Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 2, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 44 of 90 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move to approve file number CUP 06-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006, with the attached site plan, with no modifications to the condition of approval and ask staff to prepare Facts and Findings. Moe: Second. Guenther: Mr. Chairman, staff has prepared the Findings. They were attached with this application. Zaremba: I added that, because I thought it was a legal requirement that it show up on our Consent Agenda next meeting. Guenther: No. What -- if you look at your staff report, all your Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law will reference the Commission findings, which means that tonight you're finding -- Zaremba: I did notice that. Okay. Guenther: So, therefore, tonight if you guys motion and approve, it's approved and done tonight. Staff made that change in order to help speed the applicant process up two weeks. Zaremba: Perfect. Let me restate the motion, then. I'll start over. I move to approve file number CUP 06-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2, 2006, with the attached site plan. Period. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 05-038 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 05-037 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 175 single-family residential building lots and 12 common lots on 38.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 45 of 90 Item 19: Public Hearing: CUP 05-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for single family detached residential units and single family attached residential units in a proposed R-8 zone for Irvine Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Boulevard: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05-039, all related to Irvine Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I did include a history section for this one, which does reference that this application was originally heard under the old Meridian city code and it had a planned development application for a Conditional Use Permit, 05-039, that has been withdrawn at the applicant's request as per the City Council had this reviewed as for the Unified Development Code standards. With that the applicant has made revisions to the site plan. It's 38.5 acres of land and the request is for 175 single family residential lots, with all detached products. The original application was for a type MEW development with certain attached products, as well as alley-loaded products. The residential density has been reduced from I believe 5.61 to -- or 5.19 to 4.61 dwelling units to the acre. And the applicant has redesigned this in order to meet the minimum standards of the Unified Development Code for amenities, open space, and the only outstanding issue would be the right of way width along Chinden Road. I'm going to bring up a really poor -- I wish we had our presentation for this. The right of way width along here, this is a 90 foot wide section closer to Ten Mile Road where Chinden necks down. The applicant is providing a 70 foot wide road section in that easterly direction from approximately 500 feet out. The section in here, if you will reference the ITD letter, does comply with the -- the request for a hundred feet -- a hundred foot of roadway section, because the public pathway that the applicant will provide is in a pedestrian easement to lTD. So, essentially, the road section that is in there is an 88 foot wide road section. However, this section here does not comply with the second portion of that. This complies with the intersection road width and this does not comply with the adjacent residential road width as detailed by lTD. There is a condition of approval in this staff report that says that the applicant shall work with ITD to determine right of way width. When it comes to ITD, our staff would like to see everything in writing. So, until such time as that is -- that condition has been satisfied by ITD's requirements, this could potentially be redrawn if ITD does not withdraw that letter that -- it's the last one dated from October 2005. Other significant changes to the site plan, obviously, you see that it's in a much more block format, instead of the open MEW type of development and there is a stub street provided here to the Stevenson property as requested by, I believe, Mr. Stevenson and consented by the City Council. With that there is still the lateral coming across here where the open space lots are including that lateral. The applicant has indicated to staff that they can redesign these in order to be qualified open space and meet the minimum of five percent. The staff report does have some details in it that would need to be addressed. The Unified Development Code has limitations on qualified open spaces and if this is designed as a parkway in that location, then, it would be a hundred percent qualified, instead of reduced to 50 percent, as well as the open space in the -- the main open Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 46 of 90 space lot. We do withdraw parking lot square footage with this request -- or with these - - under the Unified Development Code and this application does show a parking lot in that open space and, therefore, it reduced the required open space to less than five percent. Staff is recommending approval of this, but there are certain things that do need to be address as conditioned. I will stand for questions. Rohm: Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Joe, in regards to the property itself at the present time, I do note that it is zoned an R-2, is that correct, at the present time? Guenther: No. This is zoned in RUT. Moe: Okay. I'm sorry. In the Comprehensive Plan it's noted a portion of that to be an R-2, is it not? And we were -- I was wondering the other day whether or not that's part of the change that's coming with the Comp Plan? Guenther: Oh, you're talking about the low density residential? Moe: That's correct. Guenther: Okay. Currently, this is a low density residential comprehensive designation. The applicant's original request was for the bump up in density, as allowed for by the Comprehensive Plan. The north Meridian area map amendment -- or comprehensive map amendment does have this property shown as medium density residential. So, it does -- it does come across as a -- and here Craig put it up. It's this parcel right here, which is shown as medium density residential with gateway corridors. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Seeing none, would the applicant like to come forward, please? Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Kevin Amar. My address is 2364 South Titanium in Meridian. This is a -- I guess this is a unique process that we are going through on this one. Staff had indicated -- and it was correct, we did withdraw our previous application and we have requested redesign, but not because we wanted to. We got to -- with this project, in particular, and if you remember our previous project on this one, it had a variety of lot sizes and types and we were pretty excited about it, but we weren't -- the City Council and they weren't excited about it at all. So, they asked us to come back, redesign it with more of the R-8 standards, with fewer lots, more typical lots and so we are here before you today and Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 47 of 90 that's why -- that's why we are here. And as I stated, we did withdraw that application, but not at our own desire. So, we are before you this evening requesting a recommendation for approval on this subdivision. It is 175 residential lots. They do all conform with the R-8 standards. We are -- as we did in the previous application, we still have a pool, we still have open space, we still are trying to maintain a lot of those amenities that we had within the last one. We have pathways that go through the project. We have pathways that connect to the city park to the south that is currently under development. So, although it's a different project, it's certainly a very pleasing project and it's very consistent with what is approved in the immediate area, being Silver Leaf and Kelly Creek and the projects in that area. So, that being said, we have reviewed with staff some of the changes we need to make with the open space under the Uniform Development Code. We didn't -- there was just some tweaks that we need to make to that. We can certainly accommodate any of the open space requirement and not have an issue with those. The other question that staff had was with respect to the ITD and we are working with them to determine the appropriate right of way width. The intersection is certainly not a question. We have -- we have met their requirements in that intersection. The question that we are in discussions with them now is on the balance and that has to do with the property to the east of this, that being Silver Leaf and Lochsa, already maintains a 70 foot wide right of way along there. So, this to be consistent in that area -- and it's the same as was heard previous. So, we haven't changed our right of way from what you recommended approval on on the last time. So, we are -- we will still be aware and still work with ITD and are sure we can come to a reasonable solution for that. With this project we have changed a couple of the items and one was with respect to the out parcel. Previously this road came down and there was a knuckle and, then, turned. This stub road did not exist. Jerry Stevenson, who is the property owner at this location and who is here this evening, at -- I believe it was City Council, requested that he have easier access to sewer and to water. We agreed to put in that stub at this location and still maintain that. And the other thing in meeting with him, that his -- he was talking today would be to provide a fence and a berm on that location to maintain drainage on our own property, so there is no way that drainage can get onto his property. The entire property will be fenced with a vinyl fence, with the exception of along ITD's right of way and that will have to be stone or stucco per your -- per your current code and we fully intend on meeting all those requirements. We do know we have got this parking lot area and I was unaware that a parking lot for a pool didn't count for open space. I thought it would, but we will revise that and make that happen. And, then, as you look at the project, there is a variety of lot sizes, the smallest being up to the north buffering ITO's right of way, buffering Highway 20-26 or Chinden, still maintaining a minimum of 5,000 square feet. And, then, as you get to the south all of these lots become larger and certainly much more compatible with the Silver Leaf project and the projects around. So, with that we appreciate your time and I would stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, Kevin. Moe: Mr. Amar, you hit right on the subject I wanted to talk to you about and that's the size of your lots over there on the east side over there. Basically, that's noted to be Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 48 of 90 some R-4 in there, so transitionwise, with a 6,000 square foot lot in there, we are really not having too much to transition through there. Amar: All of these lots, which is part of Silver Leaf, are also the similar size, the R-8. It was an R-4 zoning, but with a PUD, so the density in both of them are the same. Moe: They are all right. Amar: Correct. So, the zoning designation may throw you off a little bit, but the size of the lots is consistent and we are not under any -- I think penalty of death if we get to City Council. We are not doing PUDs anymore. So, we are trying to be consistent with your Unified Development Code and we have met that -- we have met those requirements. We also met with Mike Meyers again -- in fact, I met with him on Monday. We have stubbed our road at this location to his property. He had some questions as far as where he actually wanted that road stub to be and so that may move in that block and in talking to staff they didn't seem to have a problem with that and that will be mostly at his request. He have some different things that he envisions in his property in the future and we would be more than happy to accommodate them. And, again, that -- and this property line will be fenced also. Commissioner Moe, hopefully, I -- I think that was a long answer. Moe: Yes, you did. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to amaze everybody and say I have no questions. Amar: Yet. Rohm: And let me go on record that that's a first. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I just have one comment. I liked the other development better. I thought that was a great development and I hope that you get the opportunity to put something like that together, because that one did stand in my mind as something that I was looking forward to seeing you guys put together. Amar: I haven't gone away from that idea, I'm just going to wait for a few years, I think, and, then, try it again, because I liked it better, too. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. I think it was a good concept and I would -- I think it has a place, so I would -- I do look forward to you getting opportunity to put one of those together. Amar: Hopefully some day. Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Amar, thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 49 of 90 Amar: Thank you. Rohm: At this time would Jerry Stevenson like to come forward, please. Stevenson: Jerry Stevenson, 6040 North Ten Mile Road. Fellow Commissioners, as you can see, my property is in there. It's been kind of a moving target trying to keep up with this project with all the changes, but, you know, for the most part my biggest concern, too, was -- as far as having access to sewer and water, because, as I stated during the City Council, was that, basically, I was getting land locked if something wasn't done, because there was no plans of extending the sewer anywhere's past at Silver Leaf. However, I do think it needs to be notated on the plans, because it's not actually on the site plan to stub, whether it was overlooked or whatever, I mean the street has no value to me coming up to that side, but particularly the city services. And, then, also the other -- my other biggest concern, too, is -- you know, I just feel trapped in that area right there, because everything -- my view and everything is going to be going away and alii have got to do now is look up at two story homes and it's the size of these lots are the ones -- is kind of my issue, because what happens is typically when you get these builders coming in and these are going to be basically Corey Barton type homes and there is -- they put these big homes on these small lots and so, basically, there is not a lot of front yard, back yard, you know, the footprint of the homes are -- you know, they meet the guidelines, but with R-4 and R-8, I mean right now you're already looking at, you know, ten feet if it's, you know, R-4 and R-8 is two feet less and that doesn't count the eaves and everything, so you're basically, you know, as far as I'm concerned, these just as well just be a solid wall of homes. So, there is no cracks in any of those sites there for me to see the mountains and everything that's kind of my -- I guess maybe that's a personal thing, but what I had requested from Kevin, too, is I would like to at least see some type of a buffer with landscaping between his development, some trees put up on the outside, so instead of me looking up into somebody's bedroom, I can at least look up at trees and feel a little more, you know, at ease. So, that's, you know, one of my concerns, my request, and, you know, there is a few others, but they are probably not of any concern to you guys, so -- I would rather see an R-4 density versus R-8 and, you know, back in, I guess, the good old days, I always thought low density was R-4 and R-8 was medium density and it was kind of a shock when this whole thing started that R-8 now is all of a sudden considered low density. So, that to me is just stacking houses on top of each other and it's more of a medium density in my mind, but that's my perception. Thank you. Questions? Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none, discussion? Zaremba: Mr. Amar may care to respond to some of those issues, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Mr. Amar. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 50 of 90 Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a response, we did meet with Mr. Stevenson and we have agreed to put up a berm, any landscaping or things of that nature that will be required through CC&Rs, but will not be done at the time of the subdivision as far as adjacent to his lot. But we will be putting up a berm to maintain any water flow from entering his property. We understand he has some Iambs and sheep and needs to protect those and rightfully so. And also any fencing and I believe we can work together on that. Rohm: Is there anything that you can do to validate that the city services will be available to -- Amar: Make it a condition. It's just -- J think it got missed on the preliminary plat, a line being drawn, but there will be sewer and water stubs to his property. Guenther: Chairman Rohm, it is a Public Works condition of approval for to and through. Rohm: Okay. Amar: No problem with that. Rohm: Okay. Amar: That's all. Rohm: Thank you. Any discussion before we close these public hearings? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would comment that it's very similar at least to a project that we previously recommended approval of. The applicant was given some changes to make by City Council and I believe those have been made. I see no reason not to recommend approval. Rohm: I think you're right on with that. Zaremba: I don't see anybody else objecting, so, Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05-039. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-038, PP 05-037, and CUP 05-039. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 2, 2006 Page 51 of 90 Rohm: And before -- before somebody makes a motion to move this forward, the CUP 05-039 has been withdrawn, so we don't have to make a motion on that, just -- it will be just the -- the zoning and preliminary plat. So, whoever wants to make a motion would - Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would make the first motion. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: I recommend we accept the withdrawal of CUP 05-039. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the withdrawal of CUP 05-039. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 05-038 and PP 05- 037 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 2nd, 2006, preliminary plat labeled PP-1, dated January 19th, 2006. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-038 and PP 05-037. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 20: Public Hearing: AZ 06.007 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 59.88 acres from RUT to R-8 for Solitude Subdivision by Providence Development Group, LLC - south of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Item 21: Public Hearing: PP 06-006 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 255 single family residential lots and 16 common lots for Solitude Subdivision by Providence Development Group, LLC - south of East McMillan Road and east of North Meridian Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings on AZ 06-007 and PP 06- 006, both relating to Solitude Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Solitude Subdivision is located along McMillan and Meridian Roads. Point of clarification. I