Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportCITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 7, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: October 7, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council E IDIAN FROM: Bill Pazsons, Associate City Planner ~ ®~ ~ ~ (208) 884-5533 SUBJECT: Chesterfield No. 2 • TE-OS-018 Request for approval of an 18-month time extension to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat and to commence the conditional use for Chesterfield Subdivision No. 2, by Centennial Development, LLC We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments and conditions: 1. APPLICATION SUIVIlVIARY The Applicant, Centennial Development, LLC, has requested approval of an 18 month time extension to obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat and to commence the conditional use for Chesterfield Subdivision No. 2. The Applicant has been unable to meet the time requirements specified in Unified Development Code ([JDC) 11-6B-7 and 11-SB-6. The Applicant states the reason for the delay is due to the state of the current residential real estate mazket (see Applicant's letter dated October 15, 2007). The annexation (AZ-03-037), preliminary plat (PP-03-045) and conditional use permit (CUP-03-070) for Chesterfield Subdivision were approved by the Meridian City Council on October 12, 2004. The final plat (FP-06-010) for Chesterfield Subdivision No. 2 was approved by the Meridian City Council on Mazch 21, 2006. A previous time extension (TE-07-006) was approved for this project by the Planning Director on Mazch 26, 2007. This administrative level time extension granted by the Director was valid until July 31, 2008. (Note: The Applicant submitted the subject time extension application prior to this expiration date). The City of Meridian's Unified Development Code (UDC 11-6B-7) allows the Director to authorize a single extension of time to obtain the City Engineer's signature of a final plat, not to exceed 18 months, when the Applicant files a written request for an extension prior to the expiration of the Final Plat, which the Applicant did in 2007. As mentioned above, the Applicant is now requesting an additional 18 month time extension which requires City Council approval. The conditional use approval is subject to similar time extensions as set forth in UDC 11-SB-6. With all extensions, the City may require compliance with the current provisions of the UDC as a condition for granting a time extension (UDC 11-6B-7C and 11-5B-6F4). On August 5, 2008, the City Council provided staff with guidelines to use when evaluating time extension requests. These guidelines are meant for guidance and not as a mandate. Based on the direction given to staff, there are additional conditions for this project that Staff is recommending be added/updated to the previously approved set of conditions. Please see Staff Analysis below. The subject final plat consists of 76 single-family lots and 18 common/other lots in the R-8 zoning district on 14.57 acres. The approved conditional use for a planned development on this property allowed for reductions to the minimum frontage allowed for non cul-de-sac lots (from 65 feet to 35 feet), minimum lot size for detached homes (from 6,500 sq. ft. to 3,100 sq. ft.), reduced front setbacks Chesterfield No. 2 TE - 1 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 7, 2008 for townhome lots (8 feet from edge of pavement of shared common drive) and a block length that exceeds 1,000 feet. These allowances are not currently allowed in the R-8 zoning district. The site is located west of N. Ten Mile Road, approximately %i mile south of Cherry Lane, in the NW % of Section 26, T.4N., R.1 W. 2. STAFF ANALYSIS As part of this request for final plat time extension, the CUP for the site is also subject of the time extension request. As part of the guidelines given to staff from the Council, a prof ect that did not require a development agreement nor is subject to design review should be considered for denial. The subject site was approved in 2003 as a planned development under outdated development code, pre UDC. As part of that approval, the Council allowed for minimum lot frontages for non cul-de-sac lots, minimum lot sizes for detached homes, reduced front setbacks for townhome lots and a block length that exceeds 1,000 feet. At the time of approval, the site was not subject to a development agreement and elevations were not tied to the development. Since that time, the applicant has commenced with construction in Chesterfield Subdivision No. 1 and has developed the site as allowed by CUP-03-070. Chesterfield No. 2 has not commenced with construction and future phases are planned. As mentioned above, the approval of this development was reviewed under a different development code. Under the current code for planned unit developments (LTDC 11-7-1) it states that it is not the intent of the PUD process be used solely for the purpose of deviation from the dimensional standards in the district; the primary purpose for the previous planned development was to deviate from dimensional standards. Since this site was not subject to a development agreement and the CUP (PD) approved reductions to the dimensional standards that would otherwise not be allowed under the current development code (UDC), staff is recommending denial of the time extension. NOTE: Public Works has informed Staff a portion of property along the northeast boundary (adjacent to the Ten Mile Canal) was inadvertently included in the annexation legal description submitted with the Chesterfield development. This property has been annexed and zoned but was not owned by the Ditch Company or Centennial Development, it is owned by Mr. Schweiger to the east. The City was informed by Mr. Schweiger that a portion of his property along the canal was annexed and zoned into the City. Although staff is recommending denial of the time extension request, staff is encouraging the applicant to submit an amended legal description and exhibit map to correct this discrepancy between this property and Mr. Schweiger's parcel. After such submission, the City will prepare a revised annexation ordinance that reflects the change. Staff has attached Exhibit A.5 illustrating the current annexation boundary and where the revised annexation boundary should generally be located. The reason for concern is 1) the property is not owned by the applicant, 2) the approved landscape shows a pathway along the Ten Mile Canal which is on land owned by Mr. Schweiger, and 3) Mr. Schweiger is being taxed with city levy rates rather than County levy rates. 3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending denial of an 18 month time extension to obtain the City Engineer's signature and commence the conditional use for Chesterfield Subdivision No. 2. Staff is recommending that a new preliminary plat and legal description be submitted for this property. In addition, staff is recommending the applicant submit a new legal description and exhibit map depicting the annexation boundary along the northeast property boundary as referenced in Exhibit A.5 below. 4. PROPOSED MOTION Denial After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny File Number TE-08-018, as presented during the hearing on October 7, 2008, for the following reasons: (You should state Chesterfield No. 2 TE - 2 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 7, 2008 specific reasons for denial.) Continuance After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue File Number TE-08- 018 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Approval After considering all Staff, Applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number TE-08- 018, as presented during the hearing on October 7, 2008. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a time extension as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: September 15, 2008 and September 29, 2008 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: September 12, 2008 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: September 27, 2008 6. E~~ITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Approved Final Plat 3. Approved Landscape Plan 4. Letter from Gary Schweiger 5. Current Annexation Boundary and the Revised Annexation Boundary Chesterfield No. 2 TE - 3 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 7, 2008 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map Exhibit A - 1 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 7, 2008 2. Approved Final Plat - _ ~ • ~ ~~~ F 88 "a`~ w b a r &.X is8~ O e p Lt 8~~ ~~~ 8 t'P°A P.e', B e a ~ ~~~~ -~- o ~=~~ 9 `~ ~~- ~ ,gym -~ti 1 - 1 r 7 r ,~ ~ ~o ,-~-m@C_~ _ ® •~O ~i0• ii0 'ice t9 QF " 6 ~ ~ ~ ..,' ~ ~ acaiw" i ~ ~ r ~ J i ~ ~ ~ ~ ii ~~ ~~ ~i z J L_ J ~ J L J L ~_ Z q p ~~ .~ q 1~ ~ 77i~i _ _ _ ~,~qp~ ~A~r Nbm 1 r FF..~~. VI m ~ _ .te.° acam. ~ - . - a ~---per--' ~ "~ I i ~ Er W !~ ! ~ W i~ v ~ ' W 9' ~'~' u 1 o ~'~ i! 'r^^ ' ~ vJ mon i ~ r-•• --.~~+ -0 p pry , ®~~a J ~ ]1r~LLrWPJ7 ~ _ ~.. L-_ gg~~ r _ -- ~ ~~~ t 4 ° Exhibit A - 2 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 7, 2008 a ~ , ~ ~a~o a Z -~~ O 0 OF ~~ ~~ O ~~ O aA~m~ ~~~$~~ r~~~~N A~~~ ~~ r^~r^ v1 U --~' ®, ~ o A ® ® ~ ~ # j 1 P ~ ~ 1 J ~ m ~* ~ _t •~ r ' -ir--~ r ~r-- 1 i Ib l ~ 11 1 F w i® 1~® 1® 1~®1 ~ ___ _ _. ~ x r i r l ~ ~ 1® i1® j l ® __~ li ®~~ ~~~ gghh 7 pp 7 ~~ 8 : - r~_ J .J 1 i. JL 1 y~I ICLVgry 'q ula m+ H ~ ~U Exhibit A - 3 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 7, 2008 3. Approved Landscape Plan ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ g --~----~---~-•-~--- ^ 1 ---- ~ ^ Q I ~I • ~ I ~I i i .~ _ ~_ f _ ativ ruwxo ^ N ~~ ` m • 1 w .;'4 -~ ~ O •----- - o ,. ; ~• ~.. ---- ,:. ~- 0 r ------ i - ---- . r--I--~_ --,- - ~ 0101010101010~01~ .v, barn ^ M ~" OICOIOIOIOIOIOaOIc . 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 LI 4 a ~~ ~~ ~~1 3'roQ4~ulYl ^ ._ ^ ,a ..,:. ~~~n~~ __ _~ $ oioioioioioio ,, • ~ ~^ ~i ~i : ~ ~^ II, I I --I-- I_ I li _- -_ ~ i is i j ~ ~~ Exhibit A - 4 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 7, 2008 ^ -r O ~~ ^ i anv Fnwxo ^ I~ ~~~~~~ t~ ~~~~ ~O ~0 ~~ 1_-_L_.. ~ °~M~° a _.1~ __1__ 1. __L I ~ v~-_ NaOI ~ I ~ i ~ ~ ~ io~oaoioioio~oioio ,; 1 ~ 3~~~ r ^ ^ ,; io~o .. ~ ~ 9 N o~®~®~~~ i___ in i ~~ ___ _!Y __T__~ ~~ ~ " i®ioi® ---r---. ®; ~_~_~ ~ ~~ ~~I n~o ---, =- -; ~-_-~--- ~ N .~ ~ Q 8 ~~ ... I ... .._. .:; ~ •. ~, .;. s ,,_: - - i b.4.:va. ~ o i ~ o~ _ ~~'~ nmuviaav~ _ ~ - ^~ o ~ m~ ioioioioioi ~' ~' -g ~ , , m o ~~~~ j i i I ~ ;~ i ' i ~~ _~ ~ _ ~ i ~i Exhibit A - 5 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 7, 2008 4. Letter from Gary Schweiger ~~~~ os-l6-og ~~~ ~~ ~, ~t~~ To: The Ci 6f Meridian P ty lannlIIg e~ Zomng C1rY o1 nen~.~+rtlm t Meridian City Council r~tannin~ lte: Chesterfield Subdivision No. 2 , We have received notice of a requested time extension for this project. As the neatest and largest adjoining neighbor, with approximately 9110' of adjoining property; we have several issues to address at this time. We were made several promises in the meeting when this project came up for approval, None have been kept. *there would be a locked gate blocking through access to our private road, W. Fine from public use. (~. Pine is a private road maintained by myself.) *there would be clear signage barring access to our private road * We would Dave keys to the locked gates to access Chesterfield sub to get our ir- rigation water. We have privately put No Trespassing signs at both ends of our road. We have a consmnt stream of people with dogs, motorcycles, 4 Byers, bicycles, joggers etc. We've put a number of barricades and personally talked to trespassers. This is a several times a day occurrence. We have had dogs chase our cattle and they have gone though our fences 3 times. There is, also, the garbage thrown out by these trespassers. There has also been no weed control since they have bought the property. We have had many more weed problems than in the past. This has rewired much more of o`ur time and money to control our own property as the prevailing wind comes from the west. We would ldce the city to irilmediately require them to address the weed emblem Along with the weeds, are an increasing number of gophers that are migrating to our fields. All of these are problems we felt we would happen and brought uP to the city council. Kevin Amax assured, the city and us the land owners on W. Pine that they could do things that would keep these problems from occurring. The problem has been even worse that anything we envisioned. We'have a much more, critical problem than these stated. Their surveyors initially surve~yetl to the center of 10 mfle ditch. However, our deed states and we are taxed to our real property line that is 12' W. of the top of the W. side bf the ditch bank all the way down that 9~'+ gip, Our ownership of that strip was verified by Jack Clark finm the Ada County assessor's office. Exhibit A - 6 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 7, 2008 The city annexed this property into the city limits. We are now being taxed subdivision assessnneuts instead of agriculture, which all of our ground is. Our ground should still ~ in the cxstmty. I (Gary Schweiger) have tgiked to Bruce Freckleton many times to try to get a resolution. He has assured me that this project cannot continue until this problem is resolved. ~Ve started to address this at the time this subdivision was approved aad still nothing has been done. We have not paid the tax assessme~s since this is all in limbo. The developer's representative (Kevin Amar) stated that the ditch company had given approval for a walking path. The problem is that that ground is deeded to us. The ditch company cannot give that approval. It is our understanding that a walking path is required for the project. If they replotted their back row of lots, they would be reduced by 12' in depth. We need the city to review this situation and help us to resolve these matters. We do not support a time extension because none of the previous commitrnems have been kept. We would appreciate it if you would cell Gary Schweiger at 941-6054 concerning these matters. Sincerely, Gary 8c Judy Schweiger 3515 ~N. Pine Ave. Meridian,lD. 83642 208-884-1034 or 941-6054 Exhibit A - 7 - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF OCTOBER 7, 2008 Exhibit A - 8 - 5. Current Annexation Boundary and the Revised Annexation Boundary