Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 21, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 51 of 65 Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from October 19, 2006 (Re-Noticed for Modification): PP 06-047 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24 single-family residential lots and 3 common lots on 7.556 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Eastwood Subdivision by Wirt Edmonds - 4515 South Locust Grove Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing from -- the continued Public Hearing October 19th, due to renotice for modifications of AZ 06-045 and PP 06-047, both items related to Eastwood Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is the Eastwood Subdivision. The applicant has requested annexation and preliminary plat approval for 24 single family residential lots and three common lots on 7.56 acres within R-4 zoning designation. The subject applications were scheduled to be heard before Planning and Zoning Commission on October 19th, 2006. Prior to said meeting the applicant and planning staff were notified that ACHD refused to grant direct access to the site from Locust Grove. This ultimately prompted a redesign of the preliminary plat. The new plan proposes two additional lots for a total of 24 building lots and eliminate subdivision access to Locust Grove. Eastwood is generally located -- get my pointer here. On the west side of Locust Grove approximately one-fifth of a mile north of Amity Road. This whole access to the development will be from East Wrightwood Drive, a through street provided by Reflection Ridge Subdivision and this is Reflection Ridge here. This is West Wrightwood Drive. South Corina Avenue connects to East Wrightwood Drive at the north boundary of the subject property. City staff is supportive of the proposed street layout. As I was stating, to the north there is the recently approved Reflection Ridge Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the east Estancia Subdivision also zoned R-4. South and west are residential estates still under the jurisdiction of Ada County. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 24 residential lots, between 8,000 and 22,580 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 8,950 feet -- square feet. In addition to the required 25 foot street landscaping buffer along Locust Grove, the applicant has supplied 5.15 percent of the site to meet open space requirements, including a centrally located common area. That common area is right here. The site is currently used for agriculture purposes. The one structure located at the northwest corner -- I guess that's -- no. The southeast corner of the property is to remain. And that's right here. There are three issues to mention. First, staff believes that the lot sizes proposed along the southern boundary should be increased. Staff does not consider locating four 8,000 square foot lots adjacent to one one acre lot an appropriate transition. A neighbor has voiced concern over this as well. Second, this property is designated low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. Low density residential areas are anticipated to contain single family dwellings of densities up to three units per acre. The proposed preliminary plat includes 24 residential building lots on 7.56 acres for a gross density of 3.18 dwelling units per acre. The gross density exceeds the range outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. In order for the project to better comply with the density poliCies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, staff is supportive of eliminating one building lot at the south Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 52 of 65 property line. This reduction in the number of lots from 24 to 23 would not only address staff's concern over transitioning of lot sizes in that area, but would lower the gross density of the project from 3.8 dwelling units per acre to 3.05 dwelling units per acre. And, third, perimeter fencing is not shown on the submitted landscape plan or the preliminary plat. There is currently existing fencing running along the length of the western property boundary. Additionally, fences are required adjacent to all common areas. The applicant has not indicated where permanent -- whether permanent fencing will be installed around the remaining perimeter boundary or the type of fencing to be installed around the common lots. The applicant will need to state that tonight. And that is all planning staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Are there any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I have to keep thinking before I say my address. Zaremba: It's not Eagle anymore. Welcome to Meridian. McKay: No. What you see before you this evening is a small project. Mr. Edmonds came to us and asked if we could take a look at this for him and his grandson and the gentleman that owned the property and his wife are good friends of my husband's, Vaughn James, and so I said, yes, I would be glad to, you know, help you out on this deal. This particular piece of property, since it is just a little over seven acres, is kind of -- what we call an in-fill. If staff could go to the vicinity map. As you can see, Reflection Ridge has been approved here along the north boundary with an R-4 designation and their first phase construction plans are in the process now -- I think they are probably underway or getting close to being underway. We have Estancia Subdivision on the east boundary. Bellingham Subdivision -- this is R-4. Bellingham here right at our northeast corner. That is R-8. Then, surrounding our west and south boundary we have what they call East Slope Subdivision, which is primarily acre lots. We have one lot here that is un-platted and not a part of East Slope. We tried different -- different layouts on this particular property. I came up with four or five different types of lots in trying to figure out what was the best fit. We did work with the staff and Ada County Highway District. Originally they had asked us to put our entrance out here at Locust Grove, so we designed it in that fashion based on, you know, their input and, of course, what we desired. Then after reviewing they came up with the idea of what if we could eliminate that access and come off of Reflection Ridge's collector roadway, therefore, reducing the access by one and, then, eliminating some of the conflict that could potentially happen with the other accesses that are established along Locust Grove. My client said he would cooperate. We tabled the application before you back in October, went back to the drawing board, came up with something else and redesigned our project. So, now everything -- we still have the same loop, but everything would go into Reflection Ridge. One of the challenges with this particular site is, obviously, those acre lots. In our neighborhood meeting we talked about that. After we had the neighborhood Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 53 of 65 meeting I went back to the drawing board, I widened these lots out as large as possible. Our widest lots, which are 80 by 101 in depth are along this south boundary. We have some along here that I think are 110 -- 110 by 74. Now, one of the things that's kind of strange is up in this area these acre lots are about 150 feet wide by 310 deep. So, they are narrower and deeper. Because of this un-platted lot, this platted lot here is unusually wide. It is only 143 feet deep, but, yet, 306 feet wide. So, that's not your typical acre lot that we see. So, that created, you know, obviously, a problem in trying to reduce the number of lots that adjoin that. Now, staff has indicated that four lots adjoin that particular lot, but in looking at the site plan it looks like three and, then, a small portion right here. So, we have one, two, three and, then, here. Now, I would be able to, if the Commission would agree, take this lot line, angle it, if that is -- you know, if three is the magic number as far as trying to minimize the lots backing up to it. Since this project is so small, R-4 was the zone that we had to go with, because of the low density residential. These smaller projects -- there is only so much that we can do, amenity-wise, landscaping-wise, and density-wise. This one was right there at the edge and trying to make it, as we call in our business pencil. We have a little pocket park here that's about 6,800 -- or 6,300 square feet. You know, I proposed possibly some type of, you know, either little bench or sitting area or something along that line. The entrance here, they were laying this collector right close against this property here, so I tried to buffer and make this -- kind of enhance, since this becomes our entrance also, provide substantial landscaping here to kind of enhance and, then, I put a landscaped lot here. So, that would -- that would kind of facilitate kind of making that look a little nicer, a little more inviting. We have lots no less than 8,000 square feet. Our largest lot, 22,580, that's this lot here. There is an existing home on It. The home currently has two driveways out to Locust Grove. We did proposed from the very beginning that we would eliminate both those driveways and the garage, luckily, is oriented to the north and so we worked really hard trying to get enough room to bring a driveway in like that and eliminate those access points. This is a really nice shop and we designed our lot lines so that that could meet the setbacks and be retained on the site. This is, like I said, kind of like an in-fill project and with in-fills there is only so many things that we can do. There is nothing fancy and, you know, great like the bigger projects. They are smaller and we are restricted on how we can make these function and make it practical to develop on them. By I know based on, you know, your Comprehensive Plan it promotes trying to develop these in-fill areas, try to get driveways for homes off of the arterials and try to minimize the access points and that's what we have done. Does the Commission have any questions? Borup: Mr. Chairman, just -- I don't know if you know the answer to this. Some of the lots in Reflection Ridge it was an R-4, but some of those look like they were pretty narrow lots and I don't remember sizes. Do you know what -- McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, I think they had some that were in the 5,000 -- I mean Caleb could probably answer that better, but -- Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 54 of 65 McKay: -. the maps that they showed me had some very small lots and some alley- load. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, the alley load lots are -- directly north of this is the collector and, then, on the other side of that is their open space, kind of common lot. Those lots that are -- that the first build-able lots in this area here. Minimum frontage is 47 feet. 5,260 is the minimum lot size that they have to maintain through the PD, so -- I know, because I was talking them this week, so Borup: These look pretty small, too. Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Moe: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Becky, in regard to the lots there on the south, are those planned for one or two story homes, if you know? McKay: I guess that would be a question to ask the applicant. One or two story? To answer your question, Commissioner Moe, those are our widest lots at 80 feet wide. An 80 foot wide lot could accommodate a single level home. Also, I did not address the fencing, as Amanda asked. We wanted to talk with Reflection Ridge to find out what their fencing style is going to be. We thought it may be nice to have -- we will definitely have perimeter fencing on the record, but we thought it would look nice and kind of mesh better with their neighborhood if our fencing was consistent. And I have not gotten an answer on that at this time. But would it would be, you know, similar to theirs or the same, if possible. Rohm: Becky, how about the staff comments on reducing the number of lots along the south line by one? Do you have any thoughts on that? McKay: Mr. Chairman, I did go through the staff report with my client. His number one concern is with a little project like this that's, what, four percent of the lots -- elimination of one lot is four percent. When we look at these large projects, elimination of one or two lots is not as dramatic of an impact financially. I know what he paid for this property and I know where the housing market is and the lot sales are and so I just -- I am reluctant, sir, to just give away one lot. Rohm: Just a question. McKay: I guess we opposed to that and I would like that condition modified. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Pat Sturgis. Or -- did you want to address the Commission? Sturgis: Okay. My name is Pat Sturgis, 1450 East Pitkin. I submitted a letter to the board and as you probably realize, we are the owners of the odd-shaped lot. We will Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 55 of 65 have in this proposed plan three houses against our very backyard. As you have seen, our lot is not long like the others and to us this would be -- beings we have lived with an open field back there, Reflection Ridge was not there. This proposed field was not there -- or this subdivision was not there. It's been totally open and, then, to look at this plat and we have three houses that will be in back of us is very upsetting. I realize that it would be hard, maybe, for Mr. Edmonds to change his plan, but anything that he could do, we would really appreciate. Of course, it would be ideal if he could eliminate one of the lots and make it bigger, because like Becky stated, we are acre lots in the whole subdivision. So, it's very hard for us to realize that there would be this many houses in back of us. As to the fencing, we have spoken to Mr. Edmonds as well. We felt like we would like to be involved in that decision as well, because, as they stated, our property is like 305 feet and we really don't want to be looking at a real wall fence for that long and I guess that it's. Thank you. Rohm: I'm curious. How far is your home from the property line? Is it, what, a hundred feet. Sturgis: Fifty feet. Rohm: Fifty feet? Sturgis: Fifty feet. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Moe: While you're still there, what type of fencing would you desire that was on -- that would be there? Sturgis: Oh, Ideally I would like -- I have seen what looks like rock, but it's actually a cement fence. It looks like it's a sculptured rock, but it's cement. But we are willing to compromise on that as well. Moe: Okay. And based on your letter that I did read one of the other comments, other than just losing a lot, was also that possible the homes would be one story, in lieu of two. Sturgis: Absolutely. Moe: You did hear them tonight, they have made that statement they would go with the single level. Sturgis: With one. We appreciate that. Moe: Thank you. Sturgis: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 56 of 65 Rohm: Thank you. Jim Sturgis, did you want to speak as well? From the audience Mr. Sturgis said his wife has spoken for him. Mine's done that before, too. There is nobody else that has signed up for this particular application, but if there is anyone else that would like to come forward at this time and speak, now is that time. Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come back forward, please? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: While Mrs. McKay is approaching I have a question I would like to ask. I probably should have asked you earlier. Am I interpreting these to be slope lines, such that it's a down slope? This would be high ground and this would be lower and lower and lower? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, you're correct. The property does slope like this. There is approximately six to seven feet of fall from this corner down to here. Zaremba: Oh, so it's not like 80 feet drop-off or something? McKay: No. No. Zaremba: But it is a slope? McKay: But it's sloping, yes, sir. Zaremba: Thank you. McKay: In listening to Mrs. Sturgis I did consult with my client. He said on these three lots that back up to here parcel, which is -- I can't read the -- I can't read the numbers there. Mae: Eleven, 12 and 13. McKay: Eleven, 12 -- 11, 12, and 13, that we would put on the final plat that those would be single story and, then, I did measure off the aerial of her home, it is 56 feet from the edge of her home to the property line. And, then, we would be willing to -- make sure that these three lots had a 20 foot setback. That would make a 76 foot separation between homes to home. So, that she did not feel closed in or boxed in by this urban development. Moe: I may not have paid attention when you talked about the fencing. What would you propose between that? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 57 of 65 McKay: In talking with my client he was looking at some type of a decorative vinyl or a wood fence, something along either one of those. Like I said, I don't know what Reflection Ridge is doing. A lot of the projects are doing, you know, the different vinyls, earth tone vinyls. They are typically nice fences. I like their look over the wood. They hold up a little bit better. Moe: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? I guess not. Okay. You need to come back up, but -- Sturgis: On that one lot perhaps they could taper it in, because we also put that in as a consideration. Rohm: I think that she had actually suggested that earlier, so that -- that the fourth lot is not touching your lot at all, is that what you're referring to? Sturgis: Right. Rohm: Okay. I think that the applicant is saying that they could make those kind of suggestions. Sturgis: All right. I wanted to be sure. Rohm: Okay. I believe that the open testimony is concluded, could I get a motion to close these public hearings? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 06-045 and PP 06-047. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Any discussion amongst the Commission before we move for a motion? Commissioner Moe, do you have any final thoughts? Moe: Actually, none come to mind. I think that the applicant has made some concessions in regards to the single story on those south lots and have made somewhat of a change on the Lot No. 14. So, I think they have made concessions. I know staff would like to see one lot go away, but I think I would be in favor of the project with those conditions met. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 58 of 65 Newton.Huckabay: I have nothing to add. Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I guess my -- what I would add is I don't agree with that. I don't see where tapering Lot 14 accomplishes anything. The existing house is still 150 or so from where that is and it just -- it just makes an odd size lot and that layout looks -- it looks more practical the way it is. I guess if the developer wants to, it's up to them, but that's not something that I would be in favor of putting a restriction on. Or my other favorite peeve is the single story. Not unless the other surrounding subdivisions around them are going to be restricted to single story. The view goes both ways. That's alii have got. Rohm: And I agree with both of those comments. Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I think considering this is pretty much an in-fill project and good work has been done on it, I appreciate moving the actual access to Wrightwood Drive -- the proposed Wrightwood Drive, as opposed to onto the arterial Locust Grove. I think that was a good move. Each of our zones has rules about heights and setbacks and stuff like that and we can't actually require an applicant to limit some of buildings to one story, but they volunteer it in cooperation with the neighbors, I'm happy to accept it and record that they have volunteered that. Beyond that I agree with Commissioner Borup that I don't see the value in skewing the property line between Lots 13 and 14, because I think the houses are still going to be in the same places that they would have been anyhow and it's much easier to have a straight property line. But since the applicant has offered, I certainly would take them up on the one story buildings on those three lots. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. And I would echo those same comments. The applicant appears to have gone the necessary steps to take consideration of the neighbors and that's very much appreciated and I think this is going to be a nice development. End of my comments. With that being said could I get a motion, please? Borup: Did we close the hearing? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I closed the hearing. Borup: Did we close the hearing? Oh, we did. Rohm: Commissioner Borup, would you -- we have closed it. Commissioner Borup, would you like to make a stab at a motion? Borup: Okay. After considering all testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-045 and PP 06-047 as presented in the staff report dated December 21 st with the following modifications of conditions of approval. In 1.2.3 change the number 23 to 24 designating 24 building lots to be allowed. End of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 59 of 65 Rohm: Okay. Could we get a second or -- Borup: It doesn't look like it. Zaremba: You avoided specifying the height limitation and the three lots. Borup: I sure did. Rohm: Okay. I guess maybe an amendment to the motion or should vote on the motion as presented first -- or if there is not a second -- Borup: We didn't get a second, so there is no motion to vote on, is there? Newton-Huckabay: He chose the wrong motion giver. Baird: Mr. Chair, you currently have a motion on the floor and if there is no second it would die for the lack of a second. Rohm: Okay. All right. The motion dies for lack of a second. Zaremba: Who closed the Public Hearing? Rohm: I'm sure the Public Hearing was already closed. Zaremba: No. I asked who did it. Baird: To make a motion. Rohm: Oh. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, would you like to make a stab at this? After having made the motion to close the Public Hearing? Newton-Huckabay: I would be happy to with some assistance on where to place the modifications in the staff report. Hess: Commissioner Members, I have a suggestion. We do need the requirement of a development now if you are going to be limiting the height of those three buildings to be single story. As the staff report is currently written there is no development agreement established. Rohm: I'm sure she can put that in the motion. Newton-Huckabay: So, would I just -- the proposed modifications is to have a development agreement that indicates the homes on 11, 12, and 13 will be single story, with 20 foot setbacks? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 21, 2006 Page 60 of 65 Hess: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. And one -- okay. 1.2.3. Thank you. Zaremba: Well, the development agreement would 1.1.3; right? Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-060 and PP 06-061 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 21 st, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: As an item 1.1.3, development agreement, to include the Lots 11, 12 and 13 to be restricted to single story homes with 20 foot rear setbacks. The lot line -- Zaremba: Excuse me. Would you say minimum 20 foot? Newton-Huckabay: Minimum 20 foot rear setback. Zaremba: Thank you. Newton~Huckabay: The west lot line of Lot 14 will be adjusted to the east in a diagonal. Do I need to try to explain that anymore? To match up the lot line to the south. And item 1.2.3 to be modified eliminated altogether. Or switched to maximum 24 single family residential dwellings. Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-045 and PP 06-047, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 06~060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.01 Acres from RUT to R-8 & R-15 zones for Arch Rock Subdivision by CTD Development - South of McMillan Road and East of Linder Road.: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 06~061 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18 single-family residential lots and 2 common lots on 3.73 acres in the proposed R-8 zone and 8 single family residential lots and 1 common lot on 1.02 acres in the proposed R-15 zone for Arch Rock Subdivision by CTD Development - South of McMillian Road and East of Linder Road: Rohm: Thank you, folks, for coming in. At this time I'd like to open the public hearings on AZ 06-060 and PP 06-061, both items related to Arch Rock Subdivision and begin with the staff report.