Loading...
October 6, 2005 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 60 of 85 Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in flavor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you all very much. And as earlier requested, we have gone well past our 9:00 o'clock traditional break and we will take a break at this paint and reconvene -- let's make it 15 minutes. (Recess.) Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 05-042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.63 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road: Item 1G: Public Hearing: PP 05-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential building lots and 8 common area lots on 8.57 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 05-044 Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for Medford Place Subdivision that includes reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage by Dyver Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road: Zaremba: All right. We will reconvene our meeting this evening and let the record show that all Commissioners are again present and I will open the public hearings for AZ 05- 042, PP 05-043, and CUP 05-044, all relating to Medford Place Subdivision and we will begin as usual with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject applications are for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit for a planned development consisting of 29 build-able lots and eight common other lots on 8.57 acres. The site is located, as you can see, on the overhead on the southwest corner of Eagle and Victory. The adjacent properties are pretty much rural residential as you can see around. Across the -- across Eagle Road the city did recently approve a two-lot subdivision. The existing single-family house is going to stay and, then, they are proposing some assisted living. They are capable of self-preservation, a retirement community there on the south side of Falcon Drive. There is a future elementary school planned in this location. Messina Hills Subdivision -- this aerial is a little bit old. You can see the overlay of the actual lots in Messina. Some of those homes are there today. That was Maxfield Subdivision. I'm sorry, I forgot the name of that, but Maxfield Subdivision there. Pretty much everything else around it is still rural residential, zoned Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 61 of 85 RUT in Ada County. Just a couple of things on the proposed development. The applicant is proposing 22 single-family lots. All of those lots -- I guess I should note, first off, before I get too far looking at the plat, the original preliminary plat, the one that you had in your packet, did have a street that aligned with Falcon Drive. Subsequent to the transmittals going out, ACRD met with the applicant and at least one neighbor in this area, about their concerns about Falcon Drive and traffic in the area, specifically getting in and out of Falcon Drive. The entrance into this subdivision has subsequently been moved to the south property line or just near the south property line, so my comments in the staff report were based on this revised drawing changing that street location and some other minor changes that are also called out in the staff report, but I did just want to make you aware of that. So, the 22 single family home lots are, basically, on the west side of the main north-south road in the development all on this side and, then, when you get to the northwest corner of the development, the multi-family -- or multi- family units, seven of them along Eagle and -- six along Eagle, I guess, and one along Victory Road, four-plexes, so there is 28 multi-family units, for a total of 50 dwelling units on the eight plus acres. There were a couple of things that in the staff report were called out as needing clarification. I guess just to jump to the chase, the staff is recommending that the action by this board be a couple of things, I guess, or at your discretion based on the public hearings and how you feel about this development. Long story short, the applicant submitted a rezone application -- annexation application far a zone that does not allow multi-family dwelling units. So, the city cannot approve this development as submitted. So, the options you have are to either limit them through the planned development ordinance to a maximum of 20 percent of the site being used for multi-family or to have -- require the applicant to submit a new application, if you like this design, basically, for an R-15 zone for the eastern portion of this site and came back before you, because we do need to notice those neighbors that it is a higher zone that's being requested. Basically be the same development, but the zoning and city ordinance just does not allow it as proposed. So, with that -- and without getting into some of the other tot lot and private open space and dumpster locations, I guess I will leave staff comments at that, unless you want me to go into further descriptions on those. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, questions or further knowledge you need at this point? All right. Thank you. We will ask for the applicant to come forward, please. Amar: Thank you, Mr. Commissioners and Madam Commissioner. For the record, my name is Kevin Amar. Address 36 East Pine in Meridian. And I'm here tonight representing Medford Place Subdivision. It is a 29-lot subdivision, 50 dwelling units. And when we first acquired this property we approached the city and were actually approached by some of the neighbors thinking that this area -- my pointer is a little weak tonight. But this area in here would be an ideal spot for some sort of commercial or light office and was informed that -- that the Comprehensive Plan is for medium density residential, up to eight dwelling units to the acre and the city would in no way support light office. So, we are proposing -- and have met with the neighbors on numerous occasions -- a residential zone, but maintaining this transition from Eagle and Victory which, admittedly are busy, highly traveled areas, with a multi-family unit and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 62 of 85 transitioning into a single family detached unit in this area. In the neighborhood meeting -- we had a neighborhood meeting and, then, met with the neighbors an various occasions to discuss this project and have here tonight three of the neighbors who -- I'm going to speak far them and they can correct me if I'm wrong -- I believe are primarily concerned -- they were the ones that requested the relocation of the access from ACHD and we did comply and the primary concern, I believe, is the traffic, which we all understand is an issue. Overland Road -- or, I'm sorry, Victory and Eagle are slated to be improved. They will follow the Cloverdale and Victory intersection improvements and is on the ACHD five-year plan and is actually a funded project. So, it is in the process of being signalized and improving this road, as well as Victory, far abetter -- now it's just a four way stop. It will be a signalized intersection. As I stated, we had a neighborhood meeting and we probably had a dozen neighbors there. But I believe after speaking with them and talking about our intent and the type of the building we were doing and the type for the four-plexes, which I da have a picture, that satisfied many of them and -- thank you very much. This is, actually, a picture for the four-plex, so when you look at it it looks mare like asingle-family dwelling. There is an entry point at this location and, then, from there there is a vestibule inside that you can enter into the actual units or go upstairs and enter into the other units. Our intent was to create more of a residential feel, rather than a commercial or amulti-family feel and is this what we are proposing to build out there. There may or may not be a door there, but it will be the same -- the same look. It will have porches an it, on the four-plexes, and the balance of the project, the single family homes will also be strongly encouraged to incorporate that same porch design, so it gives more of the -- the old town -- people sitting on their porches and enjoying the neighbors and the whole area. We have 5.8 dwelling units per acre. We have got 19 percent total open space, which is almost two acres. Twelve percent is actually usable open space. So, it exceeds the five percent. We have requested a PUD with this application and in the PUD one of staffs comments was with respect to this tot lot in this location and I'm referencing the colored map now. They were concerned that the tat lot was from the rest of the project. We are, actually, proposing two separate tot lots, one in this location and one in this location, to provide areas in both the north and the south. And, then, another comment was also this pathway that would connect to the future school site, which we are also proposing a pathway to connect the future school site. So, I believe all the concerns with respect to the staff report -- we are in agreement with the staff report. When we submitted the PUD, we submitted it as an R-8 PUD and did not realize that you were not allowed, in any event, to have multi-family ar a four-plex unit. We have met with Craig and staff and came to the determination -- and I believe staff said it best -- that they would rather the application stay the same and submit for an R-15. In doing that, my proposal would be to -- with the development agreement still limit the density to the density we have here. We are not trying to increase the density within an R-15, we are just complying with the applicable rules for this project. I believe with that I would stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 63 of 85 Borup: Just a quick question on the rezone area. Unless I misunderstood, Craig, do they have the option of just zoning the property on the perimeter, the R-15, and leaving the other R-S? Was that your intention, then? Amar: That was our intent and I'm sorry I wasn't clear. Borup: Okay. Amar: So, the area that has the four-plexes would be the R-15, the balance would remain at R-8. Borup: Okay. Amar: But I know the neighbors will be concerned that somebody may come in and not do four-plexes and do something else. My intent would be to put that in the development agreement and limit it to the density of whatever it is, 5.83 units to the acre and we still have the same project. Borup: And with the same style of four-plex. Amar: Correct. And that can be referenced also. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members -- Zaremba: Yes, Mr. Hood. Hood: -- of the Commission, Ijust -- just a couple things. One, with the rezone application, just so the applicant knows, typically that rezone will go to the center line of the roadway, so if that's the way that the Commission is leaning, if you could just make that clear, that we need a new legal description with the -- the zone should go to the center line of the roadway. The second thing that Iguess I -- just so this will make the next hearing that much quicker, this is the only elevation that you did submit and I was curious if this is the front elevation and, in fact, if the front is towards Eagle Road or if this is towards your internal and if, in fact, either way, what does the back look like, I guess, because one of them is going to be facing Eagle Road, so what our people -- the majority of the people that are driving by are going to be seeing -- is it this elevation or is there another elevation? Amar: This elevation, actually, will be seen by the interior streets. This property is unique in that the elevation of the property is significantly lower than the -- bath Eagle and Victory. So, that from Eagle and Victory, especially up in this corner, although they are two story dwellings, I mean they won't appear to be two story, just because the -- right now the property is about eight to ten feet below the road. With the future road improvements it will be four to six feet below the road, which still means your building is only going to be seeing a portion of it and what we have proposed is to screen this access with trees and different things. So, our intent is that we don't want a lot of vision Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 64 of 85 to the four-plexes from Eagle. I can get elevations of the rear, but I really hope that we don't even see the rear of the elevations from this project. We will be fencing it with a six foot vinyl fence and, then, also putting those -- that landscaping and so, hopefully -- obviously, you're going to see them, but it will be less obtrusive than a two story dwelling on the road. Zaremba: Let me ask the mechanics. I, actually, would be interested in seeing an elevation of what are the -- the people on Eagle going to see and if that's the back, then, that isn't this, but it sounds like there is a mechanics of -- I guess I'm not talking about mechanics. A timeline. If you apply to actually make this portion of it the R-15 and we want to keep all of it together before it goes to the City Council, I would assume, we are at some point going to continue our current discussion and where do we think we are going to continue to, and at that time could you bring a rear vision -- or an Eagle side vision, is what I would ask for. So, the first question to you is can you do that by the time we hear it again? Amar: Yes, I can. Zaremba: And the question of staff is when is that likely to be? Hood: Tomorrow. Amar: Okay. Hood: No. No. Amar: If you can get it done my tomorrow, I will have the -- Zaremba: In the morning? I have an appointment in the afternoon Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, we anticipate if the applicant can get us that rezone application by the 15th -- or, actually, the 14th of this month, which is next Friday, the first of December would be that hearing. So, if we have a complete application -- which we anticipate -- a rezone application is pretty -- you have the application pretty much filled out already, so a new legal description would need to be prepared, but we anticipate December 1st, if you can continue the other two items to the December 1st hearing and, then, let that rezone catch up, we can, again, hear these items or the continued items and any rezone application on the 1st of December. Amar: And that's -- Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: That's acceptable? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 65 of 85 Amar: That's acceptable. The thought with bringing it forward still tonight was that notice has already gone out to the neighbors, so we might as well have our discussion tonight. Zaremba: Sure. Amar: One thing I did not mention was with respect to fencing. I mentioned it briefly on both Victory and Eagle. That will be a six-foot vinyl fence, a solid fence, and, then, adjacent to all the common areas will actually be a four-foot vinyl -- solid vinyl fence. I know that was a topic of discussion in the last hearing and I didn't want that to be a question in this hearing. Zaremba: Okay. Commissioners, any other questions? All right. Thank you. Amar: Thank you. Zaremba: Also signed up is Bob Aldridge. Thank you. Aldridge: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Bab Aldridge, 3300 1=alcon Drive. Let's see. I don't have a pointer. Zaremba: Here, you can use mine. Aldridge: I'm right there. And I'm probably the most affected neighbor in terms of partially the vision line, but especially the traffic. I have been living there for over 20 years now and our problem is right here. When I come out in the morning there is traffic stopped from here clear back dawn passed Tuscany. I get in when somebody lets me come into that solid line. That was our concern and that's why when initially the ACHD requested a hearing, which would have been held yesterday and, then, had a meeting with staff and with the developer and we felt that moving the road down here would alleviate a lot of that problem, because we were really concerned about people coming to this and trying to come across and merge into this traffic that right now is stopped and when the light comes in is going to be moving at a fair rate of speed and we think that will alleviate a lot by having that road. So, that was my major concern with the project and we wanted to make sure it was kept. We also want to urge the Commissioners to continue to look at the traffic problem on Eagle. Right now the intersection's going in -- and that's in the five year plan, but the only road improvements between Victory and Amity aren't scheduled until 2011 -- until 2017 and that's increased to a three lane road. So, we are considerably out and only to a three-lane road. You have got five heavy lanes of traffic coming from the north, funneling down -- you're approving a lot of projects on out south. The Kingsbridge, for example, is breaking ground right now just over across the road. It's been approved on its first phase. So, there is going to be a lot of traffic on Eagle and there has got to be an overall plan to affect that put in place. I think between ACRD and the city they are going to have to figure out what's going to happen with Eagle Road or we are simply going to go right back to having massive problems like we now have north of the freeway. And so that's, really, the second part Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 66 of $5 of coming before you is to request that you look at that as you go through other projects and as you interact with ACRD. We do like the design. I was one of the neighbors that thought it should be some sort of office, et cetera, that -- you know, for 15 years at least I thought that's where it was going to go, but we understand that bath ACHD and the city simply don't want that to happen, they believe it should be residential. And so if it's going to be residential, we think this is a good design and a good use of the property. Be happy to answer any questions. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much. Let"s see. That covers everybody that was signed up, although if somebody else would care to speak -- sir, come forward. Hartenstein: Thank you. My name is Mark Hartenstein. I had attempted to live at the southeast corner, which is 32 South Eagle Road, which is a piece of property my family has purchased about a year and a half ago. I currently live at 601 Beacon Street, just for the record. I plan to move to that corner location and operate a law practice and do a home office and live in the back. I found the location so noisy that I thought it would be impossible to live there. I bring that to your attention partly because we are trying to figure out what to do with the corners, since we don't think it's suitable for residential. And I know as you probably may or may not be aware, we will be coming back before the Commission sometime in the next few weeks -- I think on the 17th as part of this Eagle Road Alliance, thinking that the area should probably be offices and possibly some neighborhood or community retail and I would like to comment on Bob Aldridge's observation. There is an enormous amount of development going on south that's largely residential, It will contribute a lot of additional traffic coming toward that intersection and the intersection is already extremely busy, extremely backed up and I urge the Commission and any notes that can go back to ACHD to try to get higher -- move up the priority of moving that road from two or three lanes to five lines certainly as far back as Amity and certainly in as short of time frame as currently planned. And I think with that that's all my final comments. If you have any questions I would be glad to address them. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. Anybody else care to add anything? Yes. Come forward. Krasinski: Good evening. My name is Chantelle Krasinski and I live at 3475 East Falcon Drive. I'm the last house on Falcon Drive. And Ijust -- my only comment -- the previous speakers have echoed my ideas on traffic and I have spoken before the Commission before about that. The only thing I would like to add is if we are going to go with a zone of R-15 there, I would just be concerned as you continue to approve things on the south side of Victory, that that doesn't become the norm. I think R-15 is appropriate if -- I think that the four-plexes look nice that that right there on that busy intersection, that makes sense to buffer, you know, the residential, but I just wouldn't want that to become the standard as we move forward and go along south there of Victory. So, that would be my only comment. Thanks. Meridian Planning ~ Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 67 of 85 Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions? Borup: I agree with that. Zaremba: Anybody else care to comment? Okay. Mr. Amar. Amar: Thank you. I will be very brief. I appreciated working with the neighbors. It's actually been -- at the ACHD meeting I think it was Mr. Aldridge said this is the easiest controversial meeting I have ever had. Something to that effect. It improved the project. Listening to the neighbors actually did help and we have moved the traffic away from their drive and I do appreciate their help and think we'd like to continue forward. I know we have got to make another application with the R-15 zoning, if that's your decision and that's what I have requested this evening. Zaremba: Any questions? Borup: A minor question. Since this is a CUP, you have shown us a picture of the four- plex, which is wondertul. We have been talking about trying to get something like that in the city far a long time. But I assume from what you said that the single-family homes are Craftsman style? Amar: Yeah. They will be Craftsman style. They will be encouraged to have parches - - not required, but certainly encouraged and the different architectural relief that that brings. Borup: All right. Thank you Zaremba: I guess this isn't actually an issue for your application and maybe staff would want to weigh in on this, but I can agree with the consensus of the neighbors that along Eagle Road that may be more appropriate to be something other than residential. I don't have a problem with what you're proposing, but I agree that the bulk of the properties facing Eagle Road are probably going to need to be office or neighborhood commercial or something like that and I don't know whether staff has forecasting -- I know that's not what the Comprehensive Plan says at the moment, but as we grow we learn things that need to change in the Comprehensive Plan. Any opinion from staff? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, I guess I'm somewhat -- I don't know, maybe the attorney said -- since there is a pending application to discuss that exact issue and this meeting wasn't noticed to discuss this area -- I mean I certainly can give you a summary of what that is, but I guess I'm -- Borup: Or we could wait until -- Hawkins-Clark: -- wondering if that's appropriate Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 68 of 85 Zaremba: So, perhaps I'm out ofi line to ask that question. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, you're not necessarily out of line, but it would be our advice that you hold off on that discussion until it's up for discussion on the 17th. Zaremba: And the point is made, anybody that's interested in that subject, it is coming up on Monday, the 17th, at 7:00 o'clock. So, I will hold ofF my questions on that and it didn't apply to this application anyhow, so -- Amar: Then I won't respond. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from anybody? All right. Thank you. Amar: Thank you. Rohm: My question really is if we are going to -- if the applicant's going to apply for a new preliminary plat with an R-15 -- or just a change -- Borup: Just change the zoning is what they need to change. Rohm: So, then, all three of these can just be continued? Zaremba: I think so. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: As a group. And to our first meeting in December; is that what we were suggesting? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's what I would recommend and if by chance we don't have the application, we can just continue it out fior another two weeks or four weeks or whatever. Rohm: That will be it. Zaremba: That would be December 1st. Hood: But I did just want to make one note that the two applications -- we will need two new legal descriptions, one far what's remaining on R-8 -- proposed R-8 and one that's R-15. So, probably the new application -- it may just be easier to have a new annexation and zoning application with two separate zoning requests, rather than -- because the old one was for 8.57 acres of all R-8 and the new application would just be for 8.57 acres and four of it's R-8 and four of it's -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 6, 2pp5 Page 69 of 85 Rohm: That's why I was asking if we -- we wouldn't continue something that's not going to continue. Hood: Correct. Rohm: Just close those out and, then, the package would be re-noticed and re -- issued new numbers for the December 1st meeting. Hood: But just for the annexation and zoning. The preliminary plat and the Conditional Use Permit can be continued to the 1 st and the other one you can -- I don't know -- what should we do with the other one? I'm not even -- Rohm: That's why I was asking the question. Zaremba: Mr. Baird, do you have a -- Newton-Huckabay: Deny it. Zaremba: We could ask the applicant to withdraw it. Baird: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think in order to give staff the maximum flexibility if we continue it, then, they can -- at an administrative level they can either withdraw it, amend it, supplement it -- does that make sense to you aver there? I'm getting nods. So, basically, if our action is to continue it, they can make the appropriate changes and bring it back at that date certain. Zaremba: So, continue all three as is. Yeah. As it. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue AZ 05-042, PP 05-043, and CUP 05-044 to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of December 1st, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 05-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 60 single-family residential building lots and 4 common area lots on 23.9 acres in a R-4 zone for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 14 by