Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 7, 2006 C/C Minutes ,~ Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 37 of 60 Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to continue Items 15, 16, and 17 to April 4th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 05-062 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.11 acres from RUT to R-8 for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC - 2445 North Wingate Lane: Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 05-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 25 single-family residential lots and 2 common lots on 5.11 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Sharp Estates Subdivision by The Gables, LLC - 2445 North Wingate Lane: De Weerd: Okay. Items 18 and 19 are public hearings AZ 05-062 and PP 05-062. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Sharp Estates Project and it is located south of Packard Acres Subdivision No.3 on the west side of Wingate Lane, approximately a half mile south of Ustick Road. We have shown the lot pattern in here. It's currently a five acre parcel. It is an in-fill piece in the classic sense. This is an application for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval. The gross residential density is 4.9 units per acre. The applicant is requesting to zone the property R-8, which is medium density residential, and this parcel is 5.11 acres in size. The preliminary plat approval would be for 25 single family buildable lots and two common lots. The property was dealing with two stub streets that are offset from one another, 50 you see the road kind of comes to a T to provide some variation that the applicant has put a little curve in the road before the cul-de-sac. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval at their February 2nd hearing. Ron Sargent spoke in favor of the project and no one spoke in opposition or commented. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the pathway on the south part of the project and -- to the west and east and, then, Wingate Lane and vacating an interest in that easement. The pathway issue -- there is not a pathway shown on the Comprehensive Plan in this area. However, there is a pathway constructed on the adjoining properties, so the developer felt that he could continue that on this property on the southern boundary and there is an opportunity to extend it to the west as well. Regarding Wingate Lane -- let me go back up to the larger one. As you all know, Wingate Lane goes straight up to Ustick and there are a number of property owners toward the north end of the lane. This was the southern most terminal of Wingate Lane. And what the Planning and Zoning Commission asked was that the applicant vacate any easement that they had going all the way up -- any rights they had to accessing that easement at any portion along Wingate Lane and they have agreed to do that. What this effectively means is that Wingate Lane will end before it gets in the City of Meridian now, so -- oops. Went "'0 Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 38 of 60 too far. Sorry. To our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. You do have findings today before you for approval. I would note that the applicant did submit a revised plat, but there are still some issues for that one. So, the plat notes that are referenced -- the plat date that is noted in your findings is the correct one to note. And with that I'll answer any questions that Council may have. Bird: I have none, Mr. President. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Would the applicant, please, come forward. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record, please. Sargent: Councilmembers, Ron Sargent, 1771 North Wildwood, Boise, Idaho. I guess, first of all, is we are in agreement with the comments by staff. I guess -- Anna, could you put the vicinity map up. And just as a clarification, at both ends of the property, both the west end and this east end, there is a locked gate that's located there, but there is an irrigation canal that runs along the back of each of these properties and it runs all the way to the school up here and we would, you know, construct a pathway on the south side of our property and we would hope that with the cooperation of the neighbors and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, that this pathway, which, basically, is in existence today, but is full of weeds and trash and, basically, just needs to be cleaned up. Likewise, on the east end there is a cinder path that's located here, as well as a cinder path that goes all the way up to this R-2. So, we are -- by constructing our pathway on the south part of our property, over the top of the irrigation canal, we hope that that pathway would continue the whole length on either side of our property. Likewise, as staff has mentioned, we are willing to give up our rights on Wingate Lane all way from the property to Ustick Road. So, with that I'd stand for any questions. Wardle: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor -- or President. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Councilman Borton. Borton: The pathway on the south, Mr. Sargent, is that maintained by the homeowners? Sargent: It will be maintained. There is -- we would propose building a ten foot wide paved pathway that would be maintained by the homeowners in our subdivision. But the pathway on either side of us -- on the east side it's maintained by the homeowners association in that location, but I don't think to the east of us there is -- or, excuse me, to the west of us is there anybody that is responsible for the maintenance of that section. So, that's something the other subdivision would have to address. Borton: Thank you. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 39 of 60 De Weerd: Any additional questions for the applicant? I do want to note for the record that we do have in front of you, Council, for -- that was received today, a letter, and it was respectfully submitted by a number of the neighbors. It is available on the record. Did the applicant get a copy of this? Sargent: No, I did not. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Madam Mayor, staff did not get a copy either. Or at least planning staff didn't. De Weerd: It's dated March 2nd and we received it, I believe, on the 6th. Okay. It is in the packet. Canning: Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. De Weerd: Okay. Sargent: This is it? Yeah, I got this one. Okay. De Weerd: I'll give you a chance to review that and comment upon your closing comments. Sargent: Okay. Great. De Weerd: Does that work for you? Sargent: That works fine. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Sargent: Any additional questions? De Weerd: Not at this time. Thank you. We do have two people that have signed up in favor of. William Smith and Kathy Smith. Would either of you like to provide testimony? Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. 15 there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Please come forward. If you will state your name and address for the record. Jenkins: Okay. Madam Mayor and City Council, my name is Ed Jenkins. I live at 2584 Bullock in Meridian. We wrote a letter on March 2nd and we e-mailed it to the city clerk on March 3rd. And it was -- it identified 12 of us. De Weerd: Yes, sir. That is the letter I just referred to. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 40 of 60 Jenkins: That's the letter you're talking about? De Weerd: Yes. Jenkins: Okay. One of the issues in that letter was the Wingate Lane, which it sounds like that issue has been addressed. We also wrote in there in regards to density, that we are in objection to this plat of 50 foot lots. And the other item was lack of common area. Sense that time we have talked to people in the area who weren't aware, in particular Packard Acres No.3, a lot of those were recorded in December, so I don't think anybody in that section received notice. I own three lots that touch the Sharp property there and I know there is other people that we also had a sign-up sheet that are in agreement with this letter and we'd like to submit that to you. There is 64 people that are on board with us saying that we don't prefer that type of density and 16 of the people are within 300 feet of the Sharp's property. So, we'd just like to submit that. And, then, make one other point to you. If you -- if you look at the big picture up there, you can see pretty plainly that the density of that particular parcel is a lot more dense than a lot of the residential around it and it kind of -- it kind of shows that there is going to be traffic issues, there is going to be parking on the street issues, we believe. The possibility of row houses, the row house look, if they building two story buildings, with 40 foot buildings -- 40 foot wide buildings. And another concern off of Devlin as it comes into Packard Acres there, there is a playground right there and a considerable space for a common area and we just don't feel like the Sharp property has the space that they are accommodating for common area for the residents of this new development. So, with that I'd answer any questions you have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Jenkins: Can I submit these signatures to you? De Weerd: Yes. Please submit those to the city clerk. Thank you very much. Jenkins: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Is there additional testimony on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like the final word? Sargent: Ron Sargent. Madam Mayor, Councilmembers. I guess the first thing I guess I'd like to address is the density and I have some photographs of another project that we have completed and our intent is to not only create this subdivision, but also to build the homes that are going to go in there. And we took a lot of look at the type of home that could go in there and these are the -- very similar to what we would be proposing to go in there. So, I guess -- Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 41 of 60 De Weerd: Mr. Sargent, could you give that to Anna and she can put it up on the screen. Sargent: I guess it kind of blurs it a little bit on the overhead, but these are some of the homes that we proposing, different methodologies of entering the garages, so that we don't have all the garages facing the street and I guess the appropriate terminology is called a shared driveway. So, it would come in from the side and, then, turn into the -- into the garage area. Okay. This is another, I guess, photograph of the type of home that we would be proposing to build in there and these homes are, actually, on smaller lots than the 50 foot wide lots that we are proposing. And one of the things, I guess, when we looked at this property, if we did larger lots, we were concerned that we would end up with a 400,000 dollar home on the bigger lots that we would -- could possibly be put in there. So, by being at this size, we were looking to be somewhere between about 325,000 and 350,000 as the overall price for the homes, which we think is complimentary to this neighborhood in here. This is another type of design that we are looking at for this area. I guess, Anna, if we could go to the subdivision map. In our application for the subdivision, the city requires that we have five percent of our area that is common area and these lots here -- or this area here represents the five percent required for the subdivision application. This pathway here is 30 feet wide and it's not -- when the staff looked at it, they didn't consider this pathway part of the common area. Likewise, this path area from here down to the end is not counted as towards that five percent of the common area. So, I did not do the calculations, but just looking at it, we are probably getting -- pushing close to ten percent of the subdivision as being common area, which would be close to double what the requirement of the code would be for a subdivision application. And I guess the -- and we -- the location -- there is a playground sort of located up in this area, but we really didn't have any choice, because this road was stubbed into the edge of our property on the north. This road was stubbed to the south end of the property and we have -- this is really where we had to connect the roads. We really didn't have any flexibility in a different type of design for that. And, then, I guess, the third item we have already discussed is the vacation of Wingate Lane. So, we -- as we have already mentioned, we propose to do that as part of the approval process. De Weerd: Okay. Sargent: Okay. De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Seeing none -- thank you. Sargent: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any additional information needed from staff? Rountree: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 42 of 60 De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Just a reminder or refresher from Anna about the requirements of the UDC as it relates to lot sizes and frontages in an R-8. Canning: The minimum lot frontage in the R-8 is 50 feet. You can go down to 40 feet if you have a shared driveway. I believe they indicated they were doing the shared driveways, but they do have 50 feet of frontage, I believe. I'm looking quickly, but -- I don't see any shared driveways actually designated, so they all meet at least the minimum 50-foot frontage and the 5,000 square foot lot size. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Anything further, Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Is there any indication from either the city clerk or Anna that the adjacent residents were not notified? De Weerd: Was the property posted? Canning: Will, maybe if you could look for the posting, I will look for the noticíng list. Berg: Anna, I found the radius report. Canning: Okay. Berg: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Rountree, it seems to be a fairly lengthy list on the radius report, but I do want to say that sometimes the Ada County records aren't to the minute up to date. We go off, you know, records of ownership at the time that we request it. So, I can't tell you when sales are made and when they are put on those records. Canning: And the property was posted, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor. Mr. Clerk, if you can -- I have got a neighborhood meeting -- it looks like a sign-up sheet dated November 9th, 2005, with 13 names on it. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 43 of 60 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: In the letter we got, they evidently had been notified. I think the way I read that first paragraph is they were not notified of the March 7th. Well, we don't repost when we continue something, unless it is -- do we? We don't renotice, do we? I mean this was something that we continued. Berg: Madam Mayor, it hasn't been our policy to renotice in the paper or renotice the homeowners when you continue a Public Hearing. We hope that people come to that original Public Hearing and understand that it's renoticed. There are situations that if you instructed us on special circumstances to do that we have. But that's -- a matter of requirement of renoticing or reposting, that is not in our policy. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Berg. Okay. Anything further from Council? Rountree: I have nothing. De Weerd: Okay. Yes, sir. If you will, please, state your name and address. Decouto: My name is Edward Decouto. I'm at 2393 East Meadow Grass Street. De Weerd: Thank you. Decouto: In Meridian in Packard Estates No.3, which is that lot right there is my personal residence. Madam Mayor, City Council, I did attend that meeting that you referenced on -- what was the date of that again? The neighborhood meeting. The only way I found out about that was by word of mouth and several of us spread the word and we all did attend that. It was proposed to us at that time that there was going to be a subdivision behind my residence and at that time we voiced our opinions about the density and things of that nature that we have listed in that letter, which I co-authored, and it appears that none of our recommendations were taken and put into this plat. As you can see, basically, all the residents that surround this are affected by this. I have, basically, two and a piece of another backyard to my one backyard. My concerns there are that -- which is stated in the letter, about drainage, what are they going to do about keeping water from getting onto my property off of basically three roofs. There is a known clay issue in that area. I am a builder. I actually own the lot next door. That lot there. And I own this lot right here with my business partner Ed Jenkins. And, also, we are opposed -- I'm opposed to this personally, because of the -- the lack of really consideration for any of the surrounding properties in regards to that issue with larger lots surrounding this -- this proposed subdivision and also the lack of consideration for any common area for the children that are going to reside in this area and they will, naturally -- the kids that were -- are going to live in this subdivision will naturally migrate to that play area that we have that we paid for through our homeowners association and built ourselves, they will go to that area and use it. We are not opposed to development being back there, we are just opposed to the density of it. Any questions for me? Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 44 of 60 De Weerd: No. Thank you, sir. Decouto: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Sargent, do you want to respond? Well, before I ask for a response, is there any other public testimony? Thank you. Sargent: I guess the first thing is -- we'd like to address is the common areas that -- I guess we see this pathway as something that could be used by the kids in the neighborhood on their way to school, because it may, eventually, end up connecting all the way through to the school on the east end. The other thing is the playground to the north. I guess we are not opposed to supporting the maintenance and upkeep of that playground, if -- so we wouldn't be opposed to sharing some of the expenses in there with the neighbors. In our meeting we did show this exact plat. We did -- there was some discussions about the density that took place, but I guess we still feel that -- we think that this is the -- the right type of product to put in this location, because this is quite a transition from very expensive homes up in this area, to some that have been in this area for some time to the south. So, we feel that this transition that we don't want to be trying to put, you know, really expensive, high-end homes and we see this as the transition between the more expensive homes to the north and the less expensive homes to the south and the west. So, I'd stand for any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, what would you like to do? If there is no additional public testimony, would you like to close these two items? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we close the public hearings on Items 18 and 19. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to close 18 and 19. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 45 of 60 De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item 18, AZ 05-062. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to approve Item 18. Is there any discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: With respect to the issue of density, certainly, that's something that we have been struggling with for the last two years and something that we have made some significant strides with. But it seems to me in this particular location, since this is the last in-fill and it's surrounded by R-4, and somewhat inconsistent with all of the lot sizes and density that surround the immediate area and the far reaching area, that I probably would not vote to support the motion. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: And I would echo Councilman Rountree's thoughts and expressions and I, too, cannot, at this density, support this project. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: For discussion purposes, the original -- I believe that this is an R-8 zone. If I could get clarification from staff. Canning: Yes, sir, it's actually R-8 to the north, to the west, and to the south. It's only R-4 to the east. Rountree: I stand corrected. Bird: But I still don't support it. Rountree: Then, I'll remove my comments from the record as it relates to surrounded. Still not necessarily in support of the density. There has been a change in our R-8 definition, has there not, from previous R-8 approval? Canning: Yes, sir. ...-, Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 46 of 60 Rountree: 6,500 square foot minimum? Canning: Yes, sir. Rountree: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, also, before we changed, those existing R-8s around there, are 65-foot wide, am I not right? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, particularly Councilmember Bird and Rountree, I don't know exactly what their frontage requirement was. So many of the subdivisions were done as planned developments for the sole purpose of reducing lot frontage, but I would venture a guess that they don't have 65 feet of lot frontage. Bird: But that was an R-8 requirement -- Canning: Yes, sir. Bird: -- was a 65-foot width, unless you got a variance or you did a PUD? Canning: Yes, sir. Bird: Okay. I still stand on my comments. De Weerd: Okay. Any additional discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, nay; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. De Weerd: Well, thank you, Council. I feel important tonight. Rountree: First time in a long time. De Weerd: No, it's not. You keep doing this. I guess, Council, I would vote nay as well. And I guess for a little bit different reason. I believe that there needs to be a little bit better transition. I feel that this is a good project for in~fill, but there could be a little bit of a variation and a little bit more sensitivity to some of the larger sized lots that can -- can ease a little bit more into it and so I guess to a certain degree I concur with Councilman Rountree and Bird. I just think there could be a little bit better transition. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. TWO NAYS. MAYOR NAY. De Weerd: So, I do need a motion that can pass. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 47 of 60 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we deny AZ 05-062, based on the grounds as stated. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: There is a motion to deny Item 18. I guess, Council, before you look at this, I guess I would like to see if there is an opportunity to look at the plat and maybe work with the neighbors to bring something back, rather than reapply. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would have no problem with that. I just really have a problem with narrowness and we have always tried to go on the outside and at least try to be halfway the same size of lots around us and when we are two and a half to one outside of us, I have a problem with that. I don't know, though. What we did was we turned it down, so now a question for legal counsel is how -- you know, if you -- you need a motion. We have turned it down, we have denied it, so you need a motion of denial. De Weerd: Mr. Bird, we haven't denied it yet. Your motion is on the floor right now. Bird: We turned it down. Yeah. So you need -- De Weerd: No, we did not pass the motion to approve. We still need a motion. Bird: To deny. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary, would you like to explain it? Nary: As you stated, Madam Mayor, Council, all you have done is not approve the motion to approve. You can -- you can reopen your Public Hearing. You can ask for more information. You can set this matter over for a period of time, if the application is desirous to do that. You can remand it with more specific direction, although, again, you might want to ask the applicant if they want to do that. Or you can move to deny. So, you have a number of options still available to you. I think what Madam Mayor -- if I'm maybe reading her mind, rather than in two or three weeks readdressing a motion to reconsider, which is -- happens a lot, if you think there is something that might be adjusted to this or an opportunity for another neighborhood meeting and Mr. Sargent is Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 48 of 60 willing to do that; you can certainly reopen the Public Hearing to ask him that question. If he isn't willing to do that, then, you can take action as you please. De Weerd: Would the maker of the motion -- Bird: Yeah, I have no problem with that. Whatever you guys want to do. De Weerd: Does second agree? Rountree: Sure. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion to reopen the Public Hearing for applicant's response? Wardle: So moved. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Bird: Well, I'll second that. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Mr. Sargent. Sargent: I would propose to the Council that we meet with the neighbors that are here tonight and discuss the lot width on the north side of the property and see if we can come to some sort of an agreement with them on that and come back to you with a proposal. De Weerd: Council? Bird: That's agreeable to me. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I would move that we continue the Public Hearing until -- Canning: Madam Mayor, isn't there a motion out there. No, there is not? De Weerd: They were withdrawn. Canning: Oh. Okay. I'm sorry. Meridian City Council March 7, 2006 Page 49 of 60 De Weerd: We are way ahead of you, Anna. Rountree: What does the 21 st look like, Will? Jam packed? Wardle: No. De Weerd: I guess, Council, if we continue it to the 21 st, you will at least know how substantial the change might be if you need to remand it back to Planning and Zoning. Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, two suggestions. Yeah, may -- at least in two weeks, if they have another meeting, you may -- we may find we need to renotice or remand, depending on what the change may be, because there may be more property owners affected that we aren't aware of today. My other suggestion to you is Mr. Sargent had offered to meet with the property owners on the north. If you're going to remand this or you're going to set this over for a neighborhood meeting of some sort, you may suggest strongly that he meet with all the neighbors. Otherwise, your southern neighbors will come to the next meeting and may claim that they didn't get an opportunity to have another participation. There, obviously, has been maybe some changes to the radius notice and if they are going to hold a public meeting, you may want to resolve all those issues or at least get them heard before you hear it again. Rountree: So, with all the help, I'm still looking for a date. De Weerd: April 4. Rountree: April 4th? Okay. Continuing my motion that we continue the Public Hearing until April 4th and request that the applicant have a neighborhood workshop and meeting with the surrounding neighbors of the proposed development. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to continue the Public Hearing to April 4th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. And that was on Items 18 and 19. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: 18 and 19. Item 20: Public Hearing: RZ 05-022 Request for a Rezone of 3.36 acres from R- 8 to L-O for Church of the Holy Nativity by Church of the Holy Nativity - 828 West Cherry Lane: De Weerd: Okay. Item 20 is Public Hearing on RZ 05-022. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments.