Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 27, 2006 C/C Minutes Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 44 of 71 Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 22. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Mr. President, I move that we approve the preliminary plat request for Item 23, PP 06-016. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 23. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 24: Public Hearing: AZ 06-019 Annexation and Zoning qf 10.59 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - 1255 West Ustick Road: Item 25: Public Hearing: 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: Wardle: I will now open public hearings on Items 24 and 25 and begin with staff comments. Canning: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council, I did want to point out that I believe you also have some written testimony on this project from Mr. Brewer, Christopher Brewer. This is the Southwick project. It's located on east of Linder Road and south of Ustick Road. It is two very skinny long lots. Crossfield Subdivision was approved to the east of this -- east and south, basically, and, then, there is an existing subdivision to the south. We have rotated this 90 degrees. Sorry about that. North is going toward the north. There we go. The applications include annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. The highlights of the development include 42 building lots on about 10.59 acres in a proposed R-8 district. I do want to point out what you're looking at here. This is an existing home site. This is -- we worked with the applicants quite a bit on this site design, because it is fairly constrained, you cannot get two roads in there, really, so what they have proposed is a -- four buildings that share access from a common drive. They have agreed to orient all the houses toward that common drive to create a courtyard feel, so you have got one, two, three, four sets of four homes. So, essentially, there will be no garages on this west side of the street for this whole section Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 45 of 71 of road. They will all take access from the common drive. The gross residential density is 3.92 units per acre. The net density is 5.64 per acre. I did point out the common drives to you and the existing home. The Commission did recommend approval at their May 4th, 2006, Public Hearing. Shawn Nickel, the applicant's representative, spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition or commented. The key issues of discussion were the common drives and the home orientation on those. Key Commission changes to staff recommendations, there were none. And to our knowledge -- well, I can't say that anymore. We received that letter from Mr. Brewer after I had written this, so there are some outstanding concerns presented by him in his letter. Again, I do not believe those were presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. With that I guess I'll answer any questions Council may have. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Council, questions for staff? Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Anna, what -- with the existing residence and lot on Ustick, are there going to be improvements on Ustick? Canning: The house will take access from the new public street and, then, the applicant will be required to do -- improve their frontage along Ustick. It's a short section, but -- Rountree: Sidewalk, et cetera? Canning: Yes. Rountree: Okay. Canning: I can double check. I can't imagine that ACHD didn't require that, but -- this does -- I want to point out one other thing. This is, really, a difficult area to anticipate redevelopment. There is one -- a third really long skinny lot here and, then, these -- these properties we have seen some interest in, but I think that those three kind of travel together and, then, this one other long skinny lot is held in separate ownership. So, we did ask the applicant to stub, so that they can get a street on that piece of property and they also have -- so they have two stubs going to that property, because it is so constrained to facilitate future redevelopment of that long skinny lot, the same size as half of one of these. Rountree: Well, Mr. President, another question for Anna. Would you take me back to the slide that shows the surrounding zoning. Canning: So, Crossfield was zoned R-8. The property just to the south of this one is zoned R-4 and, then, there is some R-4 over here in the Waterbury Subdivision. Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 46 of 71 Rountree: Thank you. Wardle: Council, additional questions for staff? Bird: Not at this point, Mr. President. Wardle: Thank you, Anna. Would the applicant please come forward. If you will state your name and address for the record, please. Beck: Richard Beck, 839 East Winding Creek Drive, Eagle, Idaho. Mr. President, Members of the Council, we agree with the staff report and the conditions of approval and appreciate the help that Anna has given us on that regard. Again, a ten acre site that's pretty constrained. We are asking for the R-8 zoning designation. The area's listed on the future land use map as medium density residential, which has the spectrum of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Our density is just under four dwelling units per acre. With regard to -- with regard to the common driveways, we will be -- I believe that was a topic of discussion with Planning and Zoning Commission. I was not present, but I believe -- I have been told that we will providing an orientation that leads more toward the courtyard feel. All the homes will be oriented towards the common drive. That is the plan. And don't really have anything else to add and I will stand for any questions that you might have. Wardle: Council, questions for the applicant? Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Could you give me relative size of those lots that are going to share a common drive, the width of the common drive, the number of garage doors that are going to access the common drive, et cetera? Beck: Mr. President, Councilmember, the typical lot size -- see if I can read it myself. It looks like the lots that are closest to the roadway are anywhere from 7,300 square feet to 7,400 square feet. The lots on the rear are 8,200 to 8,600 square feet in size. There would be four -- each home site, of course, would have a garage and they would all access from the common driveway. Those are typically -- I believe they are 20 feet wide. The common driveway would be 20 feet wide. Trying to think if I covered everything you asked. Rountree: And question for Anna at this point. They would have to have a 20 foot setback off of that common drive as well -- Canning: Yes. Rountree: -- if they are going to front the common drive? Meridian City Council June 27,2006 Page 47 of 71 Canning: Yes, sir. The UDC still requires a 20 foot parking pad in front of each home. So, if they provide the parking pad somewhere else, they could conceivably move the garage closer. We can -- we could certainly add that as a condition of approval if they -- if Council wanted to set a garage setback or a building setback, we could include that. Rountree: That's helpful, but it doesn't paint a very pretty picture. Canning: If I could, sir. The other thing we could do is just determine -- we have that aspect to designate home orientation. With that orientation we could say that that is the front of the lot, so that would be a 15 foot setback for the home, 20 foot setback for the garage, and, then, the rear would -- so we would treat this as a front setback. That would be a front setback. That would be a street side setback. Rear. Rear. Sides. So, with that orientation we can measure the setbacks accordingly. Bird: Mr. -- oh, go ahead. Rountree: No, I'm done. Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Anna, I'm not -- maybe on the elevations. Is what I'm just hearing a description of a shared drive and, then, a bunch of garages and 80 feet of concrete and driveways all around with four different garages? Did I hear that wrong? We have got home orientations and, then, garages and 20 foot driveways and -- Canning: What it would be -- if Council gives me a moment, I will just -- I'll draw something on the plat and put it up above. That might help. Wardle: Mr. Bird, did you have an additional question? Bird: Yeah. Anna, I have got a real -- well, the applicant can maybe answer this. I have a real problem -- we are telling them it's 20 feet on the width of the driveway? What do you do when guests come and are going to be parked in there and stuff like that? I hope all four of them people are awful good friends. Boy, I tell you, we have had trouble with just having two houses to a common driveway and, then, when you have four of them then -- and they are only 20 foot wide and you and I both know that people will be out there and those two back houses, I mean they have no parking, other than their driveway as it is. I think the concept is -- really hadn't been thought out, to be truthful with you. Beck: Mr. President, Councilmember, I guess just to respond, you know I -- we have a couple of these in my personal neighborhood and I know it is a challenge many times for the parking situation. Luckily in this design, since there won't be any I guess front-on housing or, if you will, access to the roadway itself, essentially, the -- actually, I do have a pointer here. Essentially, this strip here will be available for on-street parking for Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 48 of 71 guests as well. Many times people will also be able to park, depending upon how people are, in the actual driveway portion as well. That's kind of the parking pad in front of the required parking, but we would anticipate a lot of the guests parking on the street there. That would be an option for them. Bird: Follow up, please. Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Sir, yeah, and I agree with it, but on a 20 -- what if you have parking on both sides out there, what are you going to do if an emergency vehicle needs to get to that back one or two houses back there? Beck: Mr. President -- okay. I'm going to defer to the project engineer. Bird: Okay. Wardle: State your name and address. Bailey: Mr. President and Councilmembers, Dave Bailey, 1500 East Iron Eagle Drive in Eagle. These flag lots, I guess we have been calling them, have actually been in the Meridian city code for quite awhile, so these meet the standards of your code for the R- 8 zone for the flag lots. And if -- I suppose if you look -- I think Anna did a great job drawing a picture here, but if you look at the building envelope it's intentionally, on our part, significantly larger on these than it would be on a standard R-8 zone lot, because we do need to have the garage on one end or the other and -- and take access off of that common driveway. If you notice that to any point on the homes, as far as fire access, that we are required to have 150 feet -- or be able to be a fire vehicle within 150 feet of all points of the home, which we can do with this without considering these as fire accesses. So, we are not required to have a turnaround, nor to designate these common driveways as fire access. They are intentionally left at 150 feet. I don't know if your code specifically limits them to 150. I know that Boise city code does, but they just can't be longer than 150 for that very reason, for the fire access. But these are actually dimensionally correct in accordance with both the current Meridian city code and your previous one, for that -- the UDC. We have actually done a couple in south Meridian west of Locust Grove in the Roseleaf Subdivision. We did some in there. In fact, we did six off of one common driveway, which you folks didn't like, and fixed your code after that, so we couldn't do it anymore. But we do have one in there that has six off of a common drive backed up to a park. But I guess my point, in general, is that they are dimensionally correct in accordance with your code requirement. Bird: And I'm not doubting that. Wardle: Mr. Borton, did that answer your specific question you had for Anna? Borton: It does. What I thought it would look like. Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 49 of 71 Canning: Okay. Borton: Well done. Wardle: Council, while we have the engineer, do you have -- Bird: I have none. He's answered mine. Bailey: Could I make one additional comment that he didn't point out is that we do have detached sidewalks in the project. So, we have a wider right of way in there so we can have detached sidewalks on the project as well to add a little more green space to a project that we can't get a good green space in, so -- Wardle: Thank you. Council, as Anna has noted for the record, we have written testimony from Christopher Brower. No additional members signed up for public testimony. Is there anyone that would like to provide additional public testimony for the record? Hearing none, Council, any additional question you might have for the applicant? Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I do. One question. Again, I'd love to have seen elevations on this project. Is there a reason why elevations aren't included? I know they are expensive to do, but -- Beck: Mr. President, Councilmember, I'm not familiar enough with the code. I don't believe it's a requirement to submit the elevations at this point and I don't know if they have them. I know that -- I believe that the applicant's done this project in -- this product in different -- different projects, but we don't have any elevations at this time. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I know you don't, I just -- I'm just asking for the specific reason why. Maybe, actually, Mr. Bailey can -- Wardle: Mr. Bailey, state your name again. Bailey: David Bailey, again, with Bailey Engineering. The requirement -- and when we normally do submit elevations we do on quite a few projects is when we have a planned development or we have lots that are not consistent with your ordinance. It's a presumption, I guess, that standard R-8 or standard R-4 zone that a builder can build a house on those that meet the dimensional requirements and we don't need to show you Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 50 of 71 what the house is going to look like, because it will fit on the lot, it will work on that lot. It's a standard building lot. And so all of them are standard building lots within the subdivision. That's the reason we didn't provide elevations, because we could build any house you can build in any other R-8 subdivision on the lot. Maybe that helps answer it a little better. I don't know. Borton: It does. Canning: Mr. President? Wardle: Mrs. Canning. Canning: Councilmember Borton, generally, we don't warn the applicant that -- for single family houses that you may want to see the elevations, although we always do on attached -- any attached unit and multi-family units, so we did not prompt the applicant to provide those elevations. I apologize for that. We can start doing that or -- in this instance, because of the flag lots, some -- I think that you're more comfortable seeing how it lays out on these lots and maybe that may have been more appropriate to ask for on this one, just understanding how those flag lots work. But if you would like staff to do something in the future, please, let me know. Borton: That's always helpful, especially in this particular type of situation, with this type of lot and just trying to get a better picture of how they would be configured and the driveways and how it would be shared is helpful. I understand it's not a requirement. Wardle: Council, additional information needed? Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing nobody jumping, I'd ask to close the public hearings on AZ 06-019 and PP 06-018. Wardle: Do I have a second? Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 24 and 25. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Well, Mr. President, comment or discussion. This is an annexation request and there is not enough people in the audience for me to sing my song, but my song is I'm not in this big of hurry to proVide the City of Meridian with this kind of a situation. I Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 51 of 71 agree it meets our code and also agree that our code has certain things in it to accommodate unusual circumstances and we can get a subdivision of 20, 30, 40, 60, 360 acres and three or four or five flag lots and here we have a subdivision that's almost half flag lots. I know it's a tough site, but I'm not able to vote in the affirmative to approve this particular annexation. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I share the concerns -- or put it differently. Councilman Rountree shares the concerns that I have got. Rountree: Well, thank you, Joe. Borton: Councilman Rountree agrees with me with this particular project and the lot configuration and it doesn't appear to be the best plan for the City of Meridian to accept and I'm not a fan of the majority of flag lots that's been presented here and I think Councilman Bird's comments and concerns are shared by me as well as far as how these properties and driveways are going to be shared and attached to what could be a general sea of concrete and if I'm wrong and -- Canning: Mr. Borton, can you speak up, please. Borton: I'll move my microphone. I apologize. How these houses are configured. So, I share those concerns. Canning: Mr. President, given the way the tide seems to be going, if I might share one thing. When I first saw these flag lots -- not on this particular project, but the concept of flag lots in general, I thought they were the worst thing I had ever seen. I went out and did a survey of several of them. When used appropriately they can be very effective and quite attractive. I would ask -- because I think that it would be additional information and help for Council for future decisions if you could reopen the public hearings and continue this to give the applicant some -- and staff some time to work up some pictures to give you a visual image of how these look, how they can layout on the ground and how they can function, I would appreciate that. I'm not necessarily doing it for the applicant, I'm requesting that for the city as a whole, so that you can see how these function a little more appropriately. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, I would agree with you, but I think one of the biggest things, too, is I think we need to widen the -- those drive -- supposedly driveways to 24 feet. And I know it's in our code, they have stayed right within the code and if they feel it within themselves Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 52 of 71 to go to something besides an R-8 district, I would welcome that with open arms, so -- but I would have no problem if you would like to reopen the public hearings and continue them, if you have a chance, though. It's going to have to be a lot of changes to change my mind. Rountree: You moved to close, if you want to move to reopen. Wardle: Council, with that I would float of motion for discussion. I would move that we reopen the public hearings on Items 24 and 25. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to reopen the Public Hearing on Item 24 and 25. All affirmative? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Motion carries unanimously. We have two additional public hearings now open. Planning staff has recommend that we continue these items. Anna, do you have a specific date and do you additionally have specific recommendations as to information that would be brought forward that could help us make an additional -- or make a decision? Canning: Mr. President, the first hearing in August would give some time to get some photos and some dimensions to you just of how this would work. What staff proposes to do is to bring you some -- some constructive examples of how these look on the ground and we can get some from other builders and from this particular builder, I think he's got a couple out there, too. You can determine if there are portions of those that you think would make this work. I have -- I was not proposing any changes to the plat as Mr. Bird had recommended. I think you will need to talk to the applicant about that issue. I was just proposing additional information on common drives in courtyards. Wardle: Council, if we are going to make a motion to consider it, before I hear anything specific from the applicant, I would additionally -- the information that I would like to consider in addition to the elevation would be specific setback requirements, fencing requirements between those common -- between the houses that front those common lots, some examples of how that would be situated in relation to where the homes are, entrances, those sorts of specific examples. Would you like to hear from the applicant for additional comments and possible continuance or would -- Rountree: See if the applicant's in agreement with a continuance. Wardle: If you would come forward and, please, give your name for the record, please. Beck: Richard Beck. 839 East Winding Creek Drive, Eagle, Idaho. Mr. President, Council members, we definitely would be interested in pursuing the continuance and we Meridian City Council June 27, 2006 Page 53 of 71 will take the information -- the comments that you have made and gather some information, so you can be more informed and make an informed decision on the project. Wardle: The earliest date staff has recommended is August 8th. Is that a date that would be -- Beck: Yeah. I believe so. Wardle: Okay. Thank you. Beck: Thanks. Wardle: Council, we have two open public hearings. Do I hear a motion to continue? Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we continue Public Hearing AZ 06-019 and PP 06-019 to August 8th, 2006. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to continue these public hearings to August 8th. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Baird: Mr. Chair, just for clarification for the record, the motion was for PP 06-018. It may have been misstated, but I think the record, in general, would be clear. Wardle: Thank you very much, Mr. Baird. Rountree: It's getting late. Wardle: Items 24 and 25. Bird: I couldn't read right. Item 26: Public Hearing: AZ 06-021 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 77.66 acres from Ada County RUT to C-G General Commercial and R-15 Medium-High Density Residential zones for Kenai Subdivision by Kenai Partners, LLC - south of East Overland Road and west of South Eagle Road: