Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 21, 2006 C/C Minutes 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 21 st, 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 fOlWard 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. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 75 of 86 Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. We, as you said, are moving right along here. Let's move on to the proposed Whitebark Subdivision. This area has been discussed quite a bit tonight and it's going to continue to be discussed with this subdivision, which is to the southeast of the Cottswold Subdivision that was just discussed. The subject property is directly surrounded by rural residential property, as was previously discussed, and I don't think we need to go into too much context, since it's been discussed at length tonight. Along with annexation and zoning the applicant is also requesting the preliminary plat approval of 48 single family lots and eight common lots. The total site area is 19 acres and the applicant is proposing an R-4 or medium low density residential zone. The proposed lots range in size from 10,000 to almost 16,000 square feet. With that current configuration of lots the total gross density for the project is 2.52 units per acre, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this area of low density residential. So, this project is consistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation as it exists today. Currently the sole access to the development will be taken off of Amity Road and beyond this access point the applicant has proposed three different stub streets, East Bird Pine to the west, East Scrub Pine to the -- I'm sorry. This is west. It is late. East Scrub Pine to the east. And to the south it's an extension of South Whitebark Way. Move on to the landscape plan. The applicant is proposing to set aside 1.44 acres or 7.6 percent of the total site area as common usable open space and the bulk of it's open space is located in the proposed micro pathways that can be seen -- one adjacent to the -- the street -- the entry street there and there is also a micro pathway in the southern portion connecting those two streets. And the applicant's also proposing detached sidewalks in this subdivision with - _ with trees. The only issues that staff would like to bring up at this time is the fact that this -- approval of this subdivision, basically, is contingent upon approval of the previous subdivision, which we talked about, because that previous subdivision, the Cottswold Village, provides that annexation path for this property. So, there is -- it's discussed quite a bit in the staff report that if Cottswold Village, for whatever reason, is not approved through the City Council, this property doesn't have an annexation path and would not be able to be developed at this time until it did have such a path. That's just a __ something that is out there and it is described at length in the staff report and included as a condition in the development agreement that the Cottswold Village Subdivision moves fOlWard before this proposed subdivision is able to -- to also move fOlWard. Another issue that was brought up was that I believe the applicant has agreed with. It's by ACHD and it's something that staff is interested in seeing that the proposed street that goes in off of Amity Road be constructed adjacent to the two parcels that were not included in the subdivision, allowing those two parcels to develop directly off of a public street in the future and that, therefore, they would be able to relinquish their access to Amity Road when, indeed, they do -- they do develop. The other issue that was brought up in the staff report -- as shown here on the preliminary plat, there is a hammerhead proposed at the terminus of South Limber Pine, this area right here. Both ACHD, staff, and the fire department would all -- have all recommended that this hammerhead be converted into a cul-de-sac, which the applicant actually shows in his landscape plan as an alternative -- as an alternative design. Once again, this is coming from numerous -- from ACHD and the fire department and the planning department, really seeing this cul- de-sac as a better option for this -- for this street section. I think other than those Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 76 of 86 issues, it's a pretty straight fOlWard proposal and I stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Borup: I guess I do have one. I'm still confused on the -- this is designated low density. Does that only allow for an R-2? Lucas: No. It would allow also for the R-4 designation. The low density is up to three units per acre, which can be accommodated in both R-2 and R-4 and as I stated earlier, the density on this project is 2.52 units per acre. Borup: But an R-2 is 12,000 square feet. Lucas: An R-2 requires minimum 12,000 square foot lots. Correct. Borup: Okay. Moe: Have you had time to read his comments back to the report and do you have any comments on those? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Moe, yes, I did have a chance to read his comments. Regarding Exhibit B, the 2.9 -- he is correct, if sewer is located below a micropath, then, the trees are not required and that's something that's standard that happens all the time. So, that's usually not a problem. And on the final plat landscape plan it would be -- it's usually nice that the developer make a note of that on why they are not putting those trees there, so that the planning staff is able to understand what's going on there, just the way that works. And regarding the fire department's comment, I -- it's one of those standard comments that fire includes and it's kind of one of those conditions that if this happens, then, they need to comply and as the applicant states it looks like it's not going to be a problem for them at this point. Brown: On the cul-de-sac. Do you want to speak to the hammerhead, too? Lucas: Oh, and -- you know, I think I -- I spoke to the cul-de-sac already. The applicant's requesting that it remain a hammerhead and staff's position and ACHD's position and the fire department's position is that it be changed to a cul-de-sac. Brown: For the record, Kent Brown at 1500 East Iron Eagle. Can you go back to the other picture, Justin, please. Thank you. Yes, in our design we have -- you can't believe that this little rectangle has had so many designs and the applicant is back here smiling, so -- I know he is, without even looking at him. But we have gone through -- Moe: You have a couple that are -- Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 77 of 86 Brown: Yes, we have. We have gone through many gyrations on this and the difficulty was is that we didn't want this to be a straight through road to the other development that you have kind of seen tid bits of below there, that we have kind of, in a round about way, discussed. In our effort to provide these people with frontage, we had always anticipated doing that. We did have like a five foot landscape island there, but we can also accommodate what staff's speaking to by doing a license agreement with the highway district, because we want to fence it off. We don't -- not that those aren't really nice people over there, but we want to fence that portion off and I'll just leave it at that. Tried to create a nice entrance. What my client has done is with the other developments that are going on in the area, we have tried to create lots that are deep enough and of a size widthwise that would accommodate a shop being in the back. He's had some builder teams approach him that they would like to, basically, have that Mr. Shop or whatever in the back, you know, the -- a shop in the back of each one of these lots and with that in mind and not having, you know, lots of traffic traveling this area, that's kind of where we have gone with the design. We have -- most of the lots are closer to the R-2 zoning. We have lots that are near that 12,000, but we do have some that are as small 10,000. And this hammerhead cul-de-sac is an acceptable fire department turnaround. It's acceptable to the highway district. But, generally, where they are allowing those to take place has to do with in-fill. If you are viewed as being in- fill, then, you're allowed to do them and what my client wants to have happen is that by having these more rectangular lots it accommodates the people that he feels are going to build in here, the ones with the shop and the ability to have the room to go passed the house and go to the back and that's why those widths are -- I mean, ideally, what he wanted to have was 140 foot deep and 90 feet wide and we have tried to stick to that as much as we can, accommodating all the other design people that are involved and you guys are involved in our design. You didn't realize that you're a part of our committee, but you really are, because you have the ability to tell us whether we can do a hammerhead or not. And the highway district does, too. It's acceptable. When I spoke with the highway district staff, they view as from a traffic standpoint that a cul-de-sac is better trafficwise. But that is drawn to their standards as -- and is acceptable to the highway district if the city, in turn, comes back and says it's a better design. We have talked with your staff, they didn't feel that it was that much better than having a cul-de- sac. We still feel it is from the standpoint that the lot shape that comes out of that is more along the lines of the design and the market that we are trying to meet. That's the issue. I'll stand for any questions. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Mr. Brown, just, quite frankly, for the gentleman in the audience, can you speak to your perimeter fencing? Brown: We will have solid fencing. I have actually even talked to John before and told him that you guys don't allow barbed wire, you don't allow hot fences within the city, and my client -- I went back and spoke to him just prior, because I knew you were going to Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 78 of 86 ask and they are going to have to sit and talk as to what they both need to do, but we will put a -- we will fence our side, so that it's solid on ourside and, then, work with him as to how to accommodate and have horses and -- Moe: Thank you very much. Zaremba: My question for you and probably staff while we are on it, but if you are doing a solid fence where this stub road is, can you fence across that with -- Brown: Yes, you can. Zaremba: You make it fenced in a way it can -- that portion can be removed later? Brown: Yes, you can. Zaremba: Okay. OthelWise, there is a gap there and there is no point in having a fence. Brown: That part we could probably leave with the other, but there is no -- it just depends on what the developer wants to do. You can leave the -- the hot fence, the wire fence, on his property in that location, but I have seen them do both. Fence it off. Zaremba: Okay. Thanks. Rohm: Thank you, Kent. Brown: Strictly what it ends up from my standpoint is that if you like the hammerhead -- in the discussions I've had with the highway district, they said that if it -- you felt that strongly that it was a better one, that they would allow us to build it. It's not that they wouldn't allow us to build it, so -- but it has to come from the city. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Another question of staff in regards, again, to this hammerhead. Can you give me reason for not wanting the hammerhead per se? Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Moe, as it was discussed by the applicant, the hammerhead design is something we usually see on a smaller in-fill site where it's -- for site constraint reasons they are able to use the hammerhead and meet the turnaround requirements and get the lots that they need. The fire department in general prefers -- and this is from Joe Silva, a discussion I had with him on the phone -- prefers to see when it's possible the full cul-de-sac as a preference for the fire department. ACHD, as Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 79 of 86 Kent also said, prefers the full cul-de-sac. And staff -- basically, our preference was going with what's preferred by fire department and what's preferred by ACHD. When it comes to the specific design issues and things like that, staff's recommendation is kind of -- as I say, going along with what's been proposed by the other agencies involved I think beyond -- and Caleb has a comment. Hood: I feel like I need to chime in on almost everything tonight and I apologize for that, but the reason -- and, again, I'm not trying to put words in the fire department's mouth -- but, in general, it's going to be easier to just drive around a cul-de-sac than to do a three point turn and get out. So, it is more convenient. There is a convenience factor. Now, it doesn't make it convenient for the lots that are adjacent to it, but someone just driving around the cul-de-sac to turn around, rather than doing a three point turn in a hammerhead, is more convenient. In a fire truck -- even in a large vehicle, some of these, you know, 19, 20 foot long trucks are going to have to make that same maneuver where they would, othelWise, just be able to follow the radius of the cul-de-sac. So, that's why I think they prefer the cul-de-sac to the hammerheads. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: I was just asking if we had public testimony. Rohm: We haven't yet, but at this time would someone -- anyone from the audience like to come fOlWard? Wood: My name is Dan Wood. I live at 2025 East Chateau. I'm one of the owners. The biggest -- or the biggest conversation, obviously, is the hammerhead. What I'm trying to do there is -- you know, from a -- from a marketing standpoint, tried to make those lots -- they are not as deep as a majority of the lots are, so what I have done is tried to make those wider, so that the builders could actually still build their house and still have a shOp maybe along side, instead of in the back. And, you know, I understand what staff and everybody is saying, but if I understand it also, it is an acceptable turnaround, it's just everybody else would prefer the traditional. So, I just would appreciate it if you would at least consider it. Rohm: Thank you. That's reasonable to request. Wood: Any questions that you might have? Yeah. I'm trying to hit the market different than potentially everything else you have talked about tonight You know, I'm looking at it there is 48 people that would like to have a large enough lot that they could have a shop in the back and still build a big house and I've done this elsewhere in Boise and it was received quite well, so -- Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Okay. I don't know about the rest of you, but I kind of like the hammerhead. It's -- even though they're right that the fire engine would have to do a three point turn to get out, but it makes access to each of those lots quite direct and be able to get in and -- I don't know if they have a Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21, 2006 Page 80 of 86 little shop in the back where they are working on cars, they can get in and out and just is -- it looks like it would be easier ingress and egress having the hammerhead there, than it would using a cul-de-sac. That's at least from my perspective. Borup: Mr. Chairman? I agree that the lot designs are a better design with the hammerhead. The number of lots stay the same. I don't -- but I also don't know that all 48 lots are going to be putting shop buildings on. Rohm: Oh, I agree with that. Borup: So -- I mean those that don't want a shop building -- you know, there is a few lots for them. But, likewise, I think the fire department's concern is not getting to the project, I have never seen them in a big hurry to leave. So, I don't know as another minute to back out is going to make any difference on the fire service. Rohm: I agree with that, too. Commissioner Moe, do you have comment? Moe: For the record probably not, but I guess my whole point is I would hope that this subdivision doesn't see a whole bunch of fire trucks. Rohm: There you go. We have to close the Public Hearing. Would you recommend that we vote? Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on PP 06 dash -- oh, excuse me. AZ 06-044 and PP 06-046. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on AZ 06-042 and PP 06~044. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Actually, I gave the wrong numbers. I'm going to do that again. It's a motion to close the public hearings on AZ 06-044 and PP 06-046 has been made. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? There we go. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Newton-Huckabay: I prefer the cul-de-sac. The overall look and consistency and future consistency of other developments. If we generally only use hammerheads for ends of projects, I'd like to remain consistent with that and support staff's recommendation on that. Was that the only -- oh, what about the -- so we didn't change any comments. So, we only changed -- there is no change. Moe: Well, the only issue is the hammerhead. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I agree with staff. So, if I make the recommendation I'd make no changes in the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning September 21,2006 Page 81 of 86 Moe: Then, that would be what you want to do, yes. Newton-Huckabay: If I'm going to, in fact, vote for my motion this time. Moe: If you're making the motion, if that's what you want to do, that's what you would do, yes. Newton-Huckabay: All right. Moe: But, trust me, I will not tell you what to do. Newton-Huckabay: That's probably wise. Moe: Trust me, I know that. Nor would I want to. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-044 and PP 06- 046, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 21 st, 2006, with no modifications. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to fOlWard onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-044 and PP 06-046, to include staff report with no changes. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Aye. So, there is four in favor. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Newton-Huckabay: And we will look fOlWard to seeing Mr. Brown again. Brown: Thank you. Item 14: Public Hearing: CPA 06-002 Request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation for approximately 12.37 acres from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use Community for Ustick Comprehensive Plan Amendment by Thornton Oliver Keller - 1515 W. Ustick Road and 3195 N. Linder Road: Rohm: Okay. The last item on our agenda here is -- I'd like to open the Public Hearing on CPA 06-002, related to Ustick Comprehensive Plan amendment and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. This is another Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Comprehensive Plan map. The procedures regarding amendments to maps have already been discussed at this hearing, so I'm not going to