you know that your heating system is going to work fine, but your application's outside of this application will take it's -- on it's life. Poorman: Okay. Siddoway: Question, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to clarify that you are -- you are supportive of the staff condition to retain the mature trees; is that what I -- Poorman: Yes. I think that staff had asked that some of the mature -- that the mature trees be retained as a condition of approval and I'm in favor of that, yes. Siddoway: Okay. Poorman: And so any tree -- what I have said is that any tree that stays on the property, whether it says in the current place that it's at or gets moved, Iwill -- even though I officially own them, I'll let the applicants have those trees free of charge. Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. That is all that have signed up to testify tonight. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward and offer testimony at this time? Thank you. Yes, Shawn, would you like to come back up. Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, again., Shawn Nickel. So, if I -- and that's good news from Mr. Poorman that it sounds like they are going to -- they are going to work something out with the trees. Again, if we are going to make it a condition of approval, it needs to be as flexible as possible, because we don't know until we get in there which trees are going to have to be removed. So, don't know how we want to word it. You know, the applicant's required to retain as many trees as possible. I just don't want to get down to every last little detail and especially since we don't have -- we still don't have control over those trees per their -- their contract with each other. You understand what I'm asking? But Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 14 of 42 it does sound like they are going to work it out and we will be able to keep a lot of those trees. So, I'll kind of leave it to you guys to kind of work out, but it sounds like that's going to work. Rohm: Thank you. Nickel: Thanks. Rohm: Any further discussion amongst the Commission before we close the Public Hearing? . Siddoway: Just a question for Scott, if I may. The -- I just wanted to make sure that Public Works satisfaction is the issue of the drain field and the sewer. The reason why this was continued last time, is that resolved to staffs satisfaction? Steckling: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, I think at this time it is. I think what it is is it's a course of events that's going to have to play out. There are definitely a couple of decisioning factors that need to be made. Once that seepage bed or drain field is discontinued., he's correct, Mr. Poorman, to contact Central District Health -- it is my understanding that once they contact Central District Health that they will contact us and since there is services readily available, that that would require them to connect to city services. I also believe that the applicant has fulfilled his end of the purchase agreement for stubbing sewer and water to their property and, then, also the chairman's correct, they could -- Mr. Poorman could continue to use the injection well for heating, but like Mr. Baird said, that isn't part of this application. But as far as Public Works concerns are addressed for this application I think we are satisfied. Hopefully I didn't confuse you any further. Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 07-011 and PP 07-016. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 15 of 42 Rohm: Discussion. Commissioner Moe, do you have any last comments on this application? Moe: Oh, I think the applicant's come back, you know, with the issues taken care of and I do appreciate that. They were a little bit undone the last time, so the time was well spent to take care of it. I guess I'm kind of confused still in regards to this tree issue. Basically, what I just as soon see happen is as the applicant had already discussed, the -- if, in fact, they weren't able to take the trees that staff was looking for, that they plant six two inch caliper trees per each one of those four trees that they weren't able to keep, I'd just as soon see that be part of a motion and call it good and if, in fact, they are able to work it out and they safe more, that's even that much better. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing to add. I think that the verbiage offered up by the applicant is appropriate. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: I agree. I'm fine with adding the applicant's language to the condition. We have already heard the person who owns the trees testify that he's going to allow those to stay, so I'd just state for the record that it's my preference that that get worked out, that the mature trees stay, but if that's not able to happen, I'm fine with the proposed alternative. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I have nothing to add. Rohm: Thank you. I think all of you have done a good good job addressing the issues that this was continued for and I see no reason to keep from moving it forward.. At this time could I get a motion to move this item forward to City Council? Newton-Huckabay: I'll do it. Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 07-011 and PP 07-016, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 20th, 2007, continued from October 4th, 2007, with the following modifications to the condition of approval. Condition of approval 1.2.2, it will be added that the Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 16 of 42 applicant agrees that if the four mature trees are not retained, he will mitigate those four trees with a reasonable replacement of six two inch caliper trees per each of the four mature trees removed.. End of motion. Moe: Second.. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of files number AZ 07-011 and PP 07-016, to include the staff report with the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you folks for coming. in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2007: AZ 07-018 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.764 acres from RUT to C- Czone for Settler's Square Subdivision by Seagle Three, LLC - 870 W. Ustick Road: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from December 6, 2007: PP 07-024 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 12 commercial building lots and 2 common lots on 9.764 acres in a proposed C-C zone for Settler's Square Subdivision by Seagle Three, LLC - 870 W. Ustick Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the Public Hearing AZ 07-018 and PP 07- 024 and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the applications before you tonight are an annexation and zoning of 10.18 acres from RUT, Ada County, to community business C-C, but community business district and preliminary plat approval of 14 lots consisting of 12 commercial lots and two other lots for the Setter's Square project. The site is located on the northwest corner of Ustick and Venable Lane. The property is bordered on the north by Woodburn Subdivision, zoned R-8. To south is the Crossfield North No. 4 Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the west is a single family residence zoned RUT Ada County. And to the east are the Cedar Springs commercial development, zoned C-N. A single family home and two outbuildings exist on fhe site and will be removed to make way for the proposed commercial development. The applicant is requesting approval of 14 lots, consisting of 12 commercial lots and two other lots. On the submitted plat the applicant has depicted two public streets that will provide access and interconnectivity for the proposed development. So, here is north and south, east and west. The public streets are to provide north-south access to Ustick Road and the residents to the north and east-west access to Venable Lane through the development and to the currently underdeveloped property to the west. In addition to the preliminary plat, the applicant has also submitted a