Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 3, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 18 of 56 Newton-Huckabay: I have many. Moe: Have you expressed all those? Newton-Huckabay: I have no further comment. Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 06-033 and PP 06-041, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 3rd, 2006. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-033 and PP 06-041, to include the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Public Hearing: RZ 06-006 Request for a Rezone of 6.82 acres from R-8 to R-15 for Cedar Springs Townhomes by John Flaherty Construction - south of W. McMillan and west of N. Meridian Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 06-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 attached single-family units in the proposed R-15 zone, 20 detached single-family units in the existing R-8 zone and 5 common lots on a total of 11.05 acres for Cedar Springs Townhomes by John Flaherty Construction - south of W. McMillan and west of N. Meridian Road: Rohm: Thank you for coming in. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on RZ 06-006 and PP 06-033, both related to Cedar Springs townhomes and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Once again, I will begin with a brief summary and, then, move on to any issues that the staff looked at specifically. The applicant has applied for rezoning of 6.82 acres from R-8, which is medium low density residential, to R-15, medium high density residential on this site. The total project area is 11.05 acres -- 11.05 acres, which includes 4.23 acres already zoned R-8. The site is located on McMillan Road west of Meridian Road and this area received preliminary plat approval as Lot 18, Block 13, of the Cedar Springs North Subdivision and the original preliminary plat noted that this site was to be developed as attached single family units. And this area received final plat approval as Lot 2, Block 36 of Cedar Springs Subdivision NO.4. And that note that it was previously -- they had received to be developed as attached single family units is important, because they are proposing townhomes on this site. I'll continue with the context. To the north is the recently approved 85 lot Cedarcreek Subdivision, which is zoned R-8. To the east is a future residential development or Amber Creek Subdivision, which is also zoned R-8. To the Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 18 of 56 Newton-Huckabay: I have many. Moe: Have you expressed all those? Newton-Huckabay: I have no further comment. Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 06-033 and PP 06-041, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 3rd, 2006. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-033 and PP 06-041, to include the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Public Hearing: RZ 06-006 Request for a Rezone of 6.82 acres from R-8 to R-15 for Cedar Springs Townhomes by John Flaherty Construction - south of W. McMillan and west of N. Meridian Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 06-033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 attached single-family units in the proposed R-15 zone, 20 detached single-family units in the existing R-8 zone and 5 common lots on a total of 11.05 acres for Cedar Springs Townhomes by John Flaherty Construction - south of W. McMillan and west of N. Meridian Road: Rohm: Thank you for coming in. At this time I'd like to open the public hearing on RZ 06-006 and PP 06-033, both related to Cedar Springs town homes and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Once again, I will begin with a brief summary and, then, move on to any issues that the staff looked at specifically. The applicant has applied for rezoning of 6.82 acres from R-8, which is medium low density residential, to R-15, medium high density residential on this site. The total project area is 11.05 acres -- 11.05 acres, which includes 4.23 acres already zoned R-8. The site is located on McMillan Road west of Meridian Road and this area received preliminary plat approval as Lot 18, Block 13, of the Cedar Springs North Subdivision and the original preliminary plat noted that this site was to be developed as attached single family units. And this area received final plat approval as Lot 2, Block 36 of Cedar Springs Subdivision NO.4. And that note that it was previously -- they had received to be developed as attached single family units is important, because they are proposing townhomes on this site. I'll continue with the context. To the north is the recently approved 85 lot Cedarcreek Subdivision, which is zoned R-B. To the east is a future residential development or Amber Creek Subdivision, which is also zoned R-8. To the Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 19 of 56 south there are some future single family homes within the Cedar Springs North Subdivision. The pads that -- I went out there and took a look. The pads are already there. They are close to being under construction. And to the west is some future office uses, which are also partially under construction at this time, which have been approved under Cedar Springs North Subdivision. Once again, the aerial photograph shows what I just described in a little bit more detail. And we will move onto the -- to the preliminary plat. So, along with the annexation, the applicant is also requesting preliminary plat approval of 68 single family building lots. Forty-eight of these lots are for the townhomes located in the proposed R-15 zone in the northern portion -- northern and central portion of the property. I can kind of draw a line here of that requested R-15 zone. It kind of goes up and around like that. So, this whole centerpiece is proposed R- 15 and this top portion here is also proposed R-15, which will contain the townhomes. Let's see here. To the south we have 20 additional lots, which currently have existing R-8 zoning and they are proposing to maintain that R-8 zoning and build single family detached homes on that site on those lots. There is also five common lots proposed in this development and the total gross density is 6.15 units per acre, which, once again, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area, which allows for between three and eight units per acre. We will move on to the landscape plan. The applicant is proposing to set aside approximately .67 acres or six percent of the together site area as common usable open space. The bulk of this open space is located in the proposed micro pathway that runs through the southwest corner of the property right here and also there is some common lots, open space lots, in the center portion of the property that provide open space for this development. Another -- a note for this property concerning open space is the access that this -- these residents will have many open space amenities, which currently exist in the Cedar Springs North Subdivision. They will be part of that subdivision and be able to access many of those same amenities. We will move on here to -- the applicant has also provided some -- some concept plans for those town homes and some elevations that would be good to take a look at, just so we have an idea of what's going to go on the ground there. This is a concept plan or a site plan of those proposed town homes. As you can see they are going to have common driveways with four units located on each common driveway with landscaping. And, then, I'll just bring up the elevations here of these -- of these townhomes, which will be accessed off of those common driveways. They will have garages and that this is just an example of some of the building types and elevations that will be proposed there. I think I have one more. Other than the elevations, which we just had a chance to look at, the only major issue that staff identified with this project was some inadequate lot sizes per the -- per the UDC that existed in Lots 13 through 16, which are these lots right here. As I stated earlier, the zoning is R-8 and these lots did not meet the minimum 5,000 square foot requirement. They were around 4,700. And tonight it would be nice for the applicant to verify kind of how he's going to deal with that, whether it be through shared driveways, which would lower the lot size requirement to 4,000 and, then, they would be in compliance or if he would like to redesign that area to provide for the 5,000. Other than that issue, staff, in general, is supportive of this project and recommends approval and I stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, Justin. Any questions of staff? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 20 of 56 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair. Justin, can you go back to the landscape, the colored -- how do the rest of those lots in the center work? I mean are those like flag lot access? Borup: Same as the corner one. Lucas: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, that -- this lot -- these -- well, this group of lots, yes, is an example of all -- of how all of these would work. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, a complete -- the whole center is just like that -- Lucas: This is four units. This would be four more units, four more units, et cetera, throughout the whole center, all taking access off of these common driveway that are those flags. Newton-Huckabay: Got You. Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Fluke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Daren Fluke with JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant in this matter. We are in complete agreement with the staff report, so I'm not going to go over the gory details of the project at this point. I'd just like to give you a little bit of history and context for the project. I'm sure you read my narrative that was attached with the application. I think the only commissioner on -- at that time was Commissioner Borup when Cedar Springs North came through and at that time the concern over Cedar Springs North was, actually, that the density was too low. I think that project came in at about three and a half units to the acre, maybe a little bit more, and this area was designated by the Comprehensive Plan as one of your commercial higher density nodes -- the neighborhood commercial nodes that are shown on the map and that's how we got the L-O to the west of us and that's how we designated this portion of the project as a higher density portion of the project to bump up that density. It was always anticipated that this was and recognized that was a part of the greater Cedar Springs North development and, therefore, all our numbers at that time worked as far as the provision of open space and there is a fair amount of park space within Cedar Springs North, which is -- which this project is subject to and welcome to use, I guess. They are part of the same CC&Rs and will be integrated into that previous project, so -- we think this is a very nice looking project. Whenever you see projects that get up about four units to the acre I understand there is always concern over density. To my way of thinking it's not really about the density -- six units to the acre is not that high, but it's all about design and so what we hope you agree with us here is that we have designed a project that's really nice with interesting buildings and a layout that really works for the intent of the developer, which is to market these as lots that are almost maintenance free. There is very little yard that are included with these and that's by design. These are intended to be sold to empty nesters and people who don't really want to be taking care of a yard, but want something more maintenance free. I did have a rendering done Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 21 of 56 along McMillan Road. This would be the elevation facing -- can we go back one? Yeah. Thank you. Right along here. I didn't want it to look too monotonous and we do have existing landscaping along there and so you can see that the buildings have good fenestration and modulation on there that make it a little bit more visually appealing along that streetscape. That landscaping is also, you know, fairly mature along there now. We did, as a concession to the development that has gone on around us, including a project to the east that was approved since this one was approved, we have tried to buffer that by including detached single family units next to those other detached single family units, while our attached project is all here and along here. And, then, we do intend to provide shared driveways on those lots that Justin mentioned that are below your minimum for this lot. I think that's all the high points on the application. So, if you had any questions I would be happy to take those now. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Fluke, can you hold your story board back up? Where are the front doors or the rear? Are those -- all of those buildings attached together? Fluke: Right. That's -- Commissioner -- or Chairman and Commissioner, we have got -- basically, you have got two building plans, so you have got four units around each courtyard there, with the front elevations being this -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Fluke: -- and this. And, then, the courtyard elevation would be the garages, these, which will face each other right here. So, you will be able to drive in, two car garage, two car garage, two car garage, two car garage. We have front doors here and here and, then, entries off of here and here for these units on those. Newton-Huckabay: So, where are the front doors for the back ones on your picture over here? Fluke: They are located -- they would be just off of the -- Borup: Right there on that -- Fluke: Yeah. You would come in off the garage on this one. You see how this pops out. You can't see the door in it there. And the same here. Borup: The elevation hides it, because the garage is wider -- or the house is wider than the garage. Fluke: What you have got is, actually, a pop out there that doesn't show up on the flat board. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 22 of 56 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And how does a person -- how do you get extra parking? Is there room enough in those little courtyards if you have more than two cars or you have -- Fluke: Right. Well, there would be each -- each dwelling would, technically, have enough room for four parking places. Newton-Huckabay: Two in the garage and two in front of the garage? Fluke: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Great. Fluke: Plus, those -- that is a public street section out there, 36 feet back to back, so there will be parking allowed on this public road as well. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Thank you. Borup: I just have one minor question. I assume the landscape -- this is intended as conceptual. I noticed that some of your houses are over the property lines, some units. Fluke: Yes. Borup: Okay. Fluke: That was to give you an idea how each one of those individual -- or those four pods would work. Borup: Yeah. I understand that courtyard concept, but they are not lined -- they are over the property line, so -- does that still -- if those -- by the time those are shifted that's still -- you're okay for your backyard setback? Fluke: Yeah. We do have setbacks in between the buildings there. Borup: No. I mean the backyard setbacks. Fluke: So, when you say rear yard, you mean -- Borup: Right -- yeah. Right there. Fluke: In there? Yeah. There will be, actually, green space in -- Borup: But that building has to shift to be able to be on -- have the units on the property lines. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 3, 2006 Page 23 of 56 Fluke: I guess I'm not following you. Borup: Well, here is your property line right here and it's cutting right through that garage. It needs to adjust up there, so it's -- Fluke: That's where they will be attached. That's our zero setback right there, so there will be no -- and this is like a planter within the driveway in between the two garages there. Essentially an above-grade planter. Borup: So, this line right there is not where they are attached? Fluke: No. That's correct. That is where they are attached. That's a two car garage and that's a two car garage. Borup: But, you have got about a four to six foot offset. Fluke: Well, that's a drafting error. Borup: Okay. So, it does shift -- by the time that shifts down you're okay on your setbacks? Fluke: Yes. Borup: All right. That was alii was asking about. Fluke: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Again, there is nobody else that has signed up to speak to this application, but at this time it's open to public testimony. Anyone that so chooses may come forward at this time. Good. Things are going very well. Discussion? Don't have any additional questions of the applicant or of staff for this application? Seems to be pretty well laid out. Borup: I mean the concept is a little bit new. We have had a couple of these courtyard designs, but I don't know if anything's been built yet in Meridian. Rohm: I guess my question of staff is on those lots that didn't have the 5,000 square foot minimum would it take a development agreement to insure that they have a joint driveway to reduce that requirement down to 4,000? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, maybe we should have the -- it seems like the applicant is saying that he is going to use shared driveways on those and we do not need to include that in the development agreement, because it's required as a part of his development. It won't be allowed without those. Rohm: Works for me. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 24 of 56 Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-006. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: You want to close them both? Moe: Oh. I'm sorry. And PP 06-033. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-006 and PP 06-033. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borup: Do we need to make a change on 1.1 .3? That was the one that talks about the lot sizes. Would that -- Rohm: I think that -- Newton-Huckabay: Or a common drive. Borup: No, it doesn't say that. I mean the -- Newton-Huckabay: Mine does. Or common drive shall be used to meet the minimum UDC requirements for lot size. Borup: Let me see. Oh, there it is. I'm sorry, I was looking for that at the end. Moe: I think we are fine. Borup: Yes. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number RZ 06-006 and PP 06-033 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 3rd, 2006. Meridian Planning & Zoning August3,2006 Page 25 of 56 Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-006 and PP 06-033. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Can we -- Rohm: We certainly can. At this time we will take a 15 minute break and reconvene at about 8:25. Borup: Or maybe shorter. Rohm: Let's make it 8:20. (Recess.) Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 06-030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 8.03 acres to an R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 06-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 35 residential lots and 4 common lots on 8.03 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Northborough Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - north side of Ustick Road and east of Linder Road: Rohm: All right. At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for August 3rd, 2006, and begin with opening up public hearings AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030 for the sole purpose of continuing them to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 31 st, 2006. Could I get a motion to that effect? Moe: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue public hearings AZ 06-030 and PP 06-030 to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 31 st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.