Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 19, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 57 of 67 Borup: So moved. Rohm: Second. Zaremba~- We have a motion and a second to continue Items 14 and 15 to June 16th, '05. All iñ--fa'JC?:_~~!,_aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. -_.~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL-A-YE-S!_- .~c_~-- Item 16: Public Hearing: CUP 05-025 Request to modify the previously approved -~------ Conditional Use Permit / Planned Development to include changes to -----~~-'~ building elevations, parking area and amenities for Troy Place - -_.j Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - 1236 East 2 % Street: Zaremba: I'd like open the Public Hearing for Item 16, that's CUP 05-025, request to modify the previously approved Conditional Use Permit and planned development, to include changes to building elevations, parking area, and amenities for Troy Place Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., 1236 East 2 1/2 Street and we will begin with the staff report, please. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you know, this a modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit located on the east side of 2 1/2 Street, just across the street from the gymnasium and the parking that we talked about earlier. This was approved in early 2004 and has come under separate ownership and they have made the changes you just mentioned in your summary to the structures, the parking, and slightly to the amenities. I will touch on those here in just a second. There is an aerial view. To the north is single family. To the east is some multi-family units. To the south is the salon that was talked about on the 2 1/2 Street frontage. And there are single-family homes on the southeast of the subject property and, again, duplexes and Cole Valley Christian across 2 1/2 Street. This is the subject site plan. The pad sites are approximately the same as the previous project, which is shown here, in the same general location. The parking layout has significantly changed. They have added, in addition to the tandem parking stalls that are proposed, so each unit has a garage stall and another spot behind that for another car. In addition to that they have three visitor parking stalls located in this general location. The on- street parking in this area was discussed with the previous application, so they are showing some visitor parking, in addition to the existing triplexes approved in 2003 by the city, this home was converted into a triplex in 2003. They do have six parking stalls for that triplex and two per unit there as well. As I mentioned, in addition to the parking change, the elevations, which I breezed through briefly, are -- I'm going to jump back to those just real quick and try to explain the units, how they layout. The two inside units have livable space on the ground floor and second floors, with the outside units taking access through the stairwells to livable space on the second and third floors above. I believe that's how it works, from what I can tell from the floor plan, anyway. It's a little different. Here is the rear of the building, which is, actually, if you go back to the site plan, this would be the front. The buildings face each other, so the rear of the building, Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 58 of 67 that elevation I just showed, would be this elevation. This would be the side elevations would be the north and the south, which I will get to those here. Pretty blank facades to the sides. There was discussion at '04 hearing when different units were proposed here, from the property owners to the south, talking about -- concerned about people peering off of their porches into the back yards and things of that nature. So, they have addressed that with enclosing porches and not putting any windows on those sides to kind of help the privacy of those neighbors. Here is a picture of the north property line adjacent to the single-family residents. It shows up pretty well here. What the applicant is proposing to do -- and I guess I would touch on those couple of things with the application. Generally, a 20-foot landscape buffer is required between multi-family and single family. Again, being in Old Town, there are some constraints, that triplex being one of them and getting access to the rear part of this building with a 20 -- 25 foot wide drive aisle. There is not another 20 feet to construct a landscape buffer. This property owner did testify at the previous hearings and it's my understanding that the current applicant has met again with him on what he would like to see along that north property line and that is detailed with a slight modification, I believe. The applicant did submit a letter yesterday and it sounded like from the original application submitted, they were not going to do any fence from a large oak tree, which is in this location, they would do a six foot fence back, is what the landscape plan shows and my understanding was there wasn't going to be any fence from there to 2 1/2 Street. The letter submitted yesterday does talk about a four-foot fence, so it must have been a change of mind of the applicant. So, you may need to modify that. Site-specific condition number five does not talk about any fencing requirements, so if that's the case that one may need to be modified. Then touching briefly on the south as well. Again, that landscape buffer-- I'll go where that salon is first. The salon was granted a variance by the city when that came in in 2002 or 2003, I can't remember now, but they were the higher intensity use at that point and weren't required to construct the landscape buffer adjacent to the -- at that point a single family home and so staff does not believe that it's fair to now put that on what was done from the family home, because the higher densities did not construct that at the time. Now, the two single family residences that front on Carlton are -- do not have the landscape buffer and there is a ten foot wide setback proposed to that building and leaving the existing fence that's up along that property line. I have not talked to either one of those property owners, but the staff report is written up to grant that modification. It's similar to the previous modification that was granted for this site. The one thing I guess I would like the applicant to further clarify, just to go on record, it is in the letter, again, dated yesterday, but the one hundred square foot of private use open space per unit, just to clarify it does state in the letter that they will meet that, I was just wanting maybe to point that out to show how that's being met, so when we look at the certificate of zoning compliance we can actually make sure that -- that it's being complied with. So, with that I believe I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? All right. Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward, please? Leatherman: Megan Leatherman, 12552 West Executive. Thanks a lot for your time tonight and thanks, Craig, for your work. I'm just going to be brief and touch on a couple Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 59 of 67 things that Craig brought up and also get on record some of the work that we have done with the neighbors and the agreements that we have come to with them. Oh. And he also -- well, first of all, the hundred foot open space -- square foot open space requirement, we are going to meet that, like he said, with the deck on the second floor for each unit and, then, on the bottom for two units with the patios and we have talked to the architects and that's not going to be a problem at all, we are going to be able to make that. And, then, for the neighbors -- in the previous CUP there -- Mr. Stevens, who lives on -- right here on this property, he, actually, uses a wheelchair and so he -- and this driveway is really very close to this property line and he was kind of concerned about him and his caretaker being able to maneuver around the fence and I did meet with Mr. Stevens several times and he, actually, says -- and the caretaker agreed -- that a four foot fence would be okay at this point and it would also be better for them to have the fence there, because it would keep some of the people from crossing over onto his property. He has a gas tank there, I believe, and he's kind of concerned about people getting to that. So, we believe that would be fine, you would, we would taper it down starting at the big fence, down to four feet to the end and so I guess that would need to be adjusted on item number five. And, then, for the other neighbors on the northern boundary down here, we sent out notifications of the changes to our plan and also held a neighborhood meeting and one of them came and talked to us, Mr. Row -- Mr. and Mrs. Row. They were fine with the plans, as long as we run along and didn't have the windows on the side and agreed to put on the balcony on the upper floors a wall, so you couldn't look through it. Does that make sense? And we said that was fine, we would do that, we had no problem with that. And so I -- they were, actually, here earlier to speak in favor of the project, but they kind of got tired and so had to leave. It is across the street from the gymnasium that was proposed earlier and accepted, I guess, and next to -- on -- down here are some more apartments as well. So, we feel it's a good suit for the site. Any questions? Zaremba: Commissioners? I do have one and it's either a mystery or a bad recollection on my part, but I think it was also shown in a photo that we were looking at a minute ago. Isn't there on this -- back there. Stop. That A frame garage -- now go back to the plan that we were just looking at. Shouldn't that be just about right here? Is that being removed? Leatherman: Yes. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Because I didn't remember in the earlier version that that was going to be removed. Leatherman: Yeah. We are removing it. Zaremba: It's now going to be removed? Leatherman: Uh-huh. Zaremba: That's great. That gives you more space for the neighbors. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 60 of 67 Leatherman: Right. Zaremba: I though that was one of their objections, that they didn't want the cars so close to their property line going around that garage. Leatherman: Yeah. Before on the project, yeah, the parking was on -- closer to their property line. Zaremba: So, you have solved a lot of problems by removing that. Good. Leatherman: Yeah. Zaremba: Any other questions? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, just one question. Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Megan? Leatherman: Yeah. Freckleton: Did I hear you correctly that you said that there was some sort of a gas tank? Leatherman: Well, I think so. I think that's what he said. Freckleton: Okay. Zaremba: You don't mean like oxygen gas or do you mean fuel gas? Leatherman: I'm not sure. I'm sorry. He did mention something about being scared that people were going to steal gas. Zaremba: We are hearing that there is a small shed in the backyard for a lawn mower and he, apparently, has supplies for that. Freckleton: Okay. That's-- Leatherman: I'm not sure. I'm sorry. I just thought -- we just thought that he would have more privacy that way with a fence. Freckleton: Okay. I was just -- when you said gas tank, I just got all concerned. Zaremba: You haven't noticed the pumps in his front yard? Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 61 of 67 Leatherman: Yeah. Thanks. Zaremba: Bill Row. Care to say anything? Oh, they were the ones that left. Bill and Vera Row have left. Okay. And Michael Morrison, you're signed up. Care to say anything? Morrison: Michael B. Morrison, 3405 North Curt Drive. I own property on 2 1/2 Street. I spoke on the gymnasium. Unlike the other gentleman that had this property, this gentleman is easy to work with, he's provided more parking, worked with all the neighbors, very nice, cordial, done his job. I'm for it. Zaremba: Thank you. Appreciate your comment. Newton-Huckabay: You're a very concise speaker. Zaremba: Well, we understand on the other one. We weren't ignoring your parking issues, but it's the City Council that's going to have that hearing, so -- Morrison: I realize that, but with the salon that you did have issues with, like I say, when I drive by there is 15 cars parked there. They are parked on the front of this unit, they are parked across at the gymnasium, they are parked -- they are parked everywhere and it's causing an issue parking, driving, more use of the street and everything. As long as you're aware of it. And like I say, when I have people parking in front of my house going to the salon, that's not good. Zaremba: And I agree, we don't want to add to the problem. Morrison: Thank you very much. Anything else? Zaremba: Thank you for your help. Morrison: Okay. Thank you for your time. Zaremba: Let's see. We probably don't need any rebuttal, unless you have anything further you wish to say, Mrs. Leatherman. Okay. Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: No comment. Zaremba: Okay. Are we ready for an action? Close the Public Hearing would be in order. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Go right ahead, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 62 of 67 Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 05-025. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Before I make a motion, I need to ask staff where we need to address that fence -- you had mentioned that -- Zaremba: What page is it on? Rohm: Oh, what page is that on? Moe: Is that page 11? Hood: Page 11. Yeah. Mr. Chair. Moe: Item number five? Hood: Yeah. You could do that there or you could add a whole new condition, if you so choose, regarding fencing, because there isn't -- Moe: I didn't note any fencing anywhere. Hood: There isn't. So, it would be a modification to -- the third bullet talks about the -- excuse me. The fourth bullet talks about a buffer -- a landscape buffer along the north property line, so this could be considered part of that buffer. It would fit in there. Or if you wanted to add a whole new condition, that would work, too. Rohm: And I guess I need some help with that condition a little bit, just that it's acceptable that they put a four-foot fence -- Hood: Yeah. We don't have any fencing requirements per se. The applicant, again, was showing a six-foot fence from their east boundary to that oak tree, approximately. Previously we tried to accommodate that neighbor and it was pretty much left up to his discretion, whatever he wanted to see, some shrubs or fence, was kind of left open to accommodate him. So, if you -- so with those directions, trying to make sure that someone's complied with the condition. But a four-foot fence would be agreeable to staff, if that's what the property owner to the north wants. Rohm: It's a four-foot fence from the oak to the street? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 19, 2005 Page 63 of 67 Hood: 2 1/2 Street. Yeah. And that would also taper down to, you know, three feet and be clear vision within 20 feet of the right of way. But we can work with them on designing that. Zaremba: Or you could just say there is more fence than shows on the drawing. Rohm: Well, I have already written this now. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman -- Borup: That landscape drawing does show a fence all the way to the street, I believe. It just can't -- doesn't -- the height is maybe what's changed. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-025, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of May 19th, 2005, and received May 16th, 2005, with one change, which would be an additional bullet on page 11, item five, and the bullet would read: Applicant to build a six foot fence to the oak and a four foot fence or less the remainder of the distance to 2 1/2 Street. Moe: Second. Rohm: End of motion. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 05-015 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 59.30 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 05-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 246 building (244 residential units, 1 daycare & 1 pool/locker facility / restroom) lots and 26 other lots on 59.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Crossfield Subdivision by Packard Estates Development, LLC - 955 West Ustick Road: Item 19: Public Hearing: CUP 05-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential units with a request to allow for reduced setbacks, reduced lot size, reduced frontages, reduced house sizes and block lengths in excess of 1,000 feet in a proposed R-8