Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2/19STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: January 12, 2010 TO: Mayor and City Council E IDIAN:--- FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner 884-5533 SUBJECT: MFP-09-003 -Bienville Square 1. SUMMARY OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Idaho Mutual Trust Bank, has applied for a final plat modification to modify the 6-foot decorative masonry wall along the western boundary that was approved with the final platting of the Bienville Square Subdivision. The modification is requested because the finished wall is not consistent with the approved fencing detail (see Exhibits A.3 and A.4 for details). 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the applicant's request 1:o modify the approved fencing plan for Bienville Square Subdivision as proposed by the applicant and attached in Exhibit A.4 of the staff report with the recommendation a decorative cap stone be added to the top of the fence. The Meridian City Council heard this item on January 12, and February 2. 2010. At the public hearing the Council approved the subject MFP reauest with site specific conditions. ~, ~ummarv of Citv Council Public Hearing: i= n favor: Tom Buuck. Dan Bureau and Ben Slaughter ii. In on_nosition: None iii: ommenting: Rav Tomzak. Scott Feeley. Steve Gran lY. Written testimony: Ray Tomzak and Dan Bureau Y. Staff nresentin~ application: Bill Parsons yi. Other staff commenting on ap_nlication: Anna Canning„ 13111 Narv ~ ev Issues of Discussion by Council: 1. The 20-foot gap in the masonry wall and coordinating with the Apeman Lateral Association to close the gap. li;. Different treatments to the backside of the wall facing the neighbors. iii= eeding the 4-foot stria of nronerty to the adjoining home owners lY. Releasing occupancy for the subdivision. ~ oordinating signed license agreements with the three r maining affected property owners. yi= The height of the wall. ~_ Key Council Changes to Staff Recommendation: is The applicant shall not be required to construct a decorative can on the ton of the wail. ii.. The applicant shall properly backfill, compact and fine Qrade the soil and install nerma-bark in the 4 foot buffer on the western boundary of their >~~y between the concrete masonry wall and the adjoining property owners or nay the cost of labor and materials for said work to the adjoining nrope~y owners. iiis Th~a~nlicant shall cover the exposed wall facing he neighbors that are in dicDUte as of this hearing with a one of four options: a hand troweled texture. a spray on texture; an acid wash texture;~Ray 53000.00 to the each of three adjacent property owners 1Y~ Pursuant to Amendment Number 1 of the Lateral Easement and Licence Agreement, incorporated herein by reference, the applicant shall construct a Bienville Square Subdivision MFP-09-003 PAGE 1 concrete masonry wall as depicted in the agreement in the twent y foot (20'1 opening that currently exictc in the wall hetween the ap~llicant's propert X and the adioining property. y. maximum five occupancies may be released. from February 2 .2010, for this subdivision and that no additional building_nermits will be issue d until the conditions 2~ 3~ and 4 of this order are completed. 3. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: West side of N. Eagle Road and south of E. Ustick Road) located in the northeast `/ of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East b. Owner/Applicant: Idaho Mutual Trust 12594 W. Explorer Drive, Suite 100 Boise, ID 83713 c. Applicant's Statement/Justification: See applicant's narrative attached as Exhibit A.S. 4. PROCESS FACTS The subject application is for a final plat modification as determined by City Ordinance. A public meeting is required before the City Council consistent with Title 11, Chapter 5. Because this is a public meeting the UDC does not require posting the site or notification of surrounding property owners. 5. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): The subject site is currently vacant developable land (mix of commercial and residential) platted with the Bienville Square Subdivision. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: The subject site is surrounded by single family residences on the south and west and planned/developed residential and commercial uses to the north and east. The scope of this project was to incorporate a mix of residential and commercial land uses. Currently two commercial buildings are erected in the commercial portion of the development and the commencement of four single family homes. 1. North: Vacant Commercial Land; zoned C-G. 2. East: Vacant Residential land and developing commerci~il land; zoned R-15 and C-G. 3. South: Single Family Residences (Carol Subdivision); zoned R1 in Ada County. 4. West: Single Family Residences (Carol Subdivision); zoned R1 in Ada County and R-2. c. History of Previous Actions: • In 2005, the subject property (18.43 acres) was granted annexation (AZ-OS-057), rezone (10.05 acres zoned R-8, R-15 & C-G), preliminary plat (PP-OS-059) and conditional use pernut (CUP-05-052) approval for a mixed use development consisting of 54 residential lots, 22 multi-family lots, 14 common lots and 7 commercial lots. A :Development Agreement was required as a provision of annexation and subsequently recorded (Instrument #107044347). • The final plat (FP-07-012) and associated landscape plan was approved for Bienville Square Subdivision in 2007. Bienville Square Subdivision MFP-09-003 PAGE 2 6. ANALYSIS The Bienville Square Subdivision was approved by Council in 2006 for a mixed use development. During the public hearings (Commission and Council), the perimeter fencing along the adjoining properties was a topic of discussion. The abutting property owners and the previous developer agreed to a decorative masonry wall and a provision was recorded with the development agreement. The DA only specified that specitlc fencing was required along the western boundary as detailed at the April 4, 2006 Council meeting. Staff has reviewed those minutes and found a masonry wall was discussed; however, the design of the wall was not. The original developer commenced with the subdivision improvements and constructed the 1,100 linear feet of masonry wall. That developer was unable to retain ownership of the plat and the applicant has regained ownership of the project. Since regaining ownership of the property, all subdivision improvements have been completed and all other fencing is constructed per the approved landscape plan. The applicant is now seeking subdivision sign-off and occupancy which is contingent on the outcome of the subject application. The approved landscape plan included a detail for a masoru-y wall. The approved wall detail depicts split faced masonry block, a single course of smooth faced masonry block, raised pilasters and a finished cap stone (see Exhibit A.3). The existing wall is constructed of split faced masonry block with a single course of smooth faced masonry block along the top and bottom of the wall with a mortar cap. The pilasters and cap stone are missing from the wall. The back side of the wall which faces the adjacent residential properties provides no decorative elements and is entirely smooth faced block (see ExhibitA.~. Nothing in the DA, the minutes, or the conditions of approval specify which side the decorative features were to be located. The other issue with the existing wall is that it exceeds the 6-foot height requirement in the residential zoning district. The applicant has two options available to remedy this. Option one is to remove a course of block to comply. Option two is to request alternative compliance to deviate from the fencing height prescribed by the UDC. With either option, staff is recommending the existing mortar cap be removed and a decorative cap stone be added to the top of the wall. The approved plan also calls fora 3-foot wide gravel strip between the wall and the abutting residential properties. When the wall was constructed it was placed approximately 5 feet from the property boundaries without gravel; only dirt. This dirt strip has created a nuisance for both the applicant and the affected property owners. Several of the adjacent property owners have spent their own money to landscape and improve the dirt strip. Others want the applicant to improve the back side of the wall and landscape the area for them. The applicant is currently in negotiations with the six affected property owners to mitigate their concerns with the subject wall and the dirt strip. License agreements were prepared by the applicant and distributed to the home owners for review and signature. At this time, three agreements have been signed. In summary, Staff believes the wall is constructed with the approved building materials but lacks the decorative detail (pilasters and cap stone) approved with the final plat landscape plan. Further, the approved landscape plan did not call out a landscape strip along the shared property boundary. Staff believes landscaping would be an effective screening tool in lieu of enhancing the back side of the wall and may address the different concerns and desires expressed by the affected property owners. Staff is recommending approval of the existing wall with the recommendation of that the mortar cap be replaced with a cap stone. 7. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map Bienville Square Subdivision MFP-09-003 PAGE 3 2. Approved Landscape Plan 3. Masonry Wall Approved with the Final Plat Landscape Plan 4. Photos of Existing Wall 5. Applicant's Narrative Bienville Square Subdivision MFP-09-003 PAGE 4 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map ,~' ~ E NAKANO DR ~ W ~AL~CYPRES~S~' ~ ~ E OMERAST 3 ~ Q ~ 3~ E CONNER ~T X w z ~ ~ 2 H !- J w Q -~ w 3~ r' R-8 ~ ~ o a c dt-1C ~, a~~ Z Z W w ~ 2 A ~ Z Z J O Q ~ ~ ~ Z ~';o ~ E SATTERFIELD ST C_N ~ W FERNLEAF ST-- v 'z 2 z E USTICK RD R-1~ E USTICK RD ;~} ~-~-~:~-~-~~i i C-C: ~ R1 ~ >- R-2 a ~~, o y a R~ R-]5 ~ ~ Rl d ~ in ° FL = J z ~ 3 ti z Z ~:, ,~ __ ~ RUT RUT R_2 - SITE a ~ --- R1 w > a ~ w aE R-2t~ DR z "~ z a z Rl R~2 R1 ; z z 3 ~ ~ ~ ~~ E GRANGER DR z ~ o 'a R~ ~ RI ~ oG~ - s :~ R-4 3 ,~ R-4 m L.-U ~ ~ ~a~;~~' rAHin OR ~ w ~ m R-~ ~ w R-40 ETAHITI DR ~ Y Z RI Y ~ZUT F. -8 i E BERNICE DR ~ w ~ ~,~~' ~ ~.'' _ Z ~ > z Z o C-G RUT z' Exhibit A - 1 - 2. Approved Landscape Plan y ~', z i ~w ~ "~ : ~t^-~a tG ~tj,~ I %~~. ! ~i ~ .~ `7fi~ ~Pj«i. .... it ael a~i lic l"11"1"7t 1^~.\ 1'(aV"t~Li ': Pt ~~ `. "°a I ,~ S ti ~ u.` 4 .° a ~ ro ~.~i'. Iscxu" rrir ~rN Ni n is - _ -, .__.__,,...~..x- ~ , ~~ ^_ ,.,. ._~ .. W ad _. ... __, z Y ~ ~ _.. , ,_ _ O ~ a IIll t~l"Ii+rtli IUr\VC )11 ~~ ~ ~ ~Uy~ ,.,... ~ CA ~ N i •W O ... ... ~ ~..~ Jy a J_ -. .- .. J Z _W2 14\111 1t"I I It.I~\I7 L'] t _~ ~ D 0 .. -..:. I -~-,~-.-. n p i.....: l LU Exhibit A - 2 - 3. Masonry Wall Approved with the Final Plat Landscape Plan Exhibit A - 3 - 6' SPLIT BLOCK WALL ~: ~-°""~ ~. ~. h ~..; x„ ~+5' {"tiP 3 Y`~ ~P Exhibit A - 4 - 4. Photos of Existing Wall 5. Applicant's Narrative I I '• , Nt(1TUhl. TRUST November 30, 2009 City of Meridian 33 E Broadway Ave,, Suite 210 Meridian, ID 836Q2 ATTN: City Council RE: Final Plat Modification far Bienville Square Subdivision Proposed Modification: Idaho Mutual Trust (current "Owner" via foreclosure) requests to clarify the aesthetic design of 6' Splitface Block Wall located on the Western boundary of Bienville Square Subdivision The specs in the approved plan call for a split faced block wall to be installed along the western boundary. This has been completed The written specs did not provide for the detail of the design; the specs called out a split faced wall and that was built. There is a sample photograph of a split face concrete wall in the landscape plan that differs aesthetically from what was installed 1t is Idaho Mutual Trust's position that although the wall does not match the picture exactly, it is in fact a decorative split faced cement wall and more importantly meets the original intended purpose and function as a sound and visual buffer History of Project: fdaho Mutual Trust ("IMT") was originally the primary lender for Bienville Square Subdivision to Mason Creek, LLC Mason Creek, LLC (prior owner) subsequently hired Red Cliff Development to act as the project manager and develop the property. Mason Creek defaulted on its loan and Idaho Mutual Trust foreclosed on Bienville Square and took ownership September 1$, 2009 At that time about 60%-70% of the infrastructure was completed and the split faced cement wall had been completed Idaho Mutual Trust has been pro-active in finishing the remaining outstanding items needing to be completed including the installation of the landscaping, private roads, irrigation, and numerous other items IMT has worked diligently to complete all outstanding items and protect the integrity of the project for all parties involved. IMT is now willing to commit cash resources to build residential homes to make this community viable iMT is seeking final sign-off and occupancy for the subdivision so the project can move forward and become the community that city of Meridian desires Sin re' , ~ n Dan ureau Idaho Mutual Trust Exhibit A - 5 -