Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 18, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning August18,2005 Page 37 of 98 Zaremba: Thank you all very much. We have reached 9:00 o'clock, which is traditionally time for us to take a break. We will take ten minutes and reconvene. (Recess. ) Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: AZ 05-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.1 acres to R-8 zone for Windwalker Subdivision by Beckit Development, Inc. - 2770 South Locust Grove Road: ~ Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from July 21, 2005: PP 05-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 residential building lots and 4 common area lots on 5.10 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Windwalker Subdivision by Beckit Development, Inc. - 2770 South Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene our meeting and let the record show all Commissioners that were here before our break are here again. And we will open the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-030 and PP 05-030, both related to Windwalker Subdivision, and the purpose of continuing this until this meeting was for the single subject of discussing the ten foot -- ten foot setback, excuse me, around the perimeter of the property and -- we will begin with staff comments. Guenther: Mr. Chairman, you also have to open CUP 05-036, which is on the front page. Nary: No, that's -- Zaremba: 036 is Banff. Yeah. Guenther: Oh. Okay. Sorry. This doesn't have a CUP associated with it. Zaremba: This does not have a CUP. Thank you. So, we are referring to AZ 05-030 and PP 05-030. Guenther: That's correct. Zaremba: And does staff have comments for us? Guenther: Staff has one comment and that is that the applicant has delivered to us an indication that she met individually with every owner that she possibly could and they are still amenable to going to the ten foot side yard setback, which would be the rear setback of the other two subdivisions, and staff still supports the design as presented with the conditions of approval. Meridian Planning & Zoning August18,2005 Page 38 of 98 Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any questions? Okay. And we said that we would allow either Mr. Harris or Mr. Williams to address that for us on behalf of the applicant. Are either one of those here? Williams: Good evening. Carla Williams. 2065 East Fairview. And, yes, I have met with as many of the homeowners that I possibly could get ahold of. I have an updated version of what I had provided -- of what I provided to staff and out of the 21 homes that are backing up to this development, 15 residents have told me that they are in support of the ten foot variance. Two of the homes are vacant. And there were four homes that I was not able to contact. So, that's about a 71 percent of the neighbors that backed to Windwalker are in support of the ten foot variance. I have picked up the variance application. I'm prepared to fill out all of the documents required forthat and to pay the fee if that is the recommendation. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you. Then, we also said we would hear from a spokesman from the subdivisions and would that Mr. Strolberg? Strolberg: I'm Eric Strolberg, 1872 East Dwarshack. And I was a spokesman at the last meeting. My understanding with the neighbors I talked to and Mrs. Williams said that we would accept the additional five feet, making a ten foot setback. The consensus from the people I spoke to still don't care for the development plan, but they would accept the additional five feet, is what we were going to address tonight. Zaremba: Great. Thank you very much. Commissioners, any further questions? Okay. And either staff or Mr. Nary, is there a form that our recommendation to the City Council needs to be in that indicates -- I think the consensus of the Commission was absent the ten foot setback we would actually wish to deny it, but it's conditional on that ten foot setback that we would recommend approval. Is there a way that we should state that? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, what I would recommend to you, then, is if that is your -- if that is your desire to recommend approval only contingent upon that and since, obviously, this Commission doesn't get to hear those applications for variance, that's probably the nature of what your motion should be and your recommendation or direction to the staff is not to prepare findings necessarily, but to simply forward that recommendation for approval, somewhat similar to the older format that we used to do prior to the recent changes in how these go to the Council, is simply that recommendation with the staff report, with the reasons for the approval based upon that ten foot setback, instead of the five, and have the staff forward it in that manner and if the Council were to, then, concur with that and grant the variance, then, they could direct findings to be prepared to that effect and that would probably make more sense for the staff to be in this very odd quandary of preparing findings for approval contingent upon an action the City Council hasn't even heard in front of them yet. The only other issue would be is, then, the application would have to get filed, requesting that and, Meridian Planning & Zoning August18,2005 Page 39 of 98 then, the staff and probably the clerk's office would have to track to make sure those projects stayed together and the variance would have to get heard prior to those -- prior to this application being heard. It can be heard the same day or heard on the same night, because we have done those before as well at the Councilleve/, so -- but, hopefully, that answers your question. I think you would want to make a recommendation and staff would forward that with a report to the Council. Rohm: Before we move forward with that, it seems to me that if the project can't come to fruition until the variance has been granted or denied, then, what would be wrong with just waiting until the application for variance catches up with the project, so that they all three could move forward concurrently? I mean not -- they would still -- the project would still gain approval or denial at the exact same moment, because you can't conclude the development until the variance is acted on; is that correct? Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Rohm, I guess I'll see what Mr. Hawkins-Clark's perspective is. This is a little bit odd in the sense that you're only -- if this is your only basis for granting approval of the annexation request is - - and the plat is this variance, I don't know if we have had cases where the Council has only heard the variance and you haven't had this moved forward until that's been decided. I can't recall -- I can't recall any like that. I think what we had is we have had a -- that I can think of -- we have had applications and projects go forward to City Council at the same time that the variance was before them and if for some reason in timing the variance application somehow got on the agenda before this project or after this project, we always tracked them and kept them together. But I can't think of one -- and maybe I misunderstood your question. If you wish to move this forward, you certainly can, based upon that variance issue and the Council would have to hear it in that manner. If they, again, denied the variance, they would know your recommendation is denial. If they denied the variance, it wouldn't comply with the staff's recommendation and it would be denial as well and the Council would probably address that accordingly. Am I incorrect, Mr. Hawkins-Clark? I don't recall any that we separated them, so -- Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. I don't believe we have had that. Moe: I just want to make sure -- I mean we are approving these as per staff comments, along with the variance. Zaremba: Yes. All previous staff comments, plus the requirement for the variance. And my instinct would be -- since we don't hear the variances or any part of it, I don't see the need for us to continue this Public Hearing in front of us. If I'm understanding Commissioner Rohm's question, you were thinking we wouldn't take an action until we knew about the variance. Rohm: Well, just so that they would all finish out at the same time was my only comment, but if, in fact, the two are going to get married back up when they are before City Council, there is no reason to delay our actions tonight, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning August 18,2005 Page 40 of 98 Zaremba: If it's properly worded, I think the City Council understands that our recommendation is based upon the requirement of the variance. Rohm: Okay. Guenther: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Yes. Guenther: There is several remedies that can happen with this project and it wouldn't necessarily mean that they would have to do the variance, which is where you keep -- you keep mentioning the variance. With that, what you're recommending was the ten- foot side setback. How the applicant chooses -- she could potentially keep the 15-foot front setback and choose to redesign her front buildings in order to meet that 15-foot front setback and that would be another option for her. There is several options. However, if she wanted to choose the variance option, she could definitely do that and keep -- and just move her building envelope closer to the road, which is what we have indicated that we would support that as well. But she's got many other options to do that. But what I'm getting from you is that you're just looking for a ten-foot side setback for this site. Zaremba: I think that was the net result of the discussion last time was we narrowed it down to that. I'm pretty sure we did -- once, again, there could be a complete redesign. They don't have to be duplexes, they could be -- Guenther: Well, they would have to be with this type of -- with this design with the common lots. That is a requirement of the R-8 district. But to make a variance a condition of approval is not the way that staff would recommend that you make that motion. Or just make a motion that it's a ten-foot side setback and let the applicant decide how she wishes to pursue that. Zaremba: I can work with that. Borup: Same result; right? Zaremba: And just to clarify, since the buildings are turned sideways, when we talk about the side setback, we are talking about the perimeter fence line of this property. On a normal project that would be the rear setback, but it's the side setback, because the buildings are oriented differently. So, I just want to make clear that we are talking about the perimeter fence line, regardless of how the buildings are oriented. Are we ready for -- our first motion would be close the Public Hearing if we are out of discussion. Rohm: I'll make that motion. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Meridian Planning & Zoning August18,2005 Page 41 of 98 Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-030 and PP 05-030. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-030. End of motion. Oh. Wait. Excuse me. To include all staff comments from both the hearing dates of July 21 st, 2005, and August 18th, 2005. Rohm: Second. Moe: I'll do that on the -- Zaremba: Are we including the ten-foot setback? Moe: We will when I do the preliminary plat. Zaremba: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-031, to include all staff comments of the hearing date of July 21 st, 2005, as well as August 18th, 2005, with one additional site specific condition, number 22, and that would be to require a ten foot setback -- side setback at all lots. End of motion. Zaremba: Okay. And I believe you said that the file number was PP 05-031. It's actually 030. Moe: I'm sorry. 05-030. That is correct. Zaremba: Okay. Is there a second? Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. Thank you.