Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 4, 2006 P&Z Minutes e Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 30 of 84 Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-018 and PP 06-016, to include all staff comments as amended by this motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you all for your contribution. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Hood: Mr. Chair, point of clarification -- a couple for the maker of the motion. The applicant did ask for bonus rooms on those single-story -- as long as there aren't any windows on the south, is that -- Rohm: He put that in the motion. Hood: That was in the motion? Zaremba: I did include that. The bonus rooms with no south facing windows. Hood: Okay. I'm sorry, I missed that. I'm sorry. And, then, I have one more clarification. The fourth bullet on page nine, the intent, I think, is there. It's clear -- at least I want to go on the record, make sure that we are all clear, just what is on the applicant's property is what they are responsible for constructing as far as the pathway; co rrect? Zaremba: Yes. Hood: Because the four different options in the bullet point say you need to construct it, basically, from your point out to Black Cat Road. So, I will modify that fourth bullet point and put the preferred language that it goes through Black Cat, but that this applicant is not required to construct it all the way to Black Cat. Zaremba: That's agreed. Yes. Hood: Thank you. Rohm: At this time -- typically we wait until 9:00 o'clock, but this seems like a pretty good place to take a break. We will reconvene at 8:45. (Recess.) Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-019 Annexation and Zoning of 10.59 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -1255 West Ustick Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 31 of 84 Item 10. Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-018 Preliminary Plat approval of 42 building lots and 6 common lots on 10.59 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -1255 West Ustick Road: Rohm: At this time we'd like to reconvene our regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and begin with opening up the continued Public Hearing from April 20th, 2006, of AZ 06-019 and PP 06-018, both items related to Southwick Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Veatch: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Jenny Veatch. I will be giving the staff report for Josh Wilson. This is something that was carried over from the previous meeting for the Southwick Subdivision. It is going to be located at 1255 West Ustick Road, which is east of Linder and just south of Ustick. The proposed plat is 10.59 acres of R-8 zone, with 42 residential buildings and six common lots proposed. As far as -- if we could do the aerial there, Caleb. To the north and the west we have rural areas. To the east we have the Crossfield Subdivision, which is an R-8 zone. And to the south we have the Meridian Park Subdivision, which is R-4. And on this property there is an existing home and land and we will be showing that when we go back to the site plan. That's up here as the existing home. And at this point in time they have a road that comes out. That access will be abandoned and will be used as an internal roadway within the subdivision. So, they will go through the subdivision and out. We do recommend approval of this. I might mention to you that we have received ACHD's report and they have approved it with conditions. ACHD is proposing street and/or access to the development with a new roadway connection to Ustick Road. That would be the Southwick Way. And some proposed extensions of Stanhope Street coming from the Crossfield Subdivision in the east. Let's see here. And, then, they also have in the northwest, the 13th Street from Meridian Parks Subdivision -- oh, excuse me. Another stub to the east and Northwest 13th Street from Meridian Parks Subdivision to the south. Down here. The applicant has also proposed to provide a stub street, Melwood Street, to the undeveloped parcel to the west. I believe that is this one up here. So, based on those conditions we would approve this. We are asking that the applicant should add to the plat and be prepared to discuss today that the orientation of the homes which are located on the common drive, we'd like to discuss orientation of those on the plat. It's not clear from the current site plan what the orientation of the homes is and the staff would recommend that they orient to each other to form more of a community feeling and also to -- basically, for fire and emergency -- boy, I'm at a lost for words. Excuse me. How am I doing for the first time? Just for emergency situations, that that would be better for fire and police. Let's see here. What else do I have? I think pretty much everything else is pretty cut and dry. Caleb, did you want to add anything? Do you have any questions? Rohm: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning &: Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 32 of 84 Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Just one. Has the applicant seen the ACHD report? Veatch: Yes. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Good. Thank you very much. Moe: And you did just fine. Veatch: Thank you. Rohm: Yes, you did. Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel. 839 East Winding Creek, Suite 201, in Eagle. Here tonight representing Gem Star Development. Good job, staff. She did well for her first time. Just to add to what staff has stated, we have a ten and a half acre site with a density proposed on this project of 3.92 dwelling units per acre. The average lot size comes out to be 6,698 square feet. We are in agreement with both your staff and ACHD's recommendation to remove the existing access for the house, the existing house, onto Ustick Road. Take that internally. As you can tell, we did take into consideration the existing stub streets to the west -- or to the east and to the south and at the request from your staff, we did provide two stubs to the western property to provide a better chance for them to redevelop their parcel in the future. And that was at the request of your staff. We are fine with all the conditions, with the exception of the one that staff mentioned regarding the orientation and we are not so much against it, we would just like the flexibility of the location or the orientation of those eight buildings, just for marketability with future builders. So, with that, everything else we are acceptable to I will stand for any questions you have. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Any questions of this applicant? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nickel, do you happen to have any drawings of what this would look like when it was built out, these driveways like this? Nickel: What, the -- no, I do not. Newton-Huckabay: I'm having a very difficult time envisioning how this would look -- would look, quite honestly, and so I just was kind of looking at this -- Meridian Planning &: Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 33 of 84 Nickel: And -- yeah, I wish I did have some, because we have done -- I have seen other developments -- a couple on South Locust Grove Road, Rose -- Rosewood Subdivision, I think, has the flag lots and I believe those are being constructed right now. I don't have anything to show you. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Nickel: Okay. But I do know that you're seeing a lot more of these flag lots in new developments. Newton-Huckabay: So, is like an asphalt driveway between -- Nickel: Right. Newton-Huckabay: -- down the middle and, then, you -- Nickel: Right. And it accesses back to here. Staff is requIring us to provide a turnaround -- concrete stub turnaround internally, so you do not have to back up out onto the public roadway. And I think what staff is stating, it's not a bad idea to create that courtyard and it's probably how these will develop. We just do not want to be locked into that in case a builder doesn't want to come in and do something a little bit differently, so I'll leave -- Rohm: The back lots, though, would face to the -- Nickel: The back lots -- yes. Rohm: They have to face -- correct? Nickel: That's correct. Rohm: And, then, it's just the north and south of the common drive that you want to have your -- Nickel: You have the -- I'm sorry, sir. They would have the option of facing either east or facing north or south. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Nickel: Thank you. Rohm: Would Scott Noriyuki like to come forward, please? From the audience he says he has no comment, so -- and the only other person signed up for this was Shawn and he's made his presentation. So, at this time is there anybody from the audience that Meridian Planning &: Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 34 of 84 would like to speak to this application? Seeing none -- thank you. Discussion? Commissioner Moe, do you have any comments on this application? Moe: No, I do not. I think it's fairly cut and dried. I do know staff would like to see the orientation of those homes facing each other in the common, but I do understand the applicant's point in regards to his comments. So, I have no other further comments. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: Can you pass on for the moment, please? Rohm: Absolutely. Commissioner Borup. Borup: No, I don't think -- I mean it's a difficult site to layout, it looks like. Not too excited about those flag lots, but, you know, that's what they have got to work with. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: My first comment is that -- similar to what Commissioner Borup said, they appear to have done the best they can with a difficult lot. Long and narrow. I guess the only question that comes to mind is regardless of how the houses would be oriented, are we thinking that on those common driveways all four lots would take access from the common driveway, so that there would be no access to the main road regardless of which way they are oriented? Is that correct? I see heads nodding. Veatch: It would be our intent that the garages should front that common drive. Zaremba: For all four properties? Veatch: Yes. Borup: Isn't that in the ordinance? Zaremba: It may very well be. I think it works. Veatch: Commissioner Zaremba, I guess Mr. Cole is saying that there is an ordinance that supports that. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any further discussion? I think that the application -- you know, it meets staff's recommendations for approval and we don't have any opposition from the public, so I can't see any reason to be not moved forward. Newton-Huckabay: There is no houses around. Meridian Planning &: Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 35 of 84 Rohm: Pardon? Newton-Huckabay: I said there is no houses around. Rohm: Well, that might be part of the reason. Newton-Huckabay: Actually, Mr. Chair, can we look at the aerial again? Rohm: There it is. Newton-Huckabay: I have no comments. I don't think I like the layout of it, but, as I said before, can't really visualize how that would all look. I do remember going and looking at something similar in a subdivision at Bristol Heights or something over off of Chinden. Didn't really care for the way that turned out either. So, I have no comments to add. But I certainly would have no idea how to make it different, so -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I make a motion to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-019 and PP 06-018. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-019 and PP 06-018. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Before I make a motion, can I get a date on the ACHD report, please? Veatch: That would be April 18th, Commissioner Moe. Moe: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-019 and PP 06-018, as presented to the staff report for the hearing date of April 22, 2006, and continued to May 4th, 2006, to include the ACHD report dated April 18th, 2006. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 36 of 84 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-019 and PP 06-018, both related to Southwick Subdivision, to include staff comments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Newton-Huckabay: Aye. Rohm: Let it be noted that there was one descending vote and the rest were in the affirmative. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06-017 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.79 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Wells Street Subdivision by C2B Developments, LLC - 675 and 715 Wells Street: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 84 building lots and 14 common lots on 11.79 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Wells Street Subdivision by C2B Developments, LLC - 675 and 715 Wells Street: Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: CUP 06-012 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 18 multifamily dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone for Wells Street Subdivision by C2B Developments, LLC - 675 and 715 Wells Street: Rohm: Okay. Moving on. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from April 20th, 2006, for project AZ 06-017, PP 06-017, and CUP 06-012. All three of these items related to Wells Street Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This is the final item on your agenda for this evening that we didn't get to on the 20th of April. I, too, am pinch hitting for Josh this evening. This is the Wells Street Subdivision. As you may recall -- it's been awhile now, but there was a Comprehensive Plan amendment for this property -- I believe it was last fall that you made a recommendation -- it may have even been earlier than that -- to the City Council to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of this site from office to the -- to allow residential uses in this area. The subject application is 11.79 acres and includes 84 residential lots and 14 common lots in the R-15 zone. I'll go to the aerial here. The property is zoned in the county today. It is just due east of Woodbridge Subdivision. The remainder parcels around this site to the north, south, and back to the west -- or, excuse me, east, are all in the county today. There are a lot of these lots that are -- maybe I'll jump back to the zoning map. As you can see, the colored ones are in the city, so I guess there is an L- o zoned one there. They have not started to develop that site. That's why I guess I forgot about that one. But largely county around to the north and south anyways. Single family homes. Here is a copy of the plat. Just to touch on a couple of things in