Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 8, 2006 C/C Minutes Meridian City Council AugustB,2006 Page 20 of 40 Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we continue Items 12 and 13, V AC 06-010 and V AC 06-004 until August 15th, 2006. Bird: Second. ........--......~ '--"----- --"- De Weent Okay. I have a motion to continue Items 12 and 13 to August 15th. All ---those--m-1av01say-aye. All ayes. Motion carries. ~.,~~.-- ~--~._~ ~~~--' ~ MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. / Continued Public Hearing from June 27, 2006: AZ 06-019 Annexation and Zoning of 10.59 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Southwick Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC -1255 West Ustick Road: ____ Item---14:" Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from June 27, 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: De Weerd: Okay. Items 14 and 15 are continued public hearings AZ 06-019 and PP 06-01. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Southwick project. It was continued from your June 27th, 2006, hearing and at that hearing -- I'll give you a brief update. It's located east of Linder Road, south of Ustick Road. It's currently two very long, skinny lots. It is annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat. The applicant had originally proposed 42 building lots on 10.59 acres. At the hearing the City Council had become concerned with the concept of flag lots being used as a -- as a design element, basically, for the plat, rather than typically how you see them as an awkward corner that the developer is trying to reach to and so they use flag lots. At that hearing I had suggested that Council wait and I could provide some images of flag lots for you to see how these are constructed. Since that time the applicant has actually -- proposes now not to include any flag lots. This is the current proposal and I will let them present this to you. These are quite a bit larger lots. The lot count went down from 42 to 26 lots. So, this is substantially different than the original application. Staff has a question as to what Council's pleasure might be on this. At a minimum we need to ask you to continue this for two weeks, because we haven't gotten -- we haven't had time to review it to see if it meets our standards and to review it appropriately. The other question that comes up -- so you could either continue two weeks and we can address those issues in that interim, but the question becomes whether it would be appropriate to remand this back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. By dropping that many lots, the density drops down to about 2.45 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan designation on this piece Meridian City Council AugustB,2006 Page 21 of 40 of property is medium density residential. So, there would be a need to at least evaluate the appropriateness of the step down in this case. And the code does allow for a step up and a step down, but the Planning Commission had not considered that. The other issue that just occurred to me that I hadn't spoke with the applicants is whether R- 8 zoning would be appropriate on nine and ten thousand square foot lots or if it would be more appropriate to go to an R-4 zoning. Again, because these impacts are less on the surrounding property owners, I don't think that it would be necessarily inappropriate for it not to go back and Planning and Zoning -- or to move forward. But it is a consideration as to if you want the Planning and Zoning Commission's input on this. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, if we was to -- asking to take that back to an R-4, which I would love to see done, then, that's probably a big enough change that we would probably want to go back to Planning and Zoning, wouldn't we? What's your opinion on that? Canning: I'm a little ambivalent on this one. You can tell. In some ways I feel it's appropriate to go back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, because it's a different project. But, on the other hand, the roads haven't changed. The impact to the surrounding property owners, who all would have had an opportunity to comment at that hearing, is less. There is just -- it really is a less impact on the surrounding property owners. However, you have a Planning and Zoning Commission that takes their job seriously, that likes to provide a solid recommendation to you. I'm not sure how they would feel about this big of change. But, on the other hand, they have got full agendas, too, and they may want it to go through. So, it's really -- there is all sorts of things to consider and I'm not quite sure how to advise you on this one. De Weerd: Thank you for the pros and cons. Bird: Follow up, Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Well, you're asking for a two week continuance on this? In that time would you be able, as a staff, to talk to the applicant and see -- and make a recommendation that -- of whether you think we can legally and rightfully do it with changing it to an R-4? There is no reason -- if they are coming back to that density that we stay at an R-8 designation, in my opinion. And in the two weeks, then, you can come back and tell us what you want? Canning: So -- Mr. Nary can advise you more fully, but I don't think it's a question of legally. I think -- we talked about whether legally it was a question and I think you're okay. Meridian City Council August 8, 2006 Page 22 of 40 Bird: Okay. Canning: I'm looking for him to say otherwise and he's not, so -- De Weerd: Mr. Nary, do you have anything to add? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean I think it's a discretionary call on the part of the Council. If you think that's a significant change and that it is more appropriate to be reviewed, I think Councilman Bird has raised I guess a potential compromise that you may want to hear from the applicant. The other, if there is an opportunity for staff to have some better time to have analysis and review of what this change is, they may be better able to advise you or I could better be able to advise you on whether or not we truly think it is a different project. Again, normally, a lesser intensive use normally isn't going to be considered a significant change, but, of course, there are people who may prefer more density and this is a fairly significant -- trying to think -- there are lots of people out there in the spectrum that may prefer that. But there is a significant difference. I mean this isn't 42 single family homes to 39, this is 42 to 28. I mean it's a fairly large difference what you normally see. But, again, the opportunity for a little bit more staff time to review that might be more appropriate and, then, again, the appropriate zoning, those kind of things, but the Council can maybe make a better decision after that, to, then, decide -- you feel comfortable in it going forward and not having to be returned for, essentially, fairly routine sort of matter in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission. De Weerd: Thank you. And, you know, I think I have been -- sat up here through Planning and Zoning, City Council, and now as Mayor, and so eight years I have never heard anyone ask for more density. But, you know, there is always a first. Nary: Try and just keep an open mind. Me either, but-- De Weerd: I do. Canning: Madam Mayor, I'm sure you meant to say anyone except your planning director. De Weerd: Okay. Public testimony. Mr. Rountree, did you have comment? Rountree: Just a comment. It seems to me that -- and I agree with Bill's definition of significant. If it's a lesser impact and a lesser use, I don't necessarily agree that it would be significant. But my comment is is that we have had a lot of comments about wanting larger lots and opportunities to have larger lots in the wealth of small lots in many lots that we have seen in the past few months and -- but we keep doing our level best to discourage folks from doing that and I would agree with Anna that with this change that the staff needs a little more time to look at it, but I don't know that we necessarily need to beat up the applicant anymore than is necessary. So, I would say give staff an opportunity to make sure it's consistent. I would like to see their request be to R-4 and Meridian City Council AugustB,2006 Page 23 of 40 have it come back in two weeks for consideration and not send it back through the mill, through Planning and Zoning, et cetera. I, too, have sat on Planning and Zoning and I would guess their agendas are every bit as rigorous as they used to be and I can well imagine that they probably really would appreciate not seeing this again. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? As you have heard, staff has requested two weeks to review this and bring back comments. Does that work for you? Wildwood: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, for the record my name is Susan Wildwood and I'm here on behalf of the applicant and in our discussions today we were aware that Anna would need a couple of weeks. The only thing that I would say is -- I had to kind of chuckle. This is a unique experience for me to come to the City of Meridian and say, please, give us larger lots. So, I have to say I have lived long enough to -- you know, to do that. And it's really a redesign based on a bunch of comments. But we appreciate that Anna needs some time to look at it. And just so that you know, if Anna and I can run our numbers straight, the difference in the zoning is six lots and so we are trying to bring you a good project. We actually up the common usable open space and I couldn't give you the exact footage, but, anyway, we appreciate staff and we appreciate your look at it and appreciate Bill's analysis. I, too, said that if you are reducing your impact and you're incorporating the comments, that's one thing as far as legal notice goes and that's really -- we really needed your guidance as a city council and Anna needed it, too, to decide where we were going to go, but, gosh, we'd sure like to give you bigger lots with not a lot of hassle. And with that we concur in the two weeks and we will be happy to meet with staff and see if we can wrestle her down. De Weerd: Very good. Thank you. Bird: Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor, if there is no further comments, I would move that we continue the hearings on Item 14 and 15 until August 22nd. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue Items 14 and 15 to August 22nd. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from July 11, 2006: AZ 06-015 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (168.23 acres) , TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood-Residential) (10.42 acres) and C-N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) zones for Tanana Vallev Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LLC - southeast corner of Meridian Road and Victory Road: