Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 15, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 14 of 57 Zaremba: Okay. Next is Irvine Subdivision and I will open the continued public hearings AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05-039 and entertain a motion to continue those to October 6th. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Yes. I move -- I move the public hearings for AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05-039, be continued to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of August the 6th, 2006. Rohm: October 6th? Moe: October 6th. What did I say? Rohm: Second. Zaremba: Motion and a second to continue these to October 6th, 2005. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 05-041 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.15 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Woodburn Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 840 West Ustick Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 05-041 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 47 single family residential building lots and 10 common area lots on 10.15 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Woodburn Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 840 West Ustick Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: CUP 05-042 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for Woodburn Subdivision that includes reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and setbacks by Centennial Development, LLC - 840 West Ustick Road: Zaremba: Okay. Now, we are ready for one we are really going to deal with. I will open the public hearings for AZ 05-041, PP 05-041, and CUP 05-042, all relating to Woodburn Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject site is located on the west side Venable Lane, approximately 600 feet north of Ustick Road. It's outlined in purple in the overhead. It is just west of a future school site here that was platted with Baldwin Park and south of the approved Sienna Creek Subdivision. You can actually see an outline of that plat there and the lots within that subdivision. The Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 15 of 57 site has not be previously platted and is designated mixed use community and medium density residential on the 2002 future land use map. There is a neighborhood center shown on the Comprehensive Plan approximately this half noon location here. A portion of it -- a large portion of this site is within that mixed-use designation. I will flip to the next slide. There has been a car wash, convenience store type business right here, approved by the city with a development agreement for that site, so part of that neighborhood center has been approved. To the south of the subject site is still rural residential, zoned RUT in Ada County. The same with the west of the site, there are some large parcels still in Ada County, zoned RUT. The subject annexation, zoning, preliminary plat and Conditional Use Permit include 47 build-able lots and ten common lots. This is the landscape plan. It depicts pretty well the common areas, the build-able lots. There are 24 attached lots here. This is a grouping of five town-homes. There is a grouping of three, three, and four and four. So, different number townhouses on the interior, with the exterior lots being single-family detached lots. The gross density of the subdivision is 4.63 dwelling units per acre. The planned development includes a request for reductions to the minimum lot size for primarily the townhouse lots, although a lot of the detached lots also do request some deviations from the standards, including minimum lot size, the street frontage, and the setbacks of the R-8 zone. As amenities, the applicant is proposing open space in excess of 13 percent of the site, playground equipment here in the middle of their large open space area, and a picnic area on Lot 13, Block 3, as well. With the internal pathway system, there are detached sidewalks and the micro-paths and pathway through their large open area in the middle of the project. Access to the development is proposed off of -- this is Venable Lane down to Ustick Road, proposed from the east, and a stub street that was approved with Sienna Creek Subdivision from the north. That will be extended into the site as well. There weren't really a lot of changes for staff in the report. Just a couple to mention, originally the landscape plan did show a tot lot more over in this location. After discussing with the police department, we recommended that the tot lot be moved more centrally to this open space area, that way patrol can -- patrol in the neighborhood can have eyes more on that tot lot from all directions, makes it more visible and accessible, even to the entire subdivision. The other change that we had is a fairly new one. The first time I have written it into a staff report. In conjunction with ACHD's new standards for parkway strips -- it's hard to tell at this scale, but the detached sidewalks we do require an eight foot detachment parkway between the back of curb and the face of the sidewalk there. So, they were showing -- five is what's been standard for a long time and just working with ACHD and the root systems of trees, we have enlarged those for these different classifications of trees. So, those were the two changes that I just wanted to point out. I will show you an elevation of one of the townhouse lots quickly. Each townhouse will also contain an element of architectural relief, such as stucco finish, brick or rock, and includes some vinyl shutters. Staff is recommending approval of AZ 05-041, PP 05- 041, and CUP 05-042, for Woodburn Subdivision, with the conditions of approval as noted in the staff report. And I will stand for any questions you may have. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Okay. Thank you. In that case we are ready for the applicant. And while he's coming forward, I forgot to mention we have this handy light system. When the green light is on you have time to talk. The Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 16 of 57 yellow light will come on warning you that it's time to conclude. And when the red one comes on we ask that you discontinue. Thank you very much. Mr. Nickel. Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shawn Nickel, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle, representing the developer and the Woodburn Subdivision. I'm not going to add too much at this point to staff's presentation. Craig did a good job. We are fine with relocating that tot lot. I think that's a good idea to get it more centrally located, to provide better connection with the pathway system to that central location. The rest of the conditions of approval as recommended to you by staff are acceptable to my developer. This is sort of a continuation of the Sienna Creek Subdivision. Different developer, but same concept. More of a mixed housing type with the single family detached and those attached units towards the middle. Keeping in mind that the Comprehensive Plan does call this area out as medium residential at three to eight units to the acre. So, the 4.6 is -- I think is a good -- a good density for our application. So, with that I'll stand for any questions you have. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Great. Thank you. Nickel: Thank you. Zaremba: We do have a couple of people signed up to speak, but first let me ask if there is any representative speaking for a group on this issue? Okay. Shane Baker, please. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Shane Baker. I live at 707 West Ashby Drive, the neighborhood adjacent. Could I ask clarification from staff about the zoning of those adjacent neighborhoods? Cedar Springs? Zaremba: We, actually, ask them. You ask us and we ask them, but if staff would comment. I believe some of them are R-8. Borup: I think Cedar Spring is R-8. Did you say you're in Cedar Springs? Baker: Yes. Borup: But you don't know what your zoning is? Baker: No. Borup: Okay. Baker: It's not contiguous with Cedar Springs, but I consider it adjacent in my definition of the term. My back window would look out on the development. Zaremba: Well, our staff report always has what's around it and I'm not finding it. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 17 of 57 Borup: Right. That's because it's not contiguous. Baker: I signed up to comment on -- specifically on AZ 05-041. I guess my comments are really relevant to CUP 05-042. That is I don't see anything in the applicant's proposal that would suggest that we -- that the commission or the city should allow any reductions to the requirements for lot size, street frontage, or setbacks as stipulated in the existing zoning. So, this constitutes an increase density from the surrounding subdivisions, I think, and I don't see anything really in the proposal that would warrant that in terms any kind of amenities or considerations that would offset the negative aspects of increasing that and giving a variance against the existing zoning. So, I would be opposed to the proposed Conditional Use Permit as currently stated. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Also signed up is Katie Baker. Her husband spoke for her. They are in agreement, which is good. Those are the only ones we have signed up, although there is an opportunity, if somebody did not sign up, to speak if you wish to. If not, we will ask the applicant to return, please. Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Again, Shawn Nickel. I appreciate the neighbor's comments. And just to explain the concept of planned development, first of all, the -- our proposed density is 4.63 dwelling units per acre and we are asking for the R-8. Cedar Springs is at 4.3 dwelling units per acre. So, density is -- Zaremba: Give us those numbers again slowly, please. Nickel: 4.3-- Borup: Both sets of numbers. Nickel: 4.68? Borup: 6.3 is what the staff report says. Nickel: And 4.3 on Cedar Springs. Sienna Creek was 4.43. And Baldwin Park I didn't have a chance to calculate. But it's up there as well. Around four units to the acre. The purpose of the PUD, you know, is to provide for reduction in the lot sizes in exchange for usable open space amenities, things that are not found in typical subdivisions that would meet the base zone. So, with the PUD that we are proposing, we are providing 13 percent open space, along with a pathway system, a tot lot, and a picnic area as our amenities. So, that's the trade-off for allowing the reduced frontages and lot sizes. And, again, we are doing that to try to meet that mixed use -- or mixed housing type and to get that density up to what the Comp Plan anticipates. So, that's, for the record, and for the neighbors. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 18 of 57 Nickel: Any questions? Zaremba: Any questions from the Commissioners? Borup: No questions. Zaremba: While you're standing there, we just confirmed with staff that one of the ideas about the neighborhood center is that it's kind of an expanding radius of transitions, there being commercial retail in the middle of it and, then, a little bit higher density about the location where this project is. And, then, the next circle out would be a little lower density. Am I interpreting that correctly? Hood: That's correct. And without making the neighbors' upset, that is this -- I mean this density I think is a good transition. Staff personally, if you would just look at the Comp Plan that way, probably even higher densities would be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. But we thought this was a good transition, being that there already were established subdivisions, to not go to that eight dwelling units that the Comprehensive Plan is looking at as a goal in this area and so we thought it was a pretty good compromise, getting them up to a little bit higher than what is around there, but it's not quite as high as what was envisioned back in 2002, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Nickel: And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, just to follow up" we did meet with staff during the design of this to see if we were -- to make sure we were on the right path, to make sure we didn't want to try to incorporate some higher density or maybe some commercial and this was kind of the way we all decided to go, including the staff. So, that's a result of that plan you see in front of you. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Nickel: Thank you. Zaremba: Commissioners, discussion? Borup: Lot sizes, you know, got reduced, but as far as density and compliance with the zone and everything else, it's right in there. Moe: I thought that's just fine. Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the -- Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 15, 2005 Page 19 of 57 Moe: I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-041, PP 05-041, and CUP 05- 042. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 05- 041, PP 05-41, and CUP 05-042 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date September 15th, 2005, preliminary plat dated July 10th, 2005, and site plan dated July 10th, 2005. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 05-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.30 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision No.2 by Larkspur LLC - 200 and 205 East Rosalyn Court: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 05-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 50 building lots and 4 common lots on 10.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision No.2 by Larkspur LLC - 200 and 205 East Rosalyn Court: Item 18: Public Hearing: CUP 05-038 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for reduced minimum lot size, frontages and setbacks on 10.30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Larkspur Subdivision No.2 by Larkspur LLC - 200 and 205 East Rosalyn Court: Zaremba: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-036, PP 05-035, and CUP 05-038, all relating to Larkspur Subdivision. And we will, again, begin with the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Larkspur Subdivision is proposed east of State Highway 69 or South Meridian Road as it's known south of