Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 20, 2003Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 23 of 64 Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from March 6, 2003: AZ 03-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 14.31 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Timbertalls Subdivision by Dan Wood -south of East Ustick Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from March 6, 2003: PP 03-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 50 building lots and 6 other lots on 14.31 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Timbertalls Subdivision by Dan Wood -south of East Ustick Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Borup: Okay. The next is also a continued Public Hearing, AZ 03-003, requestfor annexation and zoning of 14.31 acres for Timbertalls Subdivision and PP 03-002, request for preliminary plat approval on the same project. Open this hearing and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You should have all received a copy of the revised staff report from Steve Siddoway. Steve has gone through and made the revisions that were required from the last Public Hearing and he stated that in this - he added a new summary to that stating that the only remaining substantive issue, in his opinion, was the hard surface pathways and whether or not those hard surface pathways entering into the dinosaur shaped common lot, whether or not they should be required to be -okay. It's a dinosaur. There are the feet. The tail is over here. It looks likes a tyrannosaurs. There are three entrances into this open space and there is some discussion as to whether or not those pathways should be just hard surtace pathways or whether they should be considered as micropaths and landscaped and fenced in accordance with the landscape ordinance. There was a lot of discussion in the original application that -- I should recognize at this time Sonya Allen, who actually wrote the majority of this report. She is here tonight and this is her first time here, so we welcome her here. And if you have any questions, we could probably address those to her. There also should -- you all should have received a copy of the land consultant's letter, dated March 10th, in response to the revisions that were requested at the last Public Hearing and staff does not disagree with any of the comments from the land consultants and the staff report, as revised by Steve Siddoway, is reflective of the comments of the applicant's letter dated March 10th, so the only real issue, I guess, that we have left from actually having read the minutes and reading Steve's revised report is to whether or not those pathways going into the common lot should be considered micropaths and handled as such. The applicant has received a letter from the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District allowing them to encroach within the Merldlan Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 24 of 64 easement on the south side of the property. With that I would turn the time back over to you and ask if you have any questions of staff. Borup: Any questions from staff? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I guess Sonya -- Sonya Allen. Why would we even want to consider it as a micropath? McKinnon: Let me address that, because I did write most of that part. In our landscape ordinance we do have comments regarding micropaths and what micropaths are. They are defined, but there is, actually, no threshold for the micropaths as to when they are required. There is a definition for them. The definition states that they lead from one place to another and, typically, are between subdivisions or streets and breaking up of blocks. There was no requirement, nor threshold, or a brink, as sometimes is defined in logic, to require one at anytime. The applicant has agreed to put in those pathways, but objects to the developer being required to install four foot fences adjacent to those and to install a tree every 35 feet on center in that area. Part of the reason for their opposition to that, my understanding, is that --there is the landscaping. One more -this may show it just a little bit. On the plat that you, you can see that there is typically a seven foot wide drainage lot that runs adjacent to these small areas that lead into the park. These are between 15 -- 14 and 17 feet wide and seven feet of that is, actually, a depressed drainage Swale. So, rather than having a large drainage swale within the subdivision, they put those in narrower areas and made them longer and grassed those and if they had to plant trees within that Swale, it would create a problem, so they are asking that they not be considered micropaths, but they would construct them as hard surface paths, showing that there is access to the common lot. Borup: Okay. Would you like to come forward, then? Nickel: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you. I do believe that is the only outstanding issue and it really isn't an issue. We are okay making them micropaths by definition if you feel it's necessary. That was our concern was the drainage and the landscaping, because of how we have the -- as I say, the property does drain f rom southeast to northwest and so the drainage would be along the sides of the common park area and if we were required to meet the micropath standards, we are going to be limited to a pathway -- a certain size pathway with a certain size landscape on either side with trees. 1 think we can probably engineer around that, if you feel it's still necessary to call them micropaths, otherwise, we will provide the path -- the paving to meet that requirement, also the fencing along the portion of the paved pathway to meet those requirements also. Borup: Commissioner Centers? Centers: Yes. Well, I guess I'm not big on that. The way I look at it is they are not going to connect, are they? What's behind the micropath is the connectivity to other subdivisions. Correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 25 of 64 Nickel: That's originally what we - Centers: Primarily. And I think that's in the -- and there is no change of these connecting. You're doing them for your own benefit and you're taking advantage of the drainage swales and making paths here. So, I don't see the need, personally. Borup: Well, I agree. And when I first saw this, I didn't even feel the necessity of paving them, but w ith t he d rainage swale there I think you're concentrating the t raffic a nd it makes sense, probably to pave them, but you said you were planning that anyway. Nickel: Yeah. And, originally, when we had met with Dave and staff before, we thought it was appropriate to have paving of a certain portion, so people would know -- would know, okay, I can go back there, it's a paved area that -- Borup: And that part makes sense, so they know there is something there. Nickel: Right. And, then, as far as the fencing, our concern is we don't want to have to --the developer didn't want to have to fence the entire open space area. The micropath requirements requires you to fence just the pathway portion of it. So, then, it got confusing as to what portion you fence and what you don't. So, I'll leave that up to you if you want to -- we can revise that and not call it a micropath and, then, we do the improvements that we discussed. That will be fine or -- Borup: Well, did you ever call it a micropath? Nickel: We never called it a micropath. Borup: No. I think Commissioner Centers said it very well. Centers: Well, you made that in your notes, if you drew these up, Mr. Nickel. Nickel: Yes. Centers: These will not be micropaths, by definition. Nickel: That's what I was proposing. Then, it kind of got confusing with everybody, so - Borup: Well, I think that's the difference here. It's not a continuous path and it doesn't go to another subdivision -- I mean the purpose is to access the park in the middle, not break up a block length or anything else. Nickel: Right. And, Commission, we did get our letter from the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District the day after our meeting, which was surprising, so thanks for scheduling this for only the two weeks. Took a chance there, but it worked out. Meddlan Planning & Zoning March 20, 2003 Page 28 of 64 Borup: Well, that was really, I thought, the major reason for the continuance was to get that answered on the -- Nickel: I think everything else we are in agreement with or we can work out with staff on what we talked about -- on the issues we talked about before and so I will stand for any questions you have. Borup: Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Nickel: Thank you all. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, any final comments from any of the staff? Okay. Centers: Yeah. I have a question for staff. You have seen their -- Mr. Nickel's letter, Mr. McKinnon, and, really, there were only two issues, item number 7 and number 8 on their letter and you're in agreement with that? I believe they were saying okay on everything else. McKinnon: Item number -- Commissioner Centers, Members of the Commission, Item number seven, they have provided us with a letter for that and that they have -- that they will revise the plat to reflect that. Item number eight -- Centers: Right. McKinnon: I just had to read it out loud. Sorry. I'm not real familiar with just numbers. Yeah. We are in agreement with number eight as well. Centers: Right. Okay. So, we are fine? McKinnon: Yeah. Centers: I guess I would move we close the Public Hearing. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Meddian Planning & Zoning Mardi 20, 2003 Page 27 of 64 Centers: I would move that we recommend approval to the City Council on continued Public Hearing Item AZ 03-003, request for annexation and zoning of 14.31 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Timbertalls Sub by Dan Wood, south of East Ustick Road and west of Locust Grove Road, including all staff comments from memo dated March 11th. Mathes: Second. Borup: Okay. We didn't mention anything on definition of micropath. Centers: On the zoning? Borup: No. I'm sorry. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Centers: Continuing on. I would like to recommend approval for the continued Public Hearing from March 6th, specifically, PP 03-002, request for preliminary plat approval of 50 building lots and six other lots on 14.31 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Timbertalls S ub b y D an Wood, s outh o f East U stick R oad a nd west o f N orth Locust Grove Road, including all staff comments from memo dated March 11th, and applicant's letter dated March 10th from Shawn Nickel, item seven, to be included in staff comments, item eight to be included -- and I will give a copy of the memo to the attorney. Second page. Micropaths shall not be the definition of the interior paths of the subdivision and they would not comply with the micropath ordinance. End of motion. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Public Hearing: RZ 03-003 Request for a Rezone of 0.35 acres from R- 4 to O-T zones by for Merlyn Schmeckpeper by Merlyn Schmeckpeper- 230 West Pine Avenue: Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 03.006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Child Care Facility for approximately 30 children in a proposed O-T zone for Sunshine Academy by Sharon O'Toole and Debbie and James Sheridan - 230 West Pine Avenue: Borup: Okay. We are finally to an original hearing. But, actually, that is the purpose -- normally, our second meeting is set aside for continued hearings and, then, if we have others, we also put those on here, so we don't have to wait for the previous month. We like to try to move them along as well as we can. So, Public Hearing -- I'd like to open