Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 15, 2004 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 2 of 67 Borup: Okay, Do we have a motion? Zaremba: Seeing no others, Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of July 1 st, 2004, as amended. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 04-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1 +/- acre from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 2490 North Locust Grove: Item 5: Public Hearing: PP 04-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 residential building lots and 1 other lot on 1 +/- acre in proposed R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 2490 North Locust Grove: Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP 04-022 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential and office in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 2490 North Locust Grove: Borup: Okay. Our first Public Hearing will be three of them for Secret Garden Subdivision, Public Hearing AZ 04-015, request for annexation and zoning of approximately one acre from RUT to R-8 zone for the proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers at 2490 North Locust Grove. Accompanying that is PP 04-020, request for preliminary plat approval of seven residential building lots and one other lot. And CUP 04-022, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for single family residential and office in a proposed R-8 zone. I'd like to open all three of these hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This first item, No.4, was submitted to the city as an annexation application. However, as I noted in the staff report that you received, the property has already been annexed, was annexed in 19 -- or '89, as a part of the Chateau's -- Chateau Meadows annexation. So, just for clarity on that item before going further into detail. The property is outlined here -- Borup: So, it was zoned at the same time? Hawkins-Clark: It was annexed and zoned, yes, sir. Borup: To? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 3 of 67 Hawkins-Clark: R-8. Borup: R-8. Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. And that's reflected in the coloring here on the slide. It is 1.1 acres and it's located on the east side of North Locust Grove Road, just right about the half mile point between Fairview and Ustick and as this slide pretty well demonstrates, it is an in-fill parcel surrounded by all built-out residential uses, for the most part. So, the request, then, what staff had asked in our application, was for them to basically modify. It's no longer an annexation request, it's -- the R-8 zone is what they requested and it's already zoned that, so they are proposing one office lot within the project and so we are recommending that Planning and Zoning Commission require them to zone the office portion L-O and, then, the remainder can just remain as it is today. So, that was our recommendation on the -- number four. The aerial photo is shown here. It's a little bit difficult to see, I guess, but you might make out there is a couple of different structures on the property. Existing house in the northwest corner and, then, some outbuildings as well. For Item No.5 on the preliminary plat request, they are proposing seven -- what was shown was seven residential building lots. However, it would be six residential building lots and one common lot, which would include all of the drive aisle and parking area, as well as a landscaped area and, then, another building lot, which would be an office lot. So, you actually have six residential platted lots and one office platted lot, along with the common area lot. So, those are the lots that are included in their application. As far as a breakdown, the use breakdown, about 18 percent of the site is office, 51 percent residential, and 30 percent is the common area. The common area, again, is shown here on the south side and it does have some very large, nice, existing trees that they are proposing to retain and we, obviously, encouraged that in our pre- application meeting and they have done that, so I think that's definitely kudos to the applicant for that. They have also shown a couple of picnic tables as a location for probably both employees of the future office, as well as the residents. As an in-fill parcel they don't actually have to provide amenities. The planned development ordinance says if you have -- if you qualify as an in-fill, you don't have to do the two amenities, which is what we usually see on planned developments. However, in this case they are stating that one of their amenities would be the picnic table. On Item No. 6, the Conditional Use Permit for the planned development, the reason for the planned development is three fold. They are asking for three different deviations and those were listed on page two of the staff report. The first deviation that they are asking for is lot size. The R-8 minimum lot size for attached dwelling units is 4,000 square feet and they are asking for 3,946. So, they are asking for it to be reduced there by 54 square feet. And the second item is for lot frontage. Each of these residential lots that has the attached units is supposed to have 40 feet of frontage on either a public or a private street and they are showing -- they are proposing 31 minimum. The 31, actually, I believe, only applies to a couple of them. The only ones are closer to the 40. But because of the nature of the site, they are asking to squeeze those frontages down a little bit. And, then, the third deviation from the code that they are asking for has to do with the private streets and during our pre-application meeting we actually talked about, Meridian Planning & Zoning Juiy 15.2004 Page 4 of 67 you know, how -- what would be the best way to get vehicles in and out of this tight site and what they have, actually, shown is, you know, this entry here with parking on either side as part of the common lot and, then, as you come into the residential area, there is the hammerhead that is 20 feet wide and, then, 20 feet in front of the garages. So, basically, it's 40 feet from the edge of the common lot to the face of the garage in this area and that would apply to all six of these units. But the reason, again, for the planned development is that a private street -- you can't do a common driveway for any more than four units and since they are providing six units, they can't do a common driveway, so they have to do a private street and a private street standard says that you're supposed to do 24 feet of asphalt and, then, you do five foot sidewalks. So, 24, plus the ten, would be 34 feet and while they have that here at the entry, they don't have that width here on the hammerhead. So, that's -- the request there is to -- is to reduce that 24 to 20 in this area. The minimal house sizes, they are meeting the minimums, as well as I guess all the other dimensional standards that are required in this zone. So, I was just going to point out the two special considerations that I had listed on -- starting on page 11 of the staff report and I guess the first one I already touched on. There is the private street waiver. Another part of that waiver that would be necessary in order for the Commission to approve this would be the five-foot sidewalk on the north side. They are showing a sidewalk along the park open space area, so that would presumably come out and attach to the Locust Grove sidewalk, so that would provide access for pedestrians that way. On the north side they are actually not showing a sidewalk in front of the office building right now. In order to get the parking aisles and the parking depth and the sidewalk on the common drive, they are unable to do that. So, that is another part of the waiver that you need to discuss tonight. And I guess staff feels that the in-fill policies basically encourage planned developments in these areas and it says that buildings can be clustered to provide more open space. So, I guess one of the trade-offs is, obviously, you could get -- you could reduce the size of their open space and meet the standards or provide the current open space and reduce the standards, so I guess that's kind of the trade-off that you're looking at. And, then, the second consideration I had on page 12 had to do with the building elevations and this is -- one of the elevations that they submitted in their application and, as you can see, they do have the garages in the front, with the living space above, access on the sides, either end of the building. The floor plans are shown here. They are generally the same. I didn't include all the elevations here. The main thing I wanted to point out is that the existing building, which is shown here, is all brick and the planned development does encourage these to be developed, so that they -- you know, it kind of looks like a uniform project. There is no brick shown on the building -- on the new buildings at all and so we just -- there is not a requirement for that to happen, but to help for cohesiveness, since that's encouraged in planned developments, we wanted to throw that out. So, I guess I will stop there. If you have any other questions. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, Brad, I did have one question and it's -- it's a subject of options that I think we have discussed before. The other option would be -- this is in relation to the zoning question. Since it's already zoned R-8 and they are submitting this as a planned development, which was allow a 20 percent use exception and they are only asking for an 18 percent use exception, I guess what I keep asking and forgetting the Meridian Pianning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 5 of 67 answer to, which I'm sure I have heard, is what is easier to administer ten or twenty years from now, allowing the use exception and having it all be R-8, which probably would be simpler for the paperwork today, or is it still better to go through the application process of changing that L-O section? Does that reduce confusion in the future? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, I think staff's opinion has changed a little bit on that over the years. I think where we have come to now and -- Zaremba: That's why I can't remember. The answer keeps changing. Hawkins-Clark: Where the current director stands is that to have the underlying zoning reflect the actual use is preferred. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: I think from the real estate standpoint on MLS listings, et cetera, assessor's data, I guess those are the two that stand out, to have the zoning reflect the use is probably just a cleaner way to go. Zaremba: Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry; I guess I did forget to mention one other thing. We had asked for -- the Sanitary Service Company had some concerns initially about how they are going to pick up trash in this location and I don't know if the Commission got it, but I was given by the applicant today -- Dave McKinnon brought in an approved site plan that was stamped by Bill Gregory at Sanitary Service Company. What they are looking at is two different concrete pads that would be in these two landscaped areas and -- so the trucks would come in and the residents would bring their containers to a pad seven foot by three foot, I think it was, and have the pick ups there. Borup: Okay. presentation? Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. Brad did a good job being thorough and basically going over everything that we need to, I guess, address. I'd just like to start with the two items on the last page of your report, the two outstanding items that Brad mentioned that need to be resolved. The first having to do with the reduced street section and we are dealing with a site with some constraints. Right now the way the site's organized right now it's really hard to tell from the aerial -- it's not easy to tell from here. There is, actually, a U- shaped driveway that services this existing house. Ada County Highway District didn't want us to keep the U-shaped driveway, they'd rather reduce the number of accesses onto the arterial and they have asked us to make that down to one. What that created was a problem to get emergency vehicles back into the houses, even back here, and provide a turn around, so we provided the hammerhead. In providing the hammerhead Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 6 of 67 tum around, we ran into a problem of the private street standards, as Brad explained, and we decided that with the private street standards requiring a five foot sidewalk on, essentially, what is a driveway, it wouldn't be utilized for the amount of money that it would cost and the amount of open space that it would take up. We felt that it would be more appropriate to have landscaping in that area, rather than sidewalk, because these are just being utilized for these people's driveways. Right there. And as Brad pointed out, there is 20 feet in front of the garage, plus 20 feet there, so the actual turning radius is for a fire engine, they can get back in here, do their three point turn, and get out. And that just brought up the -- the second question was from SSC and it's the secondary item that Brad brought up. In meeting with SSC, they were afraid that they wouldn't be able to bring their garbage truck in, pick up garbage at these end houses. They'd have to pull in, back up, and, then, pull back out and back up and they felt that that was inappropriate. So, what they decided to do, in talking with Bill Gregory today, was probably to pull on Locust Grove, have someone jump out, wave the truck in backwards with the beeper on, back to here, and have these three houses here bring their garbage to the concrete pad located right here and have these three houses bring a concrete pad -- to a concrete pad located right here. We felt that that was adequate. You have to get rid of garbage. It's not something that's an option. So, we felt that that was something we could live with. And so Brad's got a copy of the stamped approval from SSC and we can get copies of that to you. I just had one copy that Brad made before I came back, so I wasn't aware you didn't have that. I apologize for not having that tonight. As far as this project goes, it's nice to see the in-fill projects happen in Meridian. This has been a site that when I worked for the City of Meridian I met with many many people about what to do this with site. It's nice to finally sit down with a developer that wants to do something with this site that meets the vision for the city. The idea behind this project is to try to get up to the density that the city is requesting. The city has stated in the past they'd like to see density in their in-fill. The R-8 zone -- we like to encourage density up to eight units per acre and it's very hard to get the eight units per acre under the existing code, so we have asked for the reduced lot sizes to be allowed and for the reduced street sections to be allowed for this. Brad, if you can go backwards one more. There you go. We would agree, as Brad pointed out, and as you asked, Commissioner Zaremba, to make this office property zoned L-O and we anticipated that. We'd like to see this property rezoned to the L-O zone and keep the remainder of the property as R-8. It helps in the future, because 20 years from now no one's going to know why that office was allowed in a residential zone, now we can say it's an office use in an office zone and so we can agree with that. In trying to work through the ordinance, we know that the City of Meridian wants to keep open space within their projects and they want to keep their mature trees. We have some very large mature trees that we are keeping on this site. As Brad pointed out, the trees are very large in size, you know, in the 48 inch type caliper, so these are very large trees and we'd like to keep those and so have put the open space down in the south end and put some sort of passive recreation area for being able to eat there. The existing building, as Brad pointed out, is made out of brick and it's very dated looking from that photo. The brick isn't something necessarily that will remain. They'd like to renovate the brick house, whether that's through painting or through stucco of the brick, to give it a more updated look. It's going to be a real estate office and they'd like to update that for the Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 7 of 67 real estate use and to update it they include changing that. So, we wouldn't want a requirement for the stucco -- not for the stucco, but for the brick wainscoting to be on the remainder of the buildings, rather, we'd like the buildings to reflect -- the new buildings to be more of the reflection of the old, rather than the old having to match the dated look of that building. If you can go back, Brad, one more picture. We'd like to update that look, rather than keep it as is. Zaremba: I'm not sure I'm understanding which way you're going with that. McKinnon: Which way we are going with that? We'd like to update this building. Rather than keep the red brick building there, we'd like to update that to make it look newer, whether it's painting the brick or putting -- Zaremba: You would use some of the similar materials of what you're planning to do with the -- McKinnon: Some of the color, some of the materials, that's correct, rather than having to match the old and have the new be more in line with what we want -- Zaremba: The end result is they match, but they match the new buildings, as opposed to matching the old buildings. McKinnon: Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: In a nutshell, that's our project. Brad did a good job explaining it. I'm very happy for staff's support. Staff's been very integral in helping us get through this project. SSC was very gracious today in working with us and getting this approved and so I think we have met the requirements of SSC to meet that requirement and with your approval tonight to recommend this to the Council, we will move forward, and I'd ask for your approval of this project with the requested exemptions that Brad's outlined and ask if you have any questions at this time. Borup: Question? Any other questions? Zaremba: I do have a couple, of course. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: I wonder if it would solve the problem to -- I'm talking about the entryway roadway, to kind of compromise and really only call the front section the public street and, then, somehow identify this as driveway. It's a matter of semantics, but it would change the rules to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 8 of 67 McKinnon: I have thought about that, too, Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, to bring this in and call this the private drive and, then, at this point you could have three houses off of one private drive, split it down the middle, and three houses off the other private drive. The way the city ordinance currently reads, though, is you can only have up to four off a private drive and it's really hard to split this private drive those three ways. Zaremba: That's why the hammerhead has to be called part of the street. McKinnon: That's correct. And that's why we'd ask for the waiver on that. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: And so it meets the intent of the ordinance without actually meeting the -- I guess the full guidelines. Zaremba: I have one other half question, half suggestion. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: But since you know the site better that I would, you would know whether it's a logical suggestion and, then, I would also ask Brad to chime in on it. My concern is that traffic from this busy arterial, having to turn in here, if a car turning in meets a car here backing out, you at some times could have a traffic jam and the thinking -- I'm posing it as a question. Would it be possible to tum this parking -- I'm not so worried about the outbound side, I'm worried about the inbound side. Turn this parking and put it here or is that getting too close to the trees, so that you damage the trees that you're trying to preserve? McKinnon: You would absolutely fall in the drip line of those trees to do that. In order to turn that parking around you'd have to come in and you'd actually chew up a great deal of that space and you'd absolutely lose at least one, if not both of those trees. Zaremba: Okay. That's not desirable. Those were my only questions. Borup: Commissioners? Rohm: One question I have, Dave, is wouldn't the sidewalk serve the project better if it was adjacent to the commercial development? McKinnon: Looking at -- yeah, it would, actually, make a little more sense to be up in this -- and we could make that a condition of approval. Rohm: It just seems like as people come in and leave the real estate office, if there was a sidewalk in front of the parking, it would be easier to come and -- and if you're only going to have it one or other, it seems appropriate to have it on that side. Meridian Pianning & Zoning Juiy 15,2004 Page g of 67 McKinnon: We would encourage that as a condition of approval. We would be happy to accommodate that request. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: Let me ask Brad -- is that significant enough that it needs to be a condition or can it just change on the next drawing? Hawkins-Clark: If the Commission could just include it, I think it would be best. McKinnon: As part of your motion? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry. Why were we only doing one sidewalk again? McKinnon: Well, there is limitations on the size of the site. If we were to add the additional sidewalk up here, we'd have to shift the parking down, it means you'd just have less open space in this area. We can't shift the driveway any further to the north, because of the existing building. Newton-Huckabay: Right. McKinnon: And if we just shift it south we would use up additional landscaped area with concrete. So, we'd just have more impervious surface, rather than landscaping. Plus it gets you closer to the drip line of these existing trees. We'd like to stay as far out of that as possible. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thanks. Borup: Now, the house designs that were submitted with the application, are they just -- are they supposed to be the actual plans or just representative of that style? McKinnon: Representative of the style, Commissioner Borup. Borup: Okay. Because these plans don't fit on some of the lots. McKinnon: Some of them are too wide. Borup: You realize that? McKinnon: Uh-huh. We do realize that. Borup: And, then, you had a couple of special considerations in the staff report. One of those was on the tree mitigation. Was there plans to -- trees planted in the rear yards? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page100f67 McKinnon: If you received the letter that I submitted with this application -- the letter that I wrote in response to the staff report, we would agree to plant one additional tree in the backyards. Zaremba: I didn't receive the letter. Borup: Okay. I was afraid I was the only one. So, really, you were in agreement with everything in the staff report. McKinnon: Yep. Borup: Okay. Okay. I have no other questions. Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 4, 5 and 6. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council Item 4, Public Hearing AZ 04-015, request for annexation and zoning -- Borup: Yeah, do we -- how do we -- do we need to restate this motion, since it's already annexed and zoned? Rohm: But the zoning will change on -- Borup: The L-O. Rohm: To include the L-O, which is included in the staff comments, so if we just forward with our recommendation to accept staff's comments, that would change it from strictly R-8 to include an L-O lot. That seems appropriate. Hawkins-Clark: Normally I guess I would agree with that. I mean normally you're acting on the application that was submitted to the city. The application that was submitted to the city was for annexation and zoning. The staff report did correct that, but I -- and I don't know, maybe Mr. Gabbert has another opinion. But I'm not sure that the Commission can, you know, just by virtue of your motion change the type of application Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15, 2004 Page 11 of 67 that they submitted. I think you're okay to still recommend approval of the type of application with the conditions that were mentioned. Borup: Well, now, I do know on an annexation and zoning application we can change the requested zoning if we want, but in this case it would be a rezone, so in a rezone does the applicant need to apply for that or can we -- Hawkins-Clark: Well, the application itself is an application for annexation and rezone. Borup: So, we could restate Lot 1, Block -- is it Lot -- Lot 1, Block 1, as L-O zone, then. Was that where you were going on your motion? Rohm: Well, I -- that's included in the staff comments, that they are -- and so if you accept staff comments, that's all already there. Zaremba: Let me ask what the applicant is going to have to do to comply with that staff comment? Can they -- can the applicant modify the current application or does the applicant have to make a -- file a whole new application? Hawkins-Clark: Normally, we would just require them to submit a new legal description that just describes the new rezone. Zaremba: So, the number AZ 04-015 isn't going to change, except that it should be RZ, instead of AZ. Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Zaremba: Does that make a big filing difference or-- Hawkins-Clark: If we changed it now, it -- I think it's -- yeah, If you required -- if you really wanted to see the file number reflect the application, then, they would need to file a new -- I think a new application, because right now the way that all agencies have received this transmittal is under this AZ 04-015. Gabbert: Chairman, Commissioners, what I would suggest is -- if that's the case, if there was no discussion of the rezone in the actual application -- and I didn't see any in my review of the matter -- that rather than amending it at this stage -- and I don't mean to delay anything. I'm certainly in favor of the project as much as anyone else, but maybe that it be withdrawn and, then, amended outside of this process. Dave? No? Not in agreement with that? It's just that I'm going to have to agree with staff that this has been submitted as an actual zoning -- annexation and zoning to all the -- to the police and to the fire and everything else. Zaremba: Well, then, the question would be whether we ought to reopen the hearing and continue it or the mechanics of it -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 15. 2004 Page 12 0167 Rohm: Well, I think the staff comments already addresses the issue associated with the L"O lot and -- Zaremba: And if the revision can be made before it goes to City Council -- Gabbert: And that's the other option. Borup: And it can be re-noticed -- and when the notice goes out for the City Council, it can be noticed properly. Gabbert: It can probably be amended before that point, as long as the motion is pretty clear what you guys are intending at this point. Rohm: Right. I think the intent's included in the staff comments and that's been my contention from the get go. Newton-Huckabay: I agree with Commissioner Rohm on that. Zaremba: I second supporting that. Borup: Yeah. I mean we all -- it's going to have the same result either way and if that's the case, let's go the easiest route. Okay. Commissioner Rohm, go ahead. Rohm: Okay. All right. Continuing. Let's see. I think I will start over. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Public Hearing AZ 04-015, request for annexation and zoning of 1 +/- acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Incorporated, 2490 North Locust Grove, including all staff comments dated July 15th, 2004, I believe that's the end of the motion. Zaremba: I will second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council Public Hearing PP 04- 020, request for preliminary plat approval of seven residential lots and one other lot on 1 +/- acres in proposed R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Incorporated, 2490 North Locust Grove, including all staff comments with the following amendment: On page eight I'd like to add an item nine that the developers place the proposed sidewalk on the north side of the common lot coming into the subdivision. Including-- Zaremba: Second, Meridian Pianning & Zoning Juiy 15, 2004 Page 130f67 Rohm: Including all staff comments dated July 15th. End of motion. Zaremba: That I will second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council approving Public Hearing CUP 04-022, request for a Conditional Use Permit for the planned development single family residential and office in proposed R-8 zone for proposed Secret Garden Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Incorporated, 2490 North Locust Grove, including all staff comments dated July 15th, 2004. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Public Hearing: RZ 04-008 Request for a Rezone of .23 acre from R-8 to proposed O-T zone for Larry Knopp by Larry Knopp - 713 North Meridian Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 04-019 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a retail and professional office use in an existing building in the proposed 0- T zone for Larry Knopp by Larry Knopp - 713 North Meridian Road: Borup: Thank you. I just realized on the next -- on the next application we probably should have said something before and I apologize to anybody that is here. Items No. 7 and 8 were not posted. Because of that we are not able to hear their hearing tonight. They did not have a legal posting and I guess, Commissioners, then, we need to -- if we are going to continue it, we need to open the hearing, don't we? Zaremba: We would table it. Do we have a date specific to table it to? Borup: August 5th would be the first available -- well, the 20 -- August 5th isn't too bad. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: August 19th we are pretty heavy. Borup: Yeah. The 19th was heavy. The 29th, there is not time to do the notice, so it's either the 5th or into September. And so looking on the agenda for August I did not think it looked too bad.