Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 1, 2007 P&Z Comm Minutes Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page 9 of 41 Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number AZ 06-062 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 1 st, 2007. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-062. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from December 7, 2006: AZ 06-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.91 acres from RUT to an R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from December 7, 2006: PP 06-056 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential units and 10 common lots on 9.52 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open two hearings related to the same project. Continued Public Hearing AZ 06-057 and continued Public Hearing PP 06-056 and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Jericho Subdivision. The subject applications were scheduled to be heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 7th, 2006. At that time the applicant proposed annexation of 9.52 acres from RUT to solely R-15, medium high density residential and preliminary plat approval of 73 single family lots, ten common lots, and two private street lots. The applicant also originally submitted a variance application for reduced rear yard setbacks for the proposed townhouse units. Staff had recommended denial of the project. The applicant has submitted a revised preliminary plat, which staff believes is more compatible with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. The application proposes annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval for 68 single family residential lots, ten common lots, and two private street lots on 9.52 acres within the R-4, medium low density residential, and R-15, medium high density residential, zoning designations. The subject site, as you can see on the PowerPoint presentation, is generally located on the west side of Jericho Road, approximately a fifth of a mile south of Chinden Boulevard. And that is right here. Eight detached single family homes will take direct lot access from Jericho Road and that is these eight right here. Two streets will connect with the adjacent residential subdivision, Hightower Subdivision, over here, one at the west property line, this here, and one at the north property line. And these two Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page 10 of 41 accesses will serve the remaining portion of the development. Two 24 foot wide private streets are proposed within Block 2 to access the rear loaded townhomes. And that is this and this. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 68 residential lots, between 2,300 and 8,725 square feet. The average lot size is approximately 6,400 square feet. The applicant is proposing to set aside approximately 6.15 percent of the property for landscaping open space, including, but not limited to, a micro pathway in a centralized common area. And you can see on the landscape plan this is a MEW design. So, the centralized common area will be here between the townhouses units. There are three issues to mention here. Per the Unified Development Code any tree over four inches in caliper that is removed from the property should be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of those removed. There are an exceptionally large number of caliper inches of existing trees on site, which the applicant is proposing to remove or relocate. Elroy Huff of the Meridian parks department is working out the details with the applicant, but no final decision has been made between parks and the applicant regarding mitigation. However, parks has stated that more trees should be installed within the subdivision than are currently proposed and 50 or more trees should be donated to a local park. Staff is supportive of this plan and staff would encourage the Commission to provide comment on this and suggest any changes the Commission would deem appropriate. Second, staff has not received comments on this project from ACHD. However, ACHD has advised city staff that Jericho Road is considered a residential collector. ACHD policy currently prohibits direct lot access to collector roads. This revised layout of Jericho Subdivision will depend on whether ACHD approves the development with front-on housing to Jericho Road. However, due to the small relative feel of this development, staff does recommend that the Commission hear and act on the subject application. Third, perimeter fencing is not shown on the submitted landscape plan or preliminary plat. There is currently existing fencing running the length of the western property boundary. Additionally, fences are required adjacent to all common areas. The applicant has not indicated whether permanent fencing will be installed around the remaining perimeter or the type of fencing to be installed around the common lots and micro pathway. The applicant will need to state this tonight. And that is all planning staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Borup: Just one. You had mentioned on -- the redesign took care of the rear setback. Is this the same one that originally you asked for a four foot? Is that correct? Hess: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Borup, yes, the original application originally proposed a four foot rear setback to the townhouse units. They submitted a variance for that. This is no longer needed with this application. They are able to meet all of the setbacks. Borup: So, get the -- and the 20 foot parking now. Hess: Are required. The parking pad as well. Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning February I, 2007 Page 11 of41 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of staff? Seeing none, would the applicant like to come forward, please? McKay: Good evening, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm representing the applicant on this particular application that's before you this evening. As Amanda indicated, this particular site is right there on the edge of that neighborhood center. We worked with the staff -- I think I have had more pre-application conferences on this nine acre site than I have had on any large project to try to come up with something that would work for the neighborhood and work for the staff and still meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Obviously, with the neighborhood center it has that requirement that you have at least eight dwelling units per acre, promotes diverse residential type product and some creativity. The staff recommended -- on our south boundary we have Arcadia Subdivision. We have Hightower to the west and Hightower to the north. So, the staff had us look at those projects and kind of get an idea of what was done there and try and incorporate some of those ideas into our project. We submitted the project and the staff was still not satisfied. We have a unique situation on Jericho Street where we have five one acre lots that are directly across the street from us. We have met with those neighbors multiple times and they were still not satisfied, so we thought let's defer this application, meet with the neighbors, all of them, and do a roundtable discussion and see what we can come up with. This is what we came up with. The Jericho residents said we feel that our street's unfinished with this -- Jericho being single loaded, we were originally proposing that we would have some lots fronting here, but they were alley load and they said, you know, what we'd like to see are lots at least 8,000 square feet, no more than eight to complete or finish out Jericho Street and make a neighborhood, because we kind of feel like we are the odd man out here just with the - - our neighborhood on one side. So, we met with ACHD. The staff indicated that Jericho was designated a collector, however, there is application into ACHD at this time to vacate Jericho from about this point here up to Chinden and, therefore, the traffic will come and funnel through Hightower and go out to a possible signal location at the half mile. So, ACHD indicated that they could live with that. they recognize the desire of the Jericho residents to complete their neighborhood and they said we think we can live with that. They just have not had an opportunity to put their staff report together, but they did feel comfortable that we come here this evening, obviously, asking the staff to make sure that whatever report that they do come up with is tied to this application. But they were comfortable with us proceeding forward. So, it's almost like we have two different developments and that's what the neighbors had asked to us to do. They said, you know, if you want to go with some attached product, alley load, we don't have a problem with that, as long as you try to keep it in the center of this -- of the project and, then, transition to some smaller detached lots and, then, obviously, have the 8,000 square foot and up lots adjoining them. So, that's what we have done. We have connected both stub streets into Hightower. We do have a pedestrian pathway that will lead to Jericho Street, so we do have some pedestrian interconnectivity. We have got Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page 12 of41 these lots here. These are both private roads, because ACHD does not allow it to be called an alley if that is your primary access. So, with the common open space, the MEW here in the middle, we had to come up with this idea, that these would be private roads. This has kind of been an evolution. We think we are there. The staff was happy. The neighbors were happy. We hope the Commission is happy with what they see. If Amanda could put up on the screen the elevations. These are the type of homes that they are proposing. These are the detached ones. The attached ones would look like that. So, we did submit elevations to kind of give you an idea of the feel and architecture that they are proposing in here. We do meet that overall density requirement of your Comprehensive Plan with our net density. I believe Amanda asked about the fencing. We did not describe the type of fencing we are going to have on the periphery, because we are going to have to coordinate with Hightower. They are on two sides of us. And, then, with our lots fronting on Jericho, obviously, we would have fencing on -- if Amanda could go back to the site plan. We haven't discussed what type of fencing this would be. But this is the Hightower boundary and, then, the west boundary and, then, along the south is Arcadia, an existing subdivision. So, I'd like to kind of coordinate with the adjoining developer on that fencing type. Obviously, if they can split the cost, it works out great. We reviewed the staff report. We are in agreement. The only item that I had a concern about was on condition number 1.2.8. We believe that with our new design that we can potentially save additional trees that are existing on the site. So, therefore, it's very specific saying 50 trees must be donated to the Meridian Parks Department. If we can save more trees with this new design, then, obviously, that number would go down. So, we'd like some type of language put in there, you know, to the satisfaction of the parks department and our landscape architect will be working with Elroy. The problem we had in our original design is we had a street going through the two areas where the largest number of existing trees were located. Now, by eliminating that vehicular connection to Jericho, we think we can save more trees. Other than that, we are in agreement with the staff. We ask the Commission to, please, consider this and recommend it for approval to the Council. Do you have any questions? Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Questions of the applicant? Moe: Well, number one, Becky, what was that condition number again? McKay: Oh, I'm sorry. Newton-Huckabay: 1.2.8. McKay: Correct. 1.2.8. Fourth bullet. I think it just -- it would just eliminate the last sentence. Or eliminate the reference to 50. Dedicate a required number of trees based upon the number -- you know, that are required to be mitigated. Something along that line would be great. Rohm: I think I'd like to ask staff if they could respond to that a little bit from their perspective. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page 13 of41 Hess: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm currently looking for the -- a letter -- correspondence between the applicant and from the parks department regarding this. Rohm: Okay. We have got a few minutes. We are all right. Hood: While she is looking that up, I just may -- I mean if the applicant's able to save some trees -- I mean ultimately the goal is to mitigate for whatever trees are removed from the site. So, if they are able -- if that number changes and based on a new design they can save 24 caliper inches or whatever it turns out to be, then, that's -- you know, obviously, they wouldn't have to mitigate for those. So, if 50 is no longer the number that the parks department deems appropriate, then -- not to speak for Amanda, she will come up with some more detailed numbers, but I think to work with the parks department in general sounds like a pretty fair condition anyways and whatever -- as long as the applicant is willing to let the parks department deem what fair is and how many trees they are responsible to mitigate for or donate to the parks department, I don't know that we would have any heartburn over that. Rohm: And that seems appropriate. So, Amanda, I'm not so sure that it's necessary to get the exact verbiage, as long as the applicant and the Commission can come to agreement on that. I guess the applicant hasn't any additional input, so at this time I would like to open it to the public for testimony and here has -- Jerry Olson. Would you like to come forward or were you just -- just an observer from the audience and didn't have any testimony to offer. Thank you, sir. There is nobody else that has signed up for this, but at this time it's certainly open to the public, so anyone that would like to come forward you certainly may. It doesn't appear as if we have anybody that feels necessary to testify. So, is there discussion amongst the Commission? Commissioner Borup, do you have any thoughts on this before we move forward? Borup: No. I think -- there has been plenty of time that things have been worked out, so if the neighbors are happy and staff's happy, I'm happy. Rohm: Good. All right. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any closing comments? Newton-Huckabay: No. I just have a question about outstanding issues related to public works and utilities and -- is that all resolved, though? Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. The one concern that Public Works staff had with utilities when they were requesting the limited setback in the rear wouldn't leave enough room for the joint trench utilities. Since that variance has been withdrawn, Public Works didn't have time to take that out, so we don't have that concern anymore, because the setback is large enough to install those facilities. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page 14 of 41 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Rohm: Good. Newton-Huckabay: I have no concern with this. I'm happy to see that it's able to have those homes on Jericho look like a neighborhood, because I have always -- I have always hated the way that whole thing has developed out there and so I'm pleased. Rohm: Good. Thank you. Commissioner Moe? Moe: Quite frankly, I think it's a much nicer development now than the first time through. I was very glad to see that. But I'm going to be very honest with you, I am very confused right now in regards to moving this forward as far as staff recommendation in regards to approvals and whatnot. I can't seem to find that. Borup: There is two reports. I had the same problem. Moe: Oh. Borup: So, the one at the bottom where we normally are, that's not the one. That's the old one. Moe: So, I was looking at the wrong one, then. Borup: So, was I. You're not alone. Moe: Thank you. That's why I couldn't find it. Newton-Huckabay: I'll make a motion. Moe: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-057 and PP 06-056. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-057 and PP 06-056. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I will make a recommendation, I just need some clarification. I have that item 1.2.8 on the fourth bullet that we will strike the dedicate at minimum 50 trees to the public park of choosing by the Meridian Parks Department and replace that with dedicate a -- Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page 15 of41 Borup: Can you just keep the first sentence that says work with the Parks Department? Newton-Huckabay: Coordinate definitive tree mitigation with the Meridian Parks Department prior to application for final plat. Borup: Just leave that is what you're saying. Newton-Huckabay: Should we have that they are based on the final mitigation of trees or is that statement alone appropriate? Hess: Chairman Rohm, Commission Members, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I think that that sentence could stand by itself. It is repeated in the general requirement as well, item -- or condition number 1.3.7. So, just coordinate definitive mitigation plan with the Meridian Parks Department. You may even decide to strike the whole bullet. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. How about I do that. Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may. It's -- it's a little bit difficult -- for the maker of the motion, for staff, when we are looking at final plat for these, the site specific ones are usually the ones that we spend a little more attention on and making sure that compliance has been had. Quite honestly, the general conditions get glossed over and so if you want to just repeat it in there, that's fine, but to make sure that it stands out that there is a -- there were trees on here that need to be mitigated for. I think it is appropriate in this case. Just because I know when final plats come in, again, we spend more time looking at the site specific to make sure those are complied with specifically. Newton-Huckabay: So, you want me to modify statement 1.3.7? Hood: No. I would -- after you modify the fourth bullet of 1.2.8 -- Newton-Huckabay: 1.2.8. Hood: -- and if you want it to have -- to say the same thing, that's fine, but at least it's in the site specific conditions. Sorry, we just went in a big circle, but I think that's going to be easier for us to make sure we get a letter from the parks department when they do come in for a final plat and that condition does apply to them, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, leave it in and just drop the second sentence? Borup: Makes sense to me. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Then, I had a question of how I need to word the fence -- you were looking for a fence plan. The applicant wants to coordinate fences with the neighboring development. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 16 of 41 Hess: I'm sorry. Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. Could you repeat the question? Newton-Huckabay: The fencing. You made comment that we needed to address the coordination of -- that there was no fencing plan. Applicant stated she wanted to coordinate fencing with the other development. Where do you want that stated? How-- Hess: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton- Huckabay, that could even be added as an additional bullet under the landscape plan under condition 1.2.8. The other thing that the applicant did not mention was the type of fencing along the micro pathway that is required per UDC -- and I apologize for not bringing it to the Commission's attention while the hearing is still open. Newton-Huckabay: Micropath -- standard micro path fencing. Hess: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: Not a problem. We have resolved that? Moe: The ACHD report. Newton-Huckabay: What about them? What do you want me to -- Moe: Well, ACHD still has not approved the roadway through. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. That's in the staff report. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm going to take a run at this. If I say anything, Amanda, that's going to confuse you when you're rereading this, just jump in. Oh, we didn't make comment to the private roadway. Do you still want that? It says on here: Commission make a formal recommendation to Council on annexation and preliminary plat. Plus, also review and make recommendations regarding the private street application. Hess: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commission Newton-Huckabay, the private street application is an administrative type application, so if you have concerns about that -- Newton-Huckabay: No. Understand that. You have on this staff report that you want the Commission to make recommendation regarding the private street application and we have not done that. Hess: I'm sorry, which page is -- Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 17 of41 Newton-Huckabay: It would be page one. Hess: Commission Members -- Borup: It says they may. Hess: That, actually -- yes. That, actually, says the Commission may, if they so choose, make comment on-- Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. Hess: -- the private street. Newton-Huckabay: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-057 and PP 06-056, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 1, 2007, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. Bullet 1.2.8 -- or excuse me. Condition number 1.2.8, bullet number four, we will drop the last sentence, dedicate at minimum 53 to the public park of choosing by the Meridian Parks Department. We will add a bullet to 1.2.8 regarding the applicant coordinating like fencing with development to the north, west, and south. And that the micro path fencing will be in line with the current UDC micropath fencing guideline. Borup: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and second to forward onto City Council with a recommendation for approval of AZ 06-057 and PP 06-056, to include all staff report, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-058 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 277 residential lots, 1 commercial lot and 27 common lots on 142.97 acres in existing R-2, R-8, R-15 and C- N zones for Jayker Subdivision by Treehaven, LLC - north of Chinden Boulevard and west of Ten Mile Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to reopen on the continued Public Hearing from December 21 st, 2006, Item No. PP 06-058 related to Jayker Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The applicant has applied for preliminary plat approval of 277 single family residential building lots, 27 common lots, and one what we are calling a commercial slash common lot, which will contain -- that lot will contain the proposed community center. The site is located on the