Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 1, 2007 P&Z Commission Minutes Meridian Planning and Zoning February I, 2007 Page 34 of 41 Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-064 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 27.05 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Normandy Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. - 4145 South Locust Grove Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 06-065 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 110 residential lots and 7 common lots on 27.05 acres in the proposed R-8 zone for Normandy Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc. - 4145 South Locust Grove Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and begin by opening the Public Hearing on AZ 06-064 and PP 06-065, both items related to the Normandy Subdivision, and begin with the staff report. Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before you is the Normandy Subdivision. The applicant has requested annexation and zoning of 27.05 acres from RUT to R-8, medium density residential, as well as preliminary plat approval of 110 single family residential lots and seven common lots. Normandy is generally located on the west side of Locust Grove, less than a half a mile north of Amity Road. The site is currently vacant agricultural land, as you can see on the PowerPoint presentation. To the north there is the existing Chatsworth Subdivision and Pisa Place Subdivision. And south of the Ridenbaugh Canal, the recently approved Reflection Ridge Subdivision. And that is right here. As previously stated, the applicant has proposed preliminary plat approval of 110 residential lots between 5,200 square feet and 12,000 square feet. The primary access to the development will be from a proposed public street intersecting Locust Grove Road. Right there. The secondary accesses to the development will be via Picasso Avenue, a public stub constructed with the Chatsworth Subdivision. That's at the north here. And via Reflection Ridge Drive at the southwest property line here, proposed with the Reflection Ridge Subdivision. The applicant has provided 15.5 percent of the property as open space, meeting the requirements of the UDC. The majority of the property is -- the majority of the open space is provided in the form of a central club area. Sorry, I got that one a little turned there. Sorry about that. On Lot 5, Block 4. And that is with a tot lot and a basketball court. There are two issues highlighted in the staff report for the Commission. The first is that the application does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan for the site, which designates the area as low density residential. However, per the Comprehensive Plan future land use map, the Commission and Council can consider a step up in residential density on a case-by-case basis without the requirement of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. To approve this development a step up in density from low to medium is required. Now, to clarify a little bit more here. As stated above, the subject site is bounded by Chatsworth and Pisa Place at the north, which are zoned R-8. Right here. And Reflection Ridge to the south and west, which is zoned R-4. Staff believes that the Ridenbaugh Canal, which runs between the subject property, and Reflection Ridge -- and that is along here. It may be easier to tell on the aerial photo. Staff believes this serves as a suitable dividing line between the low density residential uses and the medium density residential uses and this is why staff is supportive of the step up in Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 35 of 41 residential density for Normandy. Second, the applicant has requested a variance from the UDC standard to allow a residential block length within Normandy to exceed the maximum 750 foot block length. The proposed subdivision has two blocks that exceed 750 block lengths and that is Block 1, which is 900 feet and Block 2, which 875 feet. And these are located at the north property boundary here and this long one at the south property line. The location of the approved stub streets and the lack of provision of pedestrian walkways in the surrounding subdivisions do not allow these blocks to be broken up by street connections or pathways. So, staff is supportive of the applicant's variance request. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Schultz: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz. My address is 2127 South Alaska Way. I'm with RMR Consulting, representing this application tonight. Our site -- if you could back up to the zoning map, please, Amanda. Thank you. Our site is surrounded by Chatsworth on the north, which is an R-8 subdivision, Pisa Place, Seychelles, and, then, Reflection Ridge to the south, not an in- full, but it is surrounded by the City of Meridian. Important to note, too, that this is an R- 4, but it has R-8 side lots and it was, actually, an R-4 PUD. So, as you can see in here -- I mean if you look at these lots here it kind of jumps out at you that they had something -- those aren't R-4 lots, which is another good reason to justify that in combination with the Ridenbaugh that this was a blended R-8, R-4, if you will. They chose a PUD route. But it is compatible with neighborhood at R-8. What we are requesting matches what's out there on both sides, really, even though they do have some bigger lots spread over here, the overall density went down. They do have R-8 lots. So, we felt like we fit with our requested zoning and the bump up was something that was pretty justifiable. We are limited by our connections to what is already out there. Reflection Ridge is under construction and they have a stub street here. Our entrance on Locust -- we made sure we didn't come out here in front of the existing residences and they were the only people that showed up at our neighborhood meeting and they were very happy to see that that was moved to the south and after that they said great, you know, it looks good. They just wanted to make sure we weren't driving out and our headlights would be shining on them. So, what we have is some extra long block lengths that are -- I believe this is the one that's 900, this is 850. We have broken -- if you were going to drive this, it wouldn't feel like an extra long block the way we have -- the way we have broken that up. And, plus, we don't have any way of breaking that block up with -- we are kind of hemmed in by what's been approved already. So, that's why we think the variance should be granted for that. Our density is around four to the acre. We had a mix of 6,000 and 5,000 square foot lots, about half and half of each. We feel like it really blends in with the neighborhood. We are going to build a bridge over the Ridenbaugh. The Reflection Ridge people trust funded -- they put the money in account with ACHD for half. We build it, we get that back after it gets all -- after they sign off on the bridge after it gets built. So, we are participating half in that, that we will be the ones that build it and get reimbursed our other half. Other than that, we are matching what's been approved to the north on landscaping. We have pathways Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page 36 of 41 leading to a centrally located open space area. We do have some tree mitigation that we worked with Elroy in the parks department. We have got some pretty big trees, they are on the existing homestead here, that he said you need to give up so many trees and I can't remember what that number was. We said okay. You know, whatever Elroy says goes when it comes to trees. So, what -- we think we have a fairly straight forward application. We do appreciate staff's positive report. Actually, one of the easier ones I have had in awhile. But I think -- I won't count my chickens until they hatch, but there is one issue that I'd like to point out that we are in a little bit of disagreement with staff and staff did not bring it up. Staff said in their report in this block right here that we should lose one lot to maybe match these 8,000 square foot lots here. When we laid this out I consciously lost one or two lots, depending on how tight you go. If I laid out the minimum R-8 allowed I could pick up two lots in this block. I decided to do little bigger lots and if you look here, they have 50 foot lots across from their own 80 foot lots across the street. We have a canal. And so we thought, you know, 60 foot lots across a canal from 80s, when they had 50s across the street from their own, maybe it's okay. We feel like we have blended in and we have a respectful disagreement with staff. We think what we have works. But if you're going to say, Matt, you need to lose that lot or we are not going to approve you, obviously, I would not argue. But I am asking that you approve it as submitted, unless you have some heartburn over it. So, we'd like to stick with what we have. We believe we have transitioned. It is blended. We have a mix. So, that was something that's in the middle of the staff report that they would -- that they suggest that we do and I will let staff address that further. We did work with staff preliminarily to shorten up our cul-de-sac length from the pre-apps. Now, we feel like we have a refined site plan, we have worked with staff from the beginning to get what we think fits in the area and I notice elevations are something that's being kind of required lately. We don't plan on building -- building this for probably a year, the way timing is working out on things and before the hearing I went up the road here to Tuscany Village, which is up here, and took some pictures that I could enter for the record or show on the overhead a few of them and -- this is, actually, a subdivision done by Eaglewood Homes. Show a few of those, please. That doesn't show up very well. I think it's zoomed in a little too far. There you go. The color is not too great on here either. It looks better on the pictures. But, you know, they did a good job. There is a lot of architectural variation, they have got different materials, architectural projections, they have got porches. The city doesn't have a really -- you know, you must build this type of house, they have suggestions and guidelines, but we want to make sure we do a high quality architecture and enforce that to the builder teams that we will probably end up selling to. We don't know who is going to build in there yet. We haven't committed to any builders. But we would definitely enforce something that's very compatible, if not a step up from what's out there today. The market is always evolving. What we say we build now, we don't know what's going to be built in two years, depending on the competition and how things are going, but from what I can tell in Meridian we don't have a lot of problems with that architecture from what I can tell. Everything I drive around I see a lot of good things in all the neighborhoods from our builder teams that we have. That's my impression. Came from Las Vegas seven years ago and they didn't have a lot of variation. I think we have a lot of variation here and a lot of different individual builders that do a good job. So, I wanted to show an example of concepts of what we Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page 37 of 41 might enforce, not knowing exactly what the market is going to bear, but it would definitely be compatible with the neighborhood and I guess with that I will stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Schultz: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: So, what you're saying is that you would be doing something like this or better or - Schultz: Yeah. Moe: -- when you speak of the market where it could actually be less? Schultz: You can't foresee the future and everything's been so good for so long, we hope everything is going to just be the way it is and builders are going to want to compete with the other builders and build something nicer and nicer and try to keep the prices somewhat reasonable and still do nice things and that's the balance that we are fighting in Meridian, that the jobs we are creating aren't supporting some of the house prices we have and I'll stand up here and say we will build at least to what's as nice as, you know, all the neighborhoods around us. I mean we will do that. We will enforce that. I don't know how you enforce that. I don't know how you guys enforce that to other people. I know you are, so as of right now there is no mechanism. Moe: All right. Then, one other question. I guess since you really don't want to lose a lot, per the staff report here, I guess that doesn't mean you wouldn't lose anymore, then, on the south? Schultz: I'm just saying I would suggest that you -- that you approve it as submitted. I'd prefer -- because we are talking every lot these days is 100,000 dollars and for something that we believe conforms, it would be a shame to lose it, but if you we are not going to approve it until you lose it, then, I would say okay. But I'd prefer not to. Rohm: Okay. That's fair enough. Any other questions of this applicant? Okay. Thank you. Schultz: Thank you. Rohm: Matt Schultz. Schultz: That's me. Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 38 of 4] Rohm: Oh. And, then, Jerry Olson. I believe he left. There is nobody else that has signed up, but would anybody else like to testify? And seeing nobody coming forward, I guess we are done. Could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing? Borup: So moved. Moe: I'll second that. Rohm: Okay. Motion to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-064 and PP 06-065. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. At this time final comment. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Well, as I reviewed this, quite frankly, I was a little bit concerned about transition and whatnot with south lots. Realizing the Ridenbaugh is there and staff is of the opinion that that gives enough transition I'm not going to fight that too much. I do appreciate the fact that they do want to lose one lot towards the western portion of that and I would agree with staff to lose that one lot. Again, I think there is quite a few lots down there on that south end, but the rest of the subdivision I have no problem with whatsoever. I think it was -- you guys did a good job transitioning through it, but right there on the south end I would have liked to have seen a few less lots. Newton-Huckabay: Where is -- Moe: Well, right in this area right here. We have got the R-4s here. I'm just speaking right in here. But having said that, if we are losing the one lot, per staff I'm fine. That would be my comments. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I don't like -- myself, I don't see -- I have to agree with the applicant -- and I don't think I usually do that, so it's your lucky day. Rohm: This is a first. Newton-Huckabay: I just did that on the record, too, didn't I? Rohm: You did and I supported your comment. Newton-Huckabay: I have to agree that your argument is compelling to me. These are, you know, substantially smaller that are going to be right across from this. What's the difference of having this in your front yard versus this in your backyard? That is kind of how I feel about it. The Ridenbaugh Canal is a pretty good size piece of water there, so Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1,2007 Page 39 of 41 I tend to agree with the applicant that I think it's -- I just don't know that I agree with the argument that there is no transition. I would say that they have transitioned just fine. If anything, to me, these lots are somewhat larger than I would have expected this development to flow, now that I think about looking at it, but -- so I would be in support of striking that condition. Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I agree with that comment completely. I mean I think -- and that's the main difference here, that the canal is a large buffer. Besides, it's back yards. I don't see a lot of problem with back yards, but I do like to see some transition, but I'm not sure why this subdivision would have to have larger lots backing up with the canal separating it, than the ones across the street within the same subdivision. It's usually the ones that are on the same street that affect it more. So, I would also be in favor of eliminating that sentence. Rohm: Well -- and being the last one to speak, I agree with the two of you, I think that the lots across the street being smaller than the ones across the Ridenbaugh Canal, just speaks for itself, and so I would concur that that requirement be stricken in a motion forwarding this onto City Council for approval. End of comment. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, would you like to take a stab at a motion? Newton-Huckabay: I would. My only problem is is I am searching and I cannot find what condition number that is. Borup: 1.2.5. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I'm too far forward in my staff report. Borup: I believe. Newton-Huckabay: Eliminate one building lot from the group of lots, one through seven, Block 3, and increase the square footage of adjacent lots for a total minimum of 8,000 square feet. Maximum number of build-able lots shall be 109. So, we are going to recommend striking completely 1.2.5? Borup: I believe that's correct. Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Any other changes? Rohm: I think that's it. Newton-Huckabay: Have we closed the Public Hearing? Meridian Planning and Zoning February 1, 2007 Page 40 of 41 Rohm: The Public Hearing has been closed. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-064 and PP 06- 065 -- do I need to read this variance in parenthesis? Rohm: We don't do the variances. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. All right. As presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 1, 2007, with the following modification to the conditions of approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending striking condition number 1.2.5. End of motion. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-064 and PP 06-065, to include all staff report as modified. Those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Moe: Aye. Rohm: There are three in favor and one against. That motion carries. Thank you all for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: Three AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-065 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 26.84 acres from R1 to a C-G zone for Ahlquist Annexation by Ahlquist Development, LLC - SEC of the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin Road: Rohm: We are to the last item on the agenda. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing of AZ 06-065 for the Ahlquist Annexation for the sole purpose of continuing it to the regularly scheduled P&Z meeting of March 15th, 2007. Moe: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Rohm: It's been moved and -- Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: -- seconded that we continue Item AZ 06-065 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?