Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 8, 2004 P&Z Item Packet Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 56 of 89 Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. Briggs: Thank you. Borup: Commissioners? Oh, I'm sorry. Do we have anyone else here from -- I was trying to move on a little too fast. Anybody here to testify on this application? Seeing none -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on Item 8, PFP 03-005 be closed. Mathes: Second. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Mayor, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, FPF 03-005, request for a preliminary-final plat approval of two building lots on 52.84 acres in an I-L zone for Jabil Subdivision by Jabil Circuit, Incorporated, 1303 East Central Way, to include all -- and this refers to the preliminary plat received by the city clerk January 6, 2004, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 8, 2004, received by the city clerk -- I can't read mine. It looks like January 5th, received by the city clerk January 5th, 2004, with no changes. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Commissioner Zaremba -- I mean Commissioner Rohm, did you have a -- Rohm: No. Let's break for a moment. Borup: You'd like to break. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 03-033 Request for annexation and zoning of 10.05 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Baldwin Park Addition by Capital Development -- north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8. 2004 Page 57 of 89 Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 03-038 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 71 single-family residential building lots and 7 common lots on 19.07 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Baldwin Park Addition by Capital Development -- north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road: Borup: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening. We'd like to begin with Items No.9 and 10, Public Hearing AZ 03-033, request for annexation and zoning of 10.05 acres to R-8 zones for proposed Baldwin Park Addition by Capital Development and accompanying that is PP 03-038, request for preliminary plat approval on the same project. I'd like to open both these public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The first application -- as you mentioned, there are two applications here. The first application is for an annexation and rezone of 10.17 acres to an R-8 zone and the site is located generally half a mile north of Ustick Road and one half mile west of Meridian Road The applicant is proposing to annex the subject ten acres south of the original Baldwin Park Subdivision and amend a previously approved preliminary plat for Baldwin Park by adding additional open space and 39 new buildable lots south of the White Drain, which is the second application, Item No.1 0, Baldwin Park Addition Subdivision, a 71 lot -- excuse me -- 71 lot single family buildable lots and seven common lots on 19.07 acres. This property is designated as medium density residential on the City of Meridian future land use map. The property that was previously annexed by the city is currently zoned R-8 and that's the same zone that the annexation and zoning is requesting for the southerly half of this preliminary plat. The gross density of the proposed preliminary plat is 3.72 dwelling units per acre. The net density of the plat is 4.81 dwelling units per acre. The single family buildable lots within the subdivision range from 6,700 square feet to 11,050 square feet. All the housing types are proposed as single family detached. Five percent of the gross area of the site is devoted to open space. The subject site is currently vacant and used for agricultural purposes. The applicant is requesting, as stated in the staff report, a waiver of the requirement to tile the White Drain, which runs in this location here. This is the White Drain. The applicant has requested a waiver to pipe or tile that, which staff is supportive of. Staff has also received a letter, which I believe the Commissioners also have a copy of, requesting that the fencing adjacent to the White Drain be consistent with the fencing that was approved in the previous phases of Baldwin Park. In the staff report, which is site specific condition number three on page ten, there is language for a noncombustible fence adjacent to the White Drain easement and staff is okay with amending that if the Commission feels that that's acceptable to match into what was, again, previously approved in Baldwin Park. And the reason for that is a couple fold. One, it was previously approved and, two, the White Drain lies -- it's a fairly wide easement, I believe it's 60 feet and the White Drain is centered in that, so there is a good distance between the edge of the bank and the back of buildable lots where the fencing would be, so the chances of a fence catching on fire if that -- the drain will burn for irrigation, it's far enough away that we don't believe that it will be a problem. Also, in that letter the applicant would like to modify condition number Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 58 of 89 four on page ten of the staff report. Staff would like to modify the applicant's modification to a condition to remove that first sentence that the applicant is proposing, just state if any buildable lots located within the Settler's irrigation easement, then, the encroachment agreement needs to be submitted to us prior to the city engineer's signature of the final plat. Zaremba: I'm sorry. Which item are you talking about? Hood: That one is condition number four on page ten. And the applicant was stating that there wasn't any -- there weren't any lots that were within Settler's Irrigation District easements and on the preliminary plat there is the Coleman Lateral that also runs here and staff believes that there was an easement -- that the Coleman included, so any of these buildable lots, if that easement were to remain, was concerned that half of the buildable lots would be in an irrigation easement and, therefore, wouldn't be able to be utilized with any fencing or, you know, with any structures by those lots, so that's kind of where that condition originated from. So, if they are able to vacate any easements, if there are any that are there prior to that signature, then, that encroachment agreement is no longer applicable. So, just kind of a clean up, if there are buildable lots within irrigation easements we need that agreement. Zaremba: So, tell me the suggested new wording to number four. Hood: If you're looking at the staff report -- Zaremba: Uh-huh. Page ten, number four. Hood: It would be -- if any buildable lots are located within the Settler's Irrigation District easement, submit a copy of an encroachment agreement with the Nampa -- or Settler's Irrigation District, in this case Nampa-Meridian I guess doesn't have an easement there -- for any buildable lots. So, basically, just -- you can work on the language, I guess. I didn't have it written down verbatim, but if any -- if any buildable lots basically is the key there. Zaremba: Got it. Hood: Prior to signature. Commissioners, what may be easier is the applicant has some language in that letter, again, dated January 5th on page two of that letter that was faxed over and if you want to use that language, I guess staff would just recommend that strike that first sentence and put an if in front of the -- at leave if, I guess, and remove the final plat is modified with in the second condition, to read -- the condition would read: If any buildable lots are located within the Settler's Irrigation District easement, et cetera. Zaremba: I'm not following you. You're on their page two, their item number four? Hood: Their page two, item number four, yes. Second paragraph. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8. 2004 Page 59 of 89 Zaremba: That's in quotes? Hood: Yeah. In the quotes. Strike that first sentence. Zaremba: Oh, the whole first sentence. Hood: Yes. And, then, the condition -- and, then, you also strike: The final plat is modified with and add are between lots and located. Yeah. To replace the existing condition four. And, then, I think the final thing for me -- there was one item for Mr. Freckleton -- I'll let the applicant kind of state his reasoning on that and, then, let Bruce get to that, if that's -- but condition number eight on page ten, I also agree with the application that that condition should be modified to delete Lot 8, Block 19. This is condition number eight on page ten of staffs report. Borup: Eleven. Zaremba: Page 11. Hood: Or, I'm sorry. On page 11. I'm sorry. Borup: That was pertaining to the fencing? Hood: Yeah. In subsection A of that condition it refers to Lot 8, Block 19. There are no micropaths in that lot, so it's a common lot and there are no micropaths, so micropath fencing doesn't really apply there. If they do put some type of a walkway in there, fencing adjacent to that will be covered, but it didn't seem to be applicable in this part of the staff report. With that, I believe that those are the conditions that the applicant had issue with, I guess, and I will sit for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from the Commission? So, on item number eight you're agreeable with the applicant's wordings of -- of those, then? Hood: Yeah. Their language is fine, just striking in Lot 8, Block 19, of A and adding -- I don't think it's necessary to add the other part to A. If you want to do that. that's fine. And in subsection C adding that is fine as well, per the applicant's Letter. Borup: All right. Thank you. Questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to do their presentation? Briggs: Dean Briggs, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road. I'd like to thank Craig for putting together most of the items for us. I just want to hit the highlights again. We agree with all the conditions as he set forth. The only item that he did not address was on condition number five we are asking that two words be deleted from that condition. It says prior to plan approval the city engineer's signature on the final plat, we'd like to submit that just instead of plan approval, just have it submitted prior to his Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8, 2004 Page 60 of 89 signature. And the reasoning for that is the pressure irrigation system sometimes part of that O&M manual is the construction drawing and we'd like to have the first review from the staff prior to putting that O&M manual together, so that we can submit one that they have already seen the layout and put it together in a complete form. Borup: You don't already have a manual together with the previous subdivision? Briggs: We do. We have a manual for the existing subdivision, we just haven't -- we won't have the modifications for this phase of that. Zaremba: Okay. Your point five on your point two says to modify the fourth sentence in the staff's memo -- two, three, four -- Briggs Right in the middle. Borup: A draft copy? Briggs: Right. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: I get it. Okay. Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: In this particular instance where this is basically going to be an expansion of an existing system in the rest of Baldwin Park, I don't have a problem with the request at all. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Typically, these O&M manuals are kind of an evolutionary document and when you get to the end of a development is when all of the final pieces are put together and you get one good hard copy with all of the as-builts and everything put into it and so I guess I kind of view this as just an expansion of something that's existing out there right now and so we will agree to Mr. Briggs' request. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else? Briggs: No. Not from me. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay. Thank you. Briggs: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning January B. 2004 Page 61 of 89 Borup: Do we have anyone here to testify on this application Seeing none, Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the hearing on Items 9 and 10 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close both public hearings. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 9 on our agenda, AZ 03-033, request for annexation and zoning of 10.05 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Baldwin Park Addition by Capital Development north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of January 8th, 2003, received by n actually, that's -- their memo says 2003, but it's actually the hearing date January 8, 2004, received by the city clerk January 5, 2004, with no changes. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval Item 10 on our agenda, PP 03-038, request for preliminary plat approval of 71 single family residential building lots and seven common lots on 19.07 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Baldwin Park Addition by Capital Development, north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road, to include all staff comments of their memo n which states it's for the hearing date of January 8, 2003, but, really, 2004, and received by the city clerk January 5, 2004, with the following changes: On page ten, under site specific conditions preliminary plat, paragraph three, the first sentence shall be amended to delete the words noncombustible and add at the end of that same sentence to match previously approved fence. Paragraph four also on page ten shall be changed in its entirety to read: If any buildable lots are located within the Settler's Irrigation District easement, the applicant shall be required to submit a copy of an encroachment agreement prior to the city engineer's signature on the final plat. Paragraph four also on page ten will be modified as follows: In the fourth sentence, which begins a draft copy, the last two words plan approval shall be deleted and additional words added: The city engineer's signature on the final plat. On page eleven, paragraph eight, subparagraph A, deleted the words: And Lot 8, Block 19. End of motion. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 8. 2004 Page 62 01 89 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 03-061 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a dental office in an L-O zone for Gaudry Dental Office by Dr. Robert Gaudry -- southeast corner of Millenium Way and Gala Street in Resolution Business Park: Borup: Thank you. The next item is Public Hearing CUP 03-061, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a dental office in an L-O zone Gaudry Dental Office. Open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applicant has requested approval of a CUP for a new 3,300 square foot dental office on Lot 2, Block 1, in Resolution Subdivision. The property is located on the southeast corner of Millennium Way and Gala Street, approximately 300 feet south of Overland Road and approximately a quarter of a mile east of Locust Grove Road. Within Resolution Subdivision the city has already approved CUP applications for a pediatrics facility, two dental offices, an apartment complex, and two multi-tenant office buildings. This is what the site currently looks today and there are some -- or it doesn't quite look like this, this is from 2000. There are some buildings already constructed. This is the recently approved Sagecrest Development. This is the new high school is here. There was another dentist office that was approved in 2003 in this location. This is all one lot within Resolution Subdivision. In 2003 the city approved a resubdivision of that lot into three lots and as you can see here, this, again, was that lot that has the approved dentist office for Dr. Seegmiller. This is a future pad site. This is the subject dental office today. This plat has not yet been recorded. Staff did have some conditions with this second building being constructed on what today is one site, so as a condition of approval for this development that plat will need to be recorded prior to issuance of a CZC, certificate of zoning compliance, on this lot, so that each building has its own lot of record. The applicant is proposing two access points to serve these three lots. One of them is located here, the other is located here, so not -- every lot does not have its own ingress-egress, so there will need to be a recorded cross-access and parking agreement amongst the lots here. The applicant -- I spoke with the applicant today. They have drafted those covenants that is in that agreement. They are waiting for Ada County to record that plat and, then, simultaneously with that they will record the CC&Rs and the cross-access agreement for this development. The timing on that, I guess, is roughly four weeks is what they have been told at the county. That should run pretty consistent with -- by the time this application gets to the City Council and approved by them, if they wanted to turn right around and submit that building permit for this, it should be recorded almost at that same time. so that sounds pretty reasonable The other thing, I guess, in the staff report that asked the applicant to clarify is I notice that on this future lot they were not showing any dumpster location. They called me this last week and all three lots, as well as sharing the cross-access and parking, they are going to share the one dumpster, which is located right here, and depending how much waste is generated from these three lots, it may need to be picked up multiple times, but