Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeb. 3, 2005 MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 49 of 58 Newton-Huckabay: I believe Mr. Hawkins-Clark has a statement. Hawkins-Clark: Technically, unless the city attorney wants to start doing the planning and zoning's work -- that's fine with us, but -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, that's right. Hawkins-Clark: It is, technically, the -- Zaremba: Okay. Then, we will ask staff to prepare that. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 04-011 REVISED Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.8 acres to R-8 zone for Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 04-017 REVISED Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 33 single-family residential and 4 common lots on 9.8 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 04-015 REVISED Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of 33 residential building lots for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot area, rear building setbacks, street side setbacks and minimum street frontage for Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson - 4205 North Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: Okay. Our final items on the agenda, Items 12, 13, and 14 are related, so we will open all three Public Hearings at the same time. This is AZ 04-011 revised, a request for annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres to R-8 zohe. PP 04-017, revised, request for preliminary plat approval for 33 single family residential and four common lots on 9.8 acres in a proposed R-8 zone. And CUP 04-015,' revised, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development consisting of 33 residential building lots, for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot area, rear building setbacks, side street setbacks and minimum street frontage. All these three are for Alexandria Subdivision by Lonnie Johnson, 4205 North Locust Grove Road. And we will begin with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. I believe most of the Commissioners were here when this came through several months go, so I might not go into as much detail as I would otherwise, but the Commission recommended approval of this same property in July. At that point in time the Council -- or the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 50 of 58 Commission included -- the application included office on the front on Locust Grove Road. August 24th the City Council actually closed the hearings and asked staff to prepare findings for denial and the reasons for the denial are listed in my staff report on page two. They had three main reasons. The first two were actually pretty closely related. Generally, they -- they were struggling with the office uses and, actually, the C- N, neighborhood commercial zoning. One of the reasons had to do with strip, nonresidential development along North Locust Grove Road. The applicant has now eliminated that altogether and proposed all residential, so staff felt the concern was taken care of. The second one had more to do with the neighborhood center concept in the Comprehensive Plan, which had the nonresidential uses right at the half mile and this is sort of at the very very north end of the neighborhood center and they felt that that didn't. fully comply. And, then, the last one had to do with .hours of operation and some of the concerns that were given at both this body and the Council about potential late hours of operation, traffic, et cetera, that might be generated by the nonresidential uses. So, the main difference at this point in time on this item number 12, the annexation and zoning has eliminated any nonresidential zone and they are asking for an R-8 on the entire property. As you can see on the aerial photo, there is an existing residence with some outbuildings on the west end. So, this was the last plan that you looked at. Star Road extending across North Locust Grove. Razzberry Crossing Subdivision, which has already been approved, and is in the final platting, recording process, to the north, shares an entry road. This widens out and heads to the south. That's the same. So, this area right here, which is a little over two acres, is the main change to their subdivision. And this is the new plat and the majority of this project -- actually, it's identical, I believe, with the exception -- well, no, I don't think there were any changes at all to that. Yeah. So, just this -- just this front 2.17 acres. They are proposing the alley-loaded lots. The alley does access their north-south road here and curves to the south. It does retain the 25-foot wide landscape buffer that the landscape ordinance requires. That would be consistent with Razzberry Crossing and other projects to the south that have been approved. And, then, the existing driveway that accesses North Locust Grove Road would be closed off, so that the road would, essentially, turn into the alley. So, in terms of emergency services and use by the residents, they would have that full loop there. I included this slide in here -- and, actually, maybe I will just hit one or two other points and come back to that. It's a street section issue. But on the planned development request, on the Conditional Use Permit, I wanted to point out the areas that they are asking for an exception to the ordinance and these do affect both this new area, as well as the rest of the subdivision. So, again, some of these you have already recommended approval of to the City Council. For rear setbacks they have proposed ten foot rear setbacks on these alley loaded lots and, of course, that would be for the garages. Staff has recommended that they increase that to 18 and we have received a brief letter that the applicant prepared for tonight, which I think you will be getting as well, but they have agreed to that. So, that would, actually, be a change on the setback on the rear for those garages. As far as the street side, the ordinance says that street side setbacks would need to be 20 and they are proposing 12. That affects these two lots here and it affects these two lots and, then, this lot down here. So, I think that's six or -- six or seven lots that are affected by that change. Another request on the planned development, the ordinance says 6,51)0 square foot lot Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 51 of 56 minimums, they are proposing 5,300. And lot frontage ordinance says 65 for an R-8 and they are proposing 45. However, we did point out in our report that they would need 42 in order to make this plan work. We did an analysis of the findings that we are required to do for annexations and the main question that came up had to do with Finding A, which deals with the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan does ask -- or recommends that these neighborhood centers have a minimum density of eight dwelling units per acre in order to encourage the higher densities. They have not provided that within this subdivision. That being said, we recognize that there have been other projects in the area that have already been approved that have not met the eight and so if you think about this larger area and the compatibility of densities, that probably would not function, but I wanted to at least point out to you that that was the case. And the other finding that I raised a question on was E and that had to do with the fire department and the serviceability. This deals with the street section and they are proposing a design that is the same, essentially, as the last time you reviewed this project. It was a question that came up with City Council, but that was resolved at a pre-Council meeting and it has to do with the parking on one side fora 29-foot street section. The Council had raised some concerns about if you only had parking on one side is that adequate for, you know, events or parties or whatever that somebody might have, particularly on the south end of the project, and it was pointed out that that 29-foot street section has been approved in Razzberry Crossing and, actually, several other subdivisions, as well as the fact that they are alley loaded areas, they are proposing some parking that is in addition -- off-street parking that is in addition to the driveways. So, the main question on that issue of the street section -- I'll go to this next slide -- is -- you're not going to see it too well, but there is three different types of cross-sections that they are proposing. This top one is East Greenhaven Street, which is this street along the bottom, along the south, and the -- you're not going to be able to read that, but the actual drive-able surface, both -- actually, for all three is exactly the same and that is a little over 30 feet. So, basically 30 and a half feet back to back. The fire department had some concerns that with 29 feet back to back, with the encroaching of mailboxes and other things -- and this is an ongoing discussion, as you well know, between the fire department and the staff and ACRD. In this case I think the applicant has proposed to go from 29 to 30 and a half to kind of allow for some of those mail box encroachments and I, actually, did not talk with the fire department, I'd like the applicant to confirm that they did, but I believe that the fire department is okay with that, so -- oh, that's right, we did receive astamped -- fire department did stamp the approved as submitted and that's this one that you see up here. That's the 30 and a half feet. So, I guess I take that back, we don't need to talk to the fire department, they stamped it. Let's see. And, then, I wanted to point out just a couple of other things on page eight of the staff report. If the applicant tonight could just clarify on the open space green easement, which the open areas in this subdivision are kind of mirrored open space lots that are located here and here. Staff feels it is a good design, it does provide good access for a number of the units. It's a little unique in that they are including an easement on the backside of these lots and these lots and on the south side of these common areas that is on an easement that's on the private lot that's included in the common lot and just asking for some clarification on how that easement will be maintained and managed and make sure that that's something that the CC&Rs address, because it would not normally be Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 52 of 58 something that the city gets involved with. And, then, similarly, how the fencing around these common areas -- what type of fencing, if any. So, if we could get that clarified tonight. And, then, two other items I wanted to point out. Here on this entry lot when you come in off of Star, they have proposed their subdivision sign to be located up here on this lot and we had just recommended that that be switched to a common lot, instead of an easement on that build-able lot, and that would also serve for a little bit of a berm for headlights that are coming down Star Road there -- or Star Lane, excuse me. And, then, the last item I wanted to point out is E on page nine and this deals with -- actually, with the west end of the project. They are proposing a flag lot to serve this very back lot here. The ordinance says if you have three lots serving on a common driveway, it needs to be a minimum of 24 feet. They are showing 20. I believe they are proposing this southern lot here to, actually, not take access off of that, which only makes these two lots using the common driveway and so the 20-foot would be adequate, but we just wanted to make sure that it is only the two lots that use that common driveway, otherwise, they will need to revise their application. And I think with that I'll end staff comments. There were two proposed changes that we received in writing from the applicant, which staff is in agreement with. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Moe: What were those changes? Hawkins-Clark: There is something in writing. I think it might be easier -- Moe: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: If that's okay. Zaremba: We are ready for the applicant, then. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, for the record Mike Wardle at 4910 Kriollwood Avenue in Boise. This project was approved last summer and I --just for the sake -- this is the same graphic that I showed you, then, but I just want to -- for orientation purposes, this is what it looked like originally with -- and Brad showed that to you, but it had the office uses or office retail up front. It now is strictly -- oh, excuse me, I'm going to hand out a site plan for each of the Commission members. It will make it easier for you to follow along. Can we start at this end for that. purpose and I want to give the clerk a copy of the items that we will present. Here is a copy for the Chair. Mr. Chairman, I'm just simply passing out the items that staff referred to in terms of the changes that we had proposed and I would note also that with that information is a letter from ACHD and also a stamped item from the fire department that does note that they have concurred with the street standards that have been discussed by Mr. Hawkins- Clark. Back to the graphic for just a moment. The issue that the Council had a problem with was the office space just to the north in Razzberry Crossing, the amount of space that has already been approved and partially developed at Heritage Commons to the south and, then, the Brockton Subdivision even south of that. 50, there is a fair amount Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 53 of 58 of nonresidential uses along Locust Grove Road in that particular area. So, in response -- in the remand that the Council required us to come back and present an alternative that was strictly residential. We didn't want to change the character of the project, because it is really quite -- all of these lots, really, have good access to amenities and the intent by Mr. Johnson is to have a development that is certainly not restricted to, but, really, addresses the needs for those that are empty nesters, could be an older population, and that speaks to one of the issues that staff noted on page eight when they talked about the landscape easement. Part of the intent is to make these homes and the lots as maintenance friendly or easy as possible and so the intent is along the periphery of these -- these lots that there would be private areas on those lots that would be maintained by the association and be basically kind of a free flow, so that it looks and is taken care of largely by the association, even though there are still private areas on the lots where people would have their own locations, but it's just a matter of being able to make it a little bit more maintenance friendly than what a typical single family lot is. Down to the issues that Mr. Clark addressed, density, while this is certainly not eight units per acre, it's probably the most dense project along Locust Grove Road, because we have smaller lots and we have, actually, two different types of homes that would be available, not only the more standard, but -- and these are all so small lots, 54 foot wide, typically, in here and 120 feet deep, but, then, the lots up front, which are the alley loaded, which are, essentially, the same as those that are around the commons down in Heritage Commons just to the south. Very very similar, except these lots that are proposed are, actually, just a little bit deeper. So, there is a lot of amenity value for all of these homes and, of course, these related to the stubs that come out of Razzberry Crossing, which is immediately to the north, which is, actually, under construction right now. And so we really have afairly -- it's a formal feel, but everybody has access to these areas, with the exception of those two lots, but they really are very very close. The fire department has -- their issues have been addressed, but I do want to make a comment about the 29-foot street section. ACHD in 1999 worked through the process with the fire departments to come up with that section for parking on one side and other determinations that could be made by the elected officials and in that regard I drove through Heritage Commons tonight on my way here, a project that I designed and this city approved a few years ago and has gone quite well. Most of the streets in that subdivision are 29-foot wide streets. They are -- now the major carriers are 33 to 36 feet, because when the traffic counts concentrate, you need to carry that. But if you drive through there, you will see that the 29-foot street is really not parked on all that much. And, in fact, the fire department I think is ignoring the reality of the way the lots are, but with respect to their concerns, that's why the engineers went to ACHD and back to the fire department and widened them out, so that there was really no question on the part of the fire department on whether or not it met the full 29-foot travel way. So, we have done that. I would also note that the City Council specifically, with fire department concerns, approved parking on both sides of those 29-foot streets in Heritage Commons and you just -- you go out and you drive through it today and you don't find very many cars on the streets and it's really not an issue. But we have addressed that issue, it's been resolved, the fire department has stamped it and said that they approve the streets, so we really don't have the issues that were raised in the staff report with concern to fire safety. We really only have two items that -- not everybody has a copy Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 54 of 58 of these. I have got two more sheets here that I can pass up and that would be on page nine, site specific condition for the preliminary plat, condition number three, which currently reads: No parking shall be allowed on North Heritage View Place and it shall be signed no parking and I want to just point that out, that we are talking about this T turnaround, but as noted that street is the same street width and does conform to the fire department's requirements for the one-sided parking, so what we are asking for is the addition of four words to read: No parking shall be allowed on the T portion and, essentially, that's where the frontage of those four homes occurs, but on the throat of that street coming in parking on one side does meet the requirements and staff has noted that they concur with that request. Certainly, the T portion would be signed as no parking. Then, on page 15, site specific condition for the Conditional Use Permit, planned development, condition 5-F currently reads: Two covered picnic areas with a gazebo and I just wanted to clarify that to say that each of those -- those areas between the homes will, actually, each have a gazebo structure. So, we are simply wanting to note that there will be two gazebos -- I guess my item is dying here. So, there will be a gazebo in this area and there will be another gazebo over here. So, we just want that to note that there will be two, one in each area. I'm not certain if that's the way it needs to be worded, but at least the intent is clear. And with simply those two changes -- oh, I guess one other item that -- the engineers did work with the fire department on the question of this flag lot and common drive and this lot will take access on this street and these two will share that drive and it meets all of the fire department's requirements. There is no need for a fire department turnaround under that scenario, because it's -- the depth is still within their service range. So, on that basis we ask for approval, as you previously did, but in this case for a strictly residential project, with only the two requested modifications that you see on the Bias before you. And with that I would stand for any questions that you have. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Wardle: Thank you. Zaremba: I would ask staff if we are comfortable with the parking -- on-street parking issues are being resolved in this manner? Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry. Clarify that question, please. Zaremba: The final statement in your staff report after your recommendation is that we needed to resolve the current discrepancy about on-street parking and its sounds like much has been said about that. Hawkins-Clark: Oh. Okay. Yes. Yes. At that point in time they -- there was still a conflict between the proposed 29-foot and what the fire department was asking for for a free and clear 29, which they believed was not adequate, but I think now that we have received the stamped approved document from Mr. Silva I think that is resolved. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 55 of 58 Zaremba: That, plus the assurances that the applicant has given us, that works. Okay. Then it's the time for general public testimony. We, actually, had nobody signed up for any of these three items, but that doesn't mean you're not welcome to come forward and speak. Anybody care to add anything on these subjects? I don't see activity, so Commissioners? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearings on -- Public Hearing AZ 04- 011, PP 04-017, and CUP 04-015. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: It's been moved and seconded to close these three public hearings. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The hearings are closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Any discussion? Okay. I guess the only question is whether or not we feel that we have resolved the issues that the City Council raised and, therefore, remanded it back to us. Borup: Every issue was related to the office commercial section and that's gone, so doesn't that -- I mean, yeah, it seemed like it automatically handled those issues: Moe: I would say that I think everything has been taken care of and I have no problem in either issue that he would like to change within the site. conditions. Zaremba: In that case, the Chair would entertain a motion. Newton-Huckabay: I want to ask a question. Just a general question. When something gets remanded back to us from the City Council, you can't address any of the issues that you already approved anyway, can you? Zaremba: Well, I think, technically, every issue is open. If you make one change, that may -you know, a decision that we made before was based on the whole picture as we saw it. If another piece of it changes, I think everything's open. I don't necessarily -- my personal opinion is I didn't have any other issues with it myself and I think all the ones that the City Council had have been resolved. But is there some issue that -- Newton-Huckabay: No. I don't have a specific concern. I don't care for these developments with -- where they keep this large parcel in the back. There is another one I think to the north of it that Idid -- that I don't think it's -- and I didn't care for that either. But that's not going to change. I mean this isn't the only one to ever come through like that. Zaremba: Well, it certainly reduces the overall density when you put a large parcel in. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 56 of 66 Newton-Huckabay: Right. But Ijust --just for my edification, Ididn't -- I was thinking we could only address those issues specifically brought up by the City Council and that's not true. Okay. So, I have nothing specific related to this, I just needed clarification for myself. Zaremba: Well, in the future I would feel free to bring up any issue. I think once it comes back to us, everything is on the table. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Well, I usually do. Zaremba: Okay. All right. In that case, I believe we are ready for a series of motions. Gentlemen. Ladies. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, Imove -- Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Imove that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-011, to include all staff comments for the hearing date February 3rd, 2005, with the transmittal date of January 31st, 2005, including all staff comments. Moe: Second. Zaremba: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval of AZ 04-011. All in favor say aye. That motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 04-017, to include staff comments -- or staff report dated January 31st, 2005, for the hearing date February 3rd, 2005, with the following two changes: On page nine of 17, site specific conditions, item number three, to insert after the allowed on the T portion of North Heritage View Place and on page 15 of 17, item five, to strike covered picnic areas with a --and just leave it with two gazebos. Borup: Wasn't that one on the conditional use -- was that under conditional use or preliminary plat? Hawkins-Clark: It was conditional use. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, that's my fault. I'm sorry. Rohm: Well, that's all right. And we can leave it in there and, then, we will just add that to the CUP portion as well. It doesn't hurt to make that change, so I think that's end of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 57 of 56 Moe: Second. Zaremba: It's been moved and seconded to approve PP 04-017. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-015, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of February 3rd, 2005, with a transmittal date of January 31st, 2005, with the following change: On page 15 of 17, item 5-C, should just read two gazebos. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval of CUP 04-015. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries as well. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Does staff have any further comment? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, I would just -- as a reminder, next Thursday night there is a special workshop and we do have copies here tonight of the proposed zoning ordinance for you to take with you, if you'd like those. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. We will pass those out and that meeting will start at 6:00 o'clock next Thursday, the 10th. Newton-Huckabay: Is it here? Borup: Yes. Rohm: Yes. I believe right at that table. Right over there. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, the round table. Zaremba: At 6:00 o'clock, as opposed to 7:00 o'clock. Borup: On the 17th. Zaremba: On -- this is on the 10th. Borup: Oh, 10th. Zaremba: A week from tonight. We are, actually, meeting all four Thursdays this month.