Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 21, 2006 C/C Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 66 of 86 Rohm: -- forward onto City Council with our recommendation of approval for CPA 06- 003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 06-042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.18 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 E. Amity Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 06-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 62 residential lots and 9 common lots on 20.18 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Cottswold Village Subdivision by Cherie A. Dalton Living Trust - 2180 E. Amity Road: Rohm: Thank you. The next project I'd like to open up, it's AZ 06-042 and PP 06-044, both related to Cottswold Village Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Cottswold Village Subdivision. The applicant has requested annexation and preliminary plat approval for 62 single family residential lots and nine common lots on 20.18 acres within the R-8 medium density residential zoning designation. Cottswold Village is generally located on the north side of Amity Road about a quarter of a mile east of Locust Grove Road. You can see on the map it's right there. Amity Road will serve as a primary access to the subdivision. To the west there is a proposed Estancia Subdivision right here, which is zoned R-4. To the north the proposed Bellingham Park Subdivision, which is this area, which is zoned R-8. South and east, residential parcels are still under the jurisdiction of Ada County. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 62 residential lots, approximately 7,750 square feet and 15,000 square feet. The applicant has supplied a mix of parkways. Fast forward here to the landscape plan. The applicant has supplied a mix of parkways, micro pathways and a large common area to meet the open space requirement. An amenity in the form of a gazebo to be located in the central common area is also proposed. The subject subdivision has utilized two stub street connections provided by Bellingham Park at the north and Estancia at the west side. Cottswold Village has also provided a stub connection of their own at the east property line to provide connectivity to the county parcel when it redevelops. The site is currently used for agricultural purposes. The one structure located at the southeast corner, which is down here, is to be removed. There is two issues to mention here. First, the applicant's proposal, although in accord with the requested R-8 zoning district, it doesn't comply with the current Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site of low density residential. It is R-2 and R-4 zoning districts which correspond to said land use designation. The Commission should also recall that earlier in the evening during the hearing for the Comprehensive Plan amendment staff has recommended the land use designation for the site remain at low density residential, as ten of the building lots are slightly under the R-4 medium low density residential lot size standards of 8,000 square feet. Staff feels the applicant could and should meet the R-4 criterion. If approved at R-4, this Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 67 of 86 development would, then, be in compliance with the current land use designation for this site. The second issue is that the applicant proposes six foot solid fencing along the micro pathway in the rear property lines at the northeast corner of the subject site. This does not meet the requirements of the UDC. To clarify for the applicant, six foot solid fencing is permitted along all rear and side property lines not adjacent to common areas or micropaths. The code would limit fencing in these instances to four foot fence if solid or six foot if open vision. The applicant should state his preference of fencing in these areas tonight. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward? Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1500 East Iron Eagle. Zaremba: You look familiar. Brown: I should. We are not opposed to the four foot solid fence, that's just an error in the landscaping plan. The issue comes is that we were asking for medium density here and with the approval of the last project, basically, to keep our plan as is we need that bump up that we have discussed so kindly tonight and what it really affects is that we have seven lots in here that are a hundred -- no, 224 square feet smaller than 8,000. If I make them two feet wider and make some of my larger lots smaller -- basically make everything 8,000 and everything's okay, I guess. Or if I get the bump up, then, I can leave my lots as is. Staff had mentioned to me over the phone that there is a concern that if they give this R-8 that, you know, my larger lots, some of them could come in and re-subdivide, because the minimum is 5,000 square feet and we can commit to not doing that in the development agreement, which they are requiring us to do as a part of annexation and I think that we are all covered and we are all fine. Our density is over three, but just -- I mean, what, 3.3 I think is what it says -- 3.3, 3.2, something like that. So, we are slightly over, but realistically we are compatible with what's around us. We have R-8 zoning to the north of us and R-8 zoning that was done in the PUD that I brought before you in Messina Meadows. We have R-4 that's next door and all of those lots are exactly 8,000. So, we were just trying to add a little bit of a mix with some larger lots and just some difference. These lots in this area are like 130, 140 foot deep. It just gives you something a little different than having everything be 80 feet wide and 100 foot deep or so forth, so -- that's the purpose behind it. Any questions? Borup: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: No questions. Borup: I do have one. Whose -- question on the bump up. What's your understanding of the procedure and how that is handled? So that -- you made that request tonight. Is that normally done in writing? Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 68 of 86 Brown: It's usually done in writing and it's done as a part of submitting my application and since this kind of happened in between, I mean if you need me to make it in writing, I will get out my pen and I guess -- Borup: But you have done it verbally in your presentation tonight was your formal request; is that what you're saying? Brown: Yes. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you, Kent. I think that's pretty typical, isn't it, that if an application comes in and wants an R-8 when it's zoned R-4, that just kind of goes along with the application, doesn't it? I think we have reviewed a lot of plans that -- Borup: And the problem I have had with a lot of them in the past when they have asked for them, they have gone to the maximum what those other zones will do. I'm a lot more comfortable on one like this where they are just barely over and they are not asking to have 5,000 square foot lots, which would be approved in the R -- yeah. I guess I'm saying I like this. I like the diversity of lot sizes and the variety of plans it allows to be built when you have that type of thing. I really like the looks of this subdivision. And I -- were you going to ask for public testimony? Rohm: Yes, I will. Yes. Is John Huffman here? Would you like to come forward, please? Huffman: Hi. My name is John Huffman and I live at 2045 East Amity, which is just off the map there just across the road to the south and although we were characterized earlier as just farm houses, you know, kind of around in here, my wife Helen and I have lived and worked this as a farm and a ranch for 30 years or so. Raised five kids and 15 grandkids. We are actively working this land. We raise some crops. We raise horses. We sell horses. We give riding lessons. There is a lot of activity there. And I guess -- I really don't have any -- any problems or concerns, other than just a few questions for you and that is that, you know, obviously, I'm guessing that in 20 years that probably this will fit into any kind of a long range plan for this area, the type of operation that we are running. But, nonetheless, we'd like to be compatible as development happens and as we transition as well and so my question and concern is mostly around the fact that we currently receive water for irrigation, we -- you know, we have a need as a subdivision, for instance, there to the east of us, if they move in, that we have large animals, we would like there to be some kind of safety requirements or something like that that we may not actually be able to easily accommodate and we just want to be able to fit in and have a safe environment for folks as well, so -- Borup: Is this yours here? Huffman: Yeah. We, actually, have all -- there is three there. So-- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21.2006 Page 69 of 86 Borup: There is a pointer at the desk there. Huffman: Okay. So, we currently receive our irrigation water off of this ridge that we were talking about earlier and we are able to irrigate our fields here and, then -- but my concern -- and this is currently just an alfalfa field here, but mostly I'm concerned about the safety issue and having an attractive fence or barrier -- we do a lot of -- we have a riding arena here along the road. We also have kind of a bridle path where you can walk your horses around and so forth. A lot of students take horseback riding lessons and that sort of thing. So, again, no particular questions, but just -- I wanted to just make you aware that there is a fair amount of activity in that area and we would just like to be compatible with -- Borup: It sounds like a lot of your concerns would apply to the one that's coming up next. Huffman: Yes. Yes. Exactly. Rohm: And to answer your concerns, typically, what we do is we make a requirement they put on their plat -- the Right To Farm Act notification on all the lots that are adjacent to existing agriculture operations and just so that anybody that's buying, they know that there is agricultural work taking place adjacent. Huffman: Okay. Rohm: And I think that that addresses your concerns. Huffman: All right. Rohm: And the irrigation, Idaho Code says that if you have got irrigation currently, you will have irrigation available to you after development as well. Both of those things are taken care of. Huffman: All right. Thank you. Rohm: You bet. There isn't anybody else signed up, but if someone would like to come forward, they are welcome to. Seeing none -- if we can get a motion to close. Hood: Mr. Chair, although there wasn't really much public testimony, I don't think any concerns are really -- I'm not going to say no concerns were brought up, but the applicant should probably have the last word in this matter before you close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: And, actually, I saved a question for the applicant as well. Rohm: Oh, good. Kent, would you like to come back up. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 70 of 86 Brown: Kent Brown, for the record. Zaremba: Thank you. I thought I marked it and now I'm trying to find it, but there was -- I think this is the right one. There was a discussion in the staff report about the turning radiuses, probably, in this cul-de-sac? Brown: We will comply. Zaremba: Okay. It, actually, looked to me like you were bigger than the required radiuses, but -- Brown: That's what I thought, too. Zaremba: Okay. As long as everybody is satisfied, that was my only question. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Borup: It looks like there is staff comment. Rohm: Does staff have any final comment? Hess: I guess, no, we are still going to stand by our recommendation of having the R-4 zoning designation comply with our Comprehensive Plan designation is just what makes sense, so -- Rohm: Okay. All right. Thank you. Borup: So, you're saying the staff would not be open to a bump up? Hess: There were -- Commissioner Borup, sorry, we are not exactly opposed that, but, you know, as staff stated, we are looking to keep that low density and it's -- the R-2 or the R-4 zoning designations are what corresponds to a land use designation of low density. It's just -- Borup: I guess if I would have realized that that's the feeling I would have noted different on that Comp Plan amendment. Hood: And, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I guess let me -- and they are case-by-case. The bump up is case-by-case. Borup: And I agree and that's why I felt this one was a good case. There is only eight lots that are 200 feet under the minimum. Hood: And that's why I think we made the recommendation. I'm not trying to put words in Amanda's mouth, but I think the reason that we said -- you really don't need the Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 71 of 86 bump. You're so close already, let's have the zoning reflect the actual land uses and if you're at 3.2 dwelling units an acre, it's low density, have it zoned R-4 not R-8. R-8 is four to eight dwelling units an acre. It's all over the city today. I mean you have got PDs out there over the past five years where the zoning doesn't reflect what's going on, but I think that's the general idea is that with some tweaking of some lot lines a little bit, they could conform to the R-4. Is it the end of the world, do we not support a bump up because of that? No, but they are border, they are right there where it seems with -- at least from our perspective very little effort they could comply with the R-4 standards and, essentially, have the same development and be zoned to exactly be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but the bump works, too, and I -- it's happened all over the city, so -- Zaremba: I can see the logic to that, except that the applicant made the point that by complying they, essentially, would end up with the same cookie cutter subdivision that we have been asking people not to do. I like the idea of having different sizes mixed together. I guess my difficulty is there must be a way to do -- either we say it's an R-4, except that there are eight designated lots that can be 200 feet under, or we say it's an R-8 and all but eight lots have to comply with the R-4 -- I mean I'd like to give the flexibility of the eight or ten lots or whatever it is that he wants to be a different size, because the only way to get the space to add the 200 square feet to each of them is take them out of some bigger lot, so -- Hood: And, again, I think maybe the concern is -- and I'm not -- there is a way that they can control this, too, in CC&Rs and saying you can't subdivide your property. If you have got a 10,000 square foot lot, you can't split it. I mean they could solve that, too. The other option is in the development agreement you say this 20 acres you get however many lots are being proposed -- a maximum of 62 lots and you solve it right there in the development agreement. You can't resubdivide it any -- you can have -- if they want to have ten one acre lots, then, they have got ten more acres to get the other 54 lots in and, you know, that's how it could be -- you know, they could really show some variation in lot size. But if you like the density -- if you like 64 lots on 20 acres, putting something -- or 62 lots, however many -- in that 20 acres, you could put a development agreement provision that would, essentially, get some rendition of this approved forever. If this plat dies, then, that's what is going to run with the land, so just a tho ug ht. Borup: That maybe makes a lot of sense. Zaremba: Shall we ask to Mr. Brown to comment on that? Brown: I appreciate the opportunity. And I know it's late and I know that you guys are tired. One of the unique things in doing this as a consultant and being in different jurisdictions -- one of the unique cities that I have worked in recently is Star and Star has said, you know, our Comprehensive Plan says we are supposed to have three units per acre, so get three units per acre and as long as you submit three units per acre, they are not going to tell you that if you have a 58 foot wide lot, instead of a 60 foot lot, Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 72 of 86 that that doesn't work. And it is really nice to work with, because you guys decide, your sewer guys decide how many you want to have in certain areas and, then, we are not talking about, well, because my site's configured this way and I got these stub streets, if I can sell a lot with a little bit of a different shape, then, I sell a lot and if, you know, I'm doing a project, I got, you know, five acres, it's four units per acre, I get 20 lots. Well, I layout the streets and if I want to make the lots smaller and that's what my market is, then, I have more open space. And, basically, that's what we are discussing here right now is that staff is feeling very concerned that a couple of these lots are going to be a couple hundred square feet smaller than that recommendation and the way that I accomplish that is I take nines and tens and 12,000 square foot lots and make them smaller. I can comply with the staff report, that's what my response letter said. I would prefer to leave it as is and if getting there means I have to ask for a bump up from the low to the medium, that's what I'm -- what I tried to accomplish earlier, so -- Zaremba: I guess my question would be -- or would you be comfortable with a development agreement that puts a restriction on the larger lots that they cannot be resubdivided, however that's put it -- Brown: I don't have a problem with that. Zaremba: -- a maximum of 62 lots or -- Brown: I don't have a problem if it's the maximum of 62 lots. Newton-Huckabay: Minimum? Brown: Minimum? Borup: No. Maximum. Zaremba: Maximum. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Sorry. It's late. Zaremba: So that they can't be resubdivided. Brown: You were pulling my chain there. Zaremba: So, you would be comfortable with something like that? Brown: Yes. And I had even suggested that, so-- Rohm: Good. Thank you, Kent. Have we closed the Public Hearing? Zaremba: No, we have not. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 73 of 86 Rohm: Would you like to come forward? You bet. Dalton: I'm Cherie Dalton and I'm the property owner. My address is 1157 West Stillwell, Eagle. I've really gone around with Kent about this particular piece of property that -- I told him it had to be special, that we didn't want cookie cutters, we didn't want square lots that were all exactly the same size, and we have redrawn it several times and I have really been tugging, you know, to make it different, make it different than everybody else's, and so that's what I bring to the City of Meridian is, hey, this isn't a cookie cutter and we didn't want to see all 5,000 or 8,000 or even 10,000 square lots, we wanted them to be different, so that we can afford in the same neighborhood a little bit less expensive house and a very very nice house on the same subdivision parcel and that's what I would ask you, please, to consider our request as is, because it does allow us to offer a little bit nicer smaller house, you know, even across the street from one that has a very large backyard, which we think is a very good mix and to help in the marketability. Didn't want to bring you patio homes. Just didn't want to do it. Felt that it was more important we bring you a mixed neighborhood. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Actually, I think we are agreeing with you, at least I am, we are just trying to find the right way to word it, so that if you decided to sell it before you actually build on this, somebody else could come along and say, hey, I have got an R-8, I can do something different than what you envision. We are supporting your vision, we are just trying to get the words right. Newton-Huckabay: I think we got it. Borup: I think a development agreement -- Zaremba: Okay. Borup: -- would be the easiest, because that's permanent. Zaremba: Yeah. A development agreements works for me. Rohm: I think we are ready to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-042 and PP 06-044. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 74 of 86 Rohm: Mr. Zaremba, would like to make a motion? Zaremba: Well, let's see. Yes, I would be happy to do that. Borup: 1.1.3. 1.1.2. Do you want to discuss -- 1.1.2 and three -- Zaremba: Yeah. 1.1.2. Borup: Have the R-4. Zaremba: And the 1.1.3 is what we would adjust. Borup: Is that it? Zaremba: I think so. Okay. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-042 and PP 06-044, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 20 -- that must be a misprint. Newton-Huckabay: It's September 21st, almost 22nd. Zaremba: The staff report that we have adjusted for today, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. This is Exhibit B, paragraphs 1.1.2 and 1.1.3, shall be changed to read that the R-8 zone is acceptable, but a development agreement shall include a maximum number of lots at 62. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-042 and PP 06-044, both related to Cottswold Village Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thank you, folks. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 06-044 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 E. Amity Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 06-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 residential lots and 8 common lots on 19 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Whitebark Subdivision by Dan Wood - 2135 E. Amity Road: Rohm: All right. Moving right along. The next item on the public agenda is AZ 06-044, related to Whitebark Subdivision and I'd like to begin with the staff report. Oh, I'd like to open it with the -- begin with the staff report.