Loading...
April 19, 2007 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 35 of 47 Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: My only discussion on this is that establishment's been there for a long time and that fact that he's come forward and requested a CUP to operate it as has always been operated seems to be almost a moot point, but, nevertheless, it's best that he be in compliance and I think that CUP should be granted without question. Any other comment? Okay. Could we get a motion to forward -- no, to act on this application. Moe: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 07-004 as presented it the staff report for the hearing date April 19th, 2007. And I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on May 3rd, 2007. Rohm: We have a motion. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 07-004. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Thank you for coming in. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 18: Public Hearing: RZ 07-006 Request for a Rezone of 4.38 acres from an R-B to an R-15 zone for Bellabrook by J.E. Development, LLC - 300 S. Locust Grove Road: Item 19: Public Hearing: CUP 07-005 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval for multi-family residential use in a proposed R-15 zone for Bellabrook by J.E. Development, LLC - 300 S. Locust Grove Road: Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 07-006 and CUP 07-005 and begin with the staff report. Watters: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the application before you is a request for a rezone of 4.38 acres from R-8 to R-15. Conditional Use Permit for a multi- family development in a proposed R-15 zone and approval of private streets within the development. The property is located at 300 South Locust Grove Road, approximately a quarter mile south of East Franklin Road, on the east side of south Locust Grove Road. To the north of the site is an LDS church and associated properties, zoned C-N Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 36 of 47 and RUT in Ada County. To the east is rural residential properties zoned R-1 in Ada County. And commercial property zoned C-G. To the south is rural residential property, zoned R-1 in Ada County. And further to the south is Woodbridge Subdivision, zone R- 4. And to the west is commercial property that is zoned L-O and rural residential property, zoned R-1 in Ada County. There is an aerial view of the site. There is an existing house and associated out buildings on the site. The applicant is proposing to construct 34 multi-family residential units, consisting of attached two unit and four unit structures at a gross density of 7.76 dwelling units per acre in an R-15 zone. Each of the units is proposed to have a two car garage with a 20-by-20 parking pad in the driveway. A proposed multi-family development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of mixed use community for this property. Access to the site is provided from South Locust Grove Road. The applicant is proposing to construct private streets within the development, with 27 foot wide street sections, within a 37 foot wide cross-access easement, with rolled curb and gutter, and a five foot wide attached sidewalk. Because the proposed street width does not allow for on-street parking for visitors, staff is recommending that the sidewalk be removed from the internal side of the street around these two four unit structures and the road widened to allow for parking on one side of the street on the external side. A 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required along South Locust, as shown on the landscape plan. 27.7 percent of usable open space is provided on the site, with walking trails, a large grassy open area, and a gathering courtyard in the center here that will help to create a centralized community and include seating, shade trees, and community artwork. A pathway is proposed leading from the residential portion of the development through the common area here and a ten foot wide multi-use pathway will be constructed along the Five Mile Creek at the northeast corner of the site. Elevations have been submitted for the buildings on this site. These are the two unit structures proposed along the south boundary. These are the front and rear, left side and right side elevations. In the center here you will see the colors for the materials that will be used on them. This is a two unit structure proposed at the northeast corner of the development. Right there that leads into the common area. This is the right side elevation. This is the side facing the common area. The left side. And the elevation facing the street. And these are the four unit structures. This is the front elevation. Rear. Right side and left side. As you can see these are attractive buildings that incorporate at least three different material types, varying roof lines, windows, and recessed entrances, among other things. This slide shows elevations of the site from Locust Grove Road from east and from northeast. This slide shows elevations from the southeast, north, Locust Grove entrance, and an overview of the gathering area. And the last slide here shows an isometric view of the site from the southeast in relation to the surrounding properties. Besides requiring conditional use approval in an R-15 zone, multi-family developments also have to comply with specific use standards regarding site design, common open space, site development amenities, architectural character and landscaping. Staff has reviewed the subject application and found that the proposed development does comply with the standards listed in the UDC. A written letter of testimony was received on the application from Ronald Hodge, President of the Woodbridge Subdivision Homeowners Association. Staff recommends approval of the subject application based on the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 37 of 47 findings listed in Exhibit B and the conditions listed in B of the staff report. Excuse me. That was findings in D. That's all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please. Nickle: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickle, 148 North 2nd Street, Suite 101, in Eagle, here tonight representing Bellabrook Subdivision -- or Bellabrook Condominium Development. I'd like to thank staff for their extra added attention that they gave to us regarding this project, getting it designed in a way that would meet the codes, Comprehensive Plan, and also provide for a better overall development. Those black and white plans are rather difficult to understand, so, hopefully, you guys got a chance to see those colored elevations that were up on the screen. I do have large boards here that I can show you if you'd like to look at those. I'll try to be brief and not ramble on too much. As staff has indicated we are asking for a rezone from R-8 to R-15 and a Conditional Use Permit for the multi-family condominium development. The property is on four point -- or includes 4.38 acres. The Comprehensive Plan for this area is mixed use community, which allows up to 15 units to the acre. Our proposed density is 7.76. Again, staff has indicated we are asking for 34 individually owned units. We are providing parking to each of the -- to each of the units. We will provide two covered and two outside off-street parking for a total of four parking spaces per unit. Staff also indicated that are -- Siddoway: Can you point those out. That's what I was just trying to figure out. Nickle: Could we get the other colored plan up there? The black and white is kind of hard to -- Watters: Which one, Shawn? I don't have a colored one. The files are too large. I have problems getting them in the presentation. Nickle: Right there. That will work. That one back there. One back. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. So, to answer your question, Commissioner Siddoway -- I'll kind of go through this. This is the private road. The units here, as you can see, we have -- there is driveways that go back to a garage and this unit here. Two garages here. And a garage beside -- that's the four unit plan. Siddoway: So, there are two garages that face the front street -- Nickle: Yeah. Siddoway: -- and a garage on each side in that case? Okay. Nickle: And the way this was designed by -- by doing the private road -- we initially had proposed a service drive. And to help with addressing and fire concerns, we did go the private road route. So, what you actually see here is a multi-family development that is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 38 of 47 designed more with the look of a single family residential development with the private road. We tried to design it so it wasn't completely garage dominated, so you have got garages up front here, but, then, you have garages on the side. These two unit concepts have the garages on the side and, again, there is that four unit development, two on the side, two in front, and so on. So, it was nice that we were able to get four parking spaces off side -- or off street, even though it's a private street, for each of the units. O'Brien: I have a question on -- Nickle: Yes, sir. O'Brien: -- on the left side of the -- of the picture, you have a single unit there. And, then, your other diagram it showed units nine and ten. Is that a single unit or is that two units there? Nickle: This is two units right here. O'Brien: Two units? Okay. It just shows -- Nickle: Right. O'Brien: -- side by side, instead of head on. Nickle: Right. O'Brien: And that is the end of the flood plane? Nickle: No. If we can go to the next map. Sorry. The other way. Yeah. Either of those. This indicates the flood plane and the floodway line. O'Brien: So, the backyard, if you will, of those -- of that section nine and ten, does that have much slope down? Nickle: It does -- it's a gradual slope, but right here -- here is those units that you spoke of, sir, and this area right here is all outside of the flood plane or the floodway. O'Brien: And that's a park, I guess, or -- Nickle: And that's the grassy area that will be one of our amenities. Then, we have the pathway that goes down to the future regional pathway and along the creek. O'Brien: I'm just -- it's kind of strange to put a unit isolated like that in a park and pathway area. It seems like it would be kind of -- not much privacy. It's just a thought or concern. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 39 of 47 Nickle: The common area within the development encompasses 45 percent of the site. Within that we do have 27 percent usable open space as defined by your code, including that grassy area here, which is just going to be an open area. There is not going to be any play equipment in there. It will just have the pathway that runs through to the east. And, then, we have a common gathering area in the center of the development with public art and a pathway through that. Twenty-five foot buffer along Locust Grove Road. That is all included in that 45 percent overall. The gathering area, grassy area, pathways, all account for that 27 percent of the usable open space. We are providing fencing along the west, south, and a portion of the east of the development. We do believe this is an excellent area for this type of development. As you know this is a mixed use area that includes, as staff has indicated, a church to the north. Single family residential to the south. Office commercial to the west. You have the police station across the street and down. Water Tower. You have city parks within a mile and a half -- or, excuse me, within three-quarters of a mile. Downtown is a mile and a half from the site. We are adjacent to that regional pathway. There is industrial to the north along Franklin. It's a definite mixed use area. We believe -- and this is not a high density development by any means, at 7.7 dwelling units per acre. We feel that multi-family development in this area does provide diversity in housing type and also does provide for a mixed use, which is envisioned by your Comprehensive Plan. Again, I have elevations here that are colored if you would like to see them, if you would like to take a look at those up close that I can pass around if you'd like to see. Oh, if you have got them, great. I'll just show them to the neighbors, if they'd like to look at them as well. Again, staff did an excellent job at analyzing the requirements for the multi-family development. I won't go into any detail, but they are in your staff report, unless you'd like me to answer any questions regarding those. Those have to do with open space area ratios, parking, maintenance and care taking units and things like that. So, that's all I have as far as my application. We do -- we are in favor of the recommended conditions of approval, including the revisions that staff has indicated in there, some of which we have taken care of already, but we are in agreement with those conditions, I will stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Any questions of the applicant at this time? O'Brien: One more. Nickle: Uh-huh. O'Brien: On that flood plane area where you have some trees, et cetera, I mean how is that really going to be used. Are you not going to have any picnic areas or anything like that in that area? Because the common area seems like it's awfully small for the number of units you have in that. Will that be able to support -- Nickle: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner O'Brien, this area right here, again, is all -- is completely outside of the flood plane. It is going to be grass and landscape. So, it's an open area for frisbees, football -- it's -- this area down within the flood plane is going to be more of a natural area with the pathway going down to the future regional path. We Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 40 of 47 are going to construct that path. But we are counting this area right here as -- it becomes a usable recreation area, in addition the gathering area that's more of a -- more of a social type of amenity. O'Brien: So, I guess I don't know -- and maybe someone else could help me out here as far as what size does a development area have to have before they have a plan area or park -- mini park in this case, to support that. Nickle: Yeah. Mr. Chairman and Commissioner O'Brien, your staff report -- I can give you the page number, but it -- Sonya does go through an analysis of the open space and I think she does a really good job at indicating -- on a multi-family development like this each unit has to -- is required to have a certain amount of open space provided. So, this design that we have does provide for that, in addition to the amenities that are required by code. O'Brien: Okay. Nickle: So, I believe, staff is comfortable with the open space that we have. O'Brien: Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Shawn, I'm just curious. Your primary motivation for going private streets instead of public, was it in order to get the difference that ACHD will allow with a public street or what was your reason for it not being a public street? Nickle: That is the reason for the -- originally for the service drive. As you know, most multi-family developments, apartment complexes, things like that have the service drive. Those are causing some confusion with fire and police getting in there with addressing and so by doing the public -- the private streets, it does allow that addressing and those safety concerns. But to answer your initial question, using drives and private roads does help with those widths and those right of way requirements by ACHD. Siddoway: Okay. Nickle: And, in turn, that helps for a better design on these type of developments. Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Thanks, Shawn. Okay. Jerry Cunningham. That's quite all right. Ma'am, would you like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 41 of 47 Jordan: Christie Jordan. 1702 East Bowstring. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, I own one of the properties in Woodbridge that is directly north of this proposed development and I just have a few concerns that may be addressed in the staff report. I glanced through it, but didn't have time to read it in its entirety. I'm just concerned that the CUP 07-005 is not accepted, but that the rezone is accepted, will that potentially open the property up to multi-family rental type development, apartment development. And I'm just concerned -- or want to know if it's going to be guaranteed that this property will be sold as individual units, as opposed to being a large scale apartment rental complex and just because of the fact that I feel that that could diminish our property value. And those are my major concerns. I think -- I had some concerns about roof heights, that type of thing that I believe that they have addressed with some of the revisions to plan with the hip roofs and things, so -- thank you. Rohm: You bet. Thank you. Mr. Cunningham. Cunningham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Jerry Cunningham. 1974 East Bowstring. I not only live in Woodbridge Subdivision, but I also own three acres that are adjacent to the property that actually show the R-1 there. So, this is the section of property right here. And, first of all, I'd like to go on record as saying I hope that Ross does build here, because I really like the drawings he's put together. They have been very nice. I think they are pleasing and would actually fit in with the community very well. I don't understand why there would be a request for a change in density, given that they are proposing a development that's 7.7 per acre when it's already zoned eight units per acre. Don't understand why you would grant that. My third point is that I'm concerned about the private road. The other design that you looked at last time and approved, that wasn't here, because it left a nice city access -- sorry. You want me to be right close to it. The last drawing -- do you guys have copies of the last drawing that was proposed when this was originally changed from an R-1 to an R-8? Rohm: I do not. Cunningham: The reason I ask is because it did have city streets and it left access to the property to the east, which given the current -- the current design, the only access that would be there for either of the two property parcels that I'm speaking to, either the one that I have or the one that my neighbor owns, it's a 50 foot stretch. So, not having a hundred foot of frontage is a limitation to doing any development behind this development. Did not have any access. So, it has to stay a private road. And I'm concerned long term about isolation. Like as you drive down Ustick, you still find little pockets of three acres here and two acres there and one acre here and I'm hoping that the -- that the Commission is taking that into consideration as you change zoning and look at different developments before you. And my last point is that I would encourage the Commission to have a development agreement, since these two zoning -- rezoning requests within a six month period, I guess I'd like to see that the Commission hold the developer to a particular plan and that that's agreed to. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Yeah. Come on back up, Shawn. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 42 of 47 Nickle: Again, Mr. Chairman, for the record, Shawn Nickle. And thanks to the neighbors for -- for showing up. To answer the first lady's question, our intent -- and it's throughout our proposal and application -- is that these are going to be individually owned condominiums. Your staff report has conditions -- the requirements to come __ for coming back and the procedure we have to go through to change those and that is our intent. These are going to be a high quality residential multi-family development. As you can see from the elevations that have been submitted, they are not your standard apartment complex type of building. Therefore, they are going to be marketed towards the individual ownership. To address the gentleman's question, if we could go back to -- I guess maybe the site -- the vicinity map of the area, Sonya. That's perfect. And the gentleman indicated -- and I believe he owns this property right here and, then, there is a separate ownership of this property with the flag. He is correct in that we are changing our application and we no longer have a public road and that public road did stub to the eastern boundary. However, he is in no different circumstance than he was in the last time our application was approved, because he is still a landlocked parcel back here. This parcel in front of him does have a 50 foot wide flag that he does have access to -- or that this property does have access to and a public road could be built in there that would, then, provide access to that back property. That was all taken into consideration and we met many times with staff to make sure that they were comfortable with the way this was designed while we were proposing those private roads and staff has indicated that that is an acceptable way to leave these properties, that they are convinced that they do have proper access for future redevelopment of those -- of those outparcels. I think that's all that was addressed. I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this applicant? Siddoway: Are you able to meet the conditions of the fire department as presented in the staff report with your private road? Nickle: Yeah. We -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, we designed this around Joe's comments, police comments, and your staff comments. And, yes, they do meet all the -- all those. Rohm: Question of staff before you sit down, Shawn. The staff report indicates that you're going to remove the sidewalk on one side of the street and to widen that street somewhat. Will the additional width now make that roadway acceptable to Ada County Highway District or is it still not in compliance with -- Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, it would make it close, but not quite. But ACHD is looking at coming up with some different standards trying to reduce those a little bit, but the fire department generally is not supportive of any reduced widths. It's a little different on these multi-families, they have a little different feel about it. It still wouldn't meet public street standards. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 43 of 47 Rohm: Okay. That's the question. Thank you. Okay. That's all. Siddoway: Follow-up question for staff. Anna, have you verified that there is enough width in that frontage to accommodate a public road in the future? Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, it is 50 feet. However, that would put -- it would -- there wouldn't be any land use buffer to the -- to the -- they could do a reduced street section and move part of that right of way into the landscaping, so that there wasn't directly the road on the back of Woodbridge. We did look at this issue and Mr. Cunningham -- thank you. I was a little surprised when I saw on the records that we did have a landlocked parcel back there. Particularly, that's all in the flood plane and the flood -- you need to not talk from the audience, sir. I'm sorry. But there is a piece of property there, but most of that is in the floodway and the flood plane. So, the development potential of that, as in all of this property here, is severely limited by that flood plane. It's a rather wide flood plane and, you know, ACHD has a drainage basin here, because this is a very large natural drain and you can -- you can see it coming through Woodbridge as well with their open space system through here. So, a large portion of that is not developable or has limited development potential. So, we felt that it wasn't necessary to accommodate a lot of traffic. They could do flag lots and get four units back there, might be appropriate, but we thought that there was really limited to this upper plateau as far as development potential. You know, we may have been mistaken in that, I'm not sure, but that is how we looked at it. There is always a question of when a private street goes in, that connecting another property to a private street, it isn't necessarily appropriate. When-- but in this instance the private street accommodated the multi-family use. So, it's the circle we kind of go in every time we have a multi-family development. We like to get interconnected ones, but these multi-family developments tend to be designed around private streets, rather than public streets. Rohm: Thank you. Canning: Did that answer your question, Mr. Siddoway? Siddoway: Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions before we close the Public Hearing? O'Brien: I have a question for staff. About this development agreement, you know, I noticed in the -- in this report that you didn't think one was required and I guess I just hesitate the fact that it was zoned from an R-8 to an R-15 -- I don't understand the logic from that -- it just seems like it leaves it open for something else outside of the -- outside of what's in that agreement. Canning: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner O'Brien, the -- the R-8 does designate up to eight dwelling units per acre, but it is for single family homes. It's not -- it does not allow multi-family development. So, in order to ask for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 44 of 47 multi-family developments such as this, they had to request a higher designation, so __ and they would not have been able to meet the dimensional standards for single family homes in the R-8 zone, too. But with regard to the desire for a development agreement, that may very well be appropriate and is probably something that Council would be in favor of, in all honesty. With the R-15 developments, they are very site specific. You need to know what unit you have got, you need to have it placed on that lot in a very particular way. So, that may be a very appropriate suggestion as put forth. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Shawn, did you want to come back up? Nickle: Mr. Chairman, again, Shawn Nickle. I apologize, I was going to address that. I think that's a fair question by the neighbor and we would be more than happy to enter into a development agreement to lock us into that site plan that we have shown you, if you're not comfortable with not having one. And, then, staff did explain why we have to ask for an R-15. We are actually under the R-8 density, but the multi-family is only allowed in the R-15 and above, so -- Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Okay. Moe: Just one question. A little information for me as far as changing that, though, if they would have done a PUD, would that not have needed to go to an R-15 at that point? I'm reading these days. Canning: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Moe, that's a very good point. The PUD as we have changed it in the Unified Development Code, though, specifically says you cannot ask for a PUD for the sole purpose of waiving requirements. So, they weren't able to go the PUD route on that one and they didn't have a mix of types of product, so they were not able to ask for a PUD. Moe: Well, when I need some sleep I'll start reading these, so I can find that. Canning: It will work. Moe: Thank you. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing for RZ 07-006 and CUP 07-005. Moe: Second. Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we close the Public Hearing on RZ 07 -006 and CUP 07-005. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 2007 Page 45 of 47 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman -- did you want to take a poll or anything? Rohm: Just if any individual Commissioner has some final thoughts and certainly this is the appropriate time to exercise that right. Commissioner O'Brien, do you have any final thoughts? O'Brien: No, I don't. I think I had my question answered and part of the concern of that was leaving it open for someone else to be in the zone for the R-15, instead of R-8, that there might have been some conflict, I don't know, downstream, but I don't see that, based on the area here. So, I'm good with it. Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Siddoway? Siddoway: I'd actually just like to commend the applicant for bringing a product that has a residential character and quality similar to a large -- you know, very large residential home -- it's a four-plex, but the way it's -- it's not just a large box and it's not all -- it's not all garages on the front, it's got some good articulation and I think it will fit in well. So, with that I will make a motion to recommend -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 07-006, CUP 07-038 and PS 07-002. That's -- with -- there is no PS on here. The PS is a private street application. Is that needed? Watters: Chairman Rohm, Commissioner Siddoway, Commissioners, private streets do not require Public Hearing notice. They typically run -- they are typically approved at staff level, but because the other applications that were accompanying it require a Public Hearing, it accompanies those applications. Rohm: So, we just have the rezone and the CUP. Siddoway: On the agenda. Okay. There is a separate private street application. So, on the RZ and CUP, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 19th, 2007, with the following modification. I recommend that RZ 07-006 be required to enter into a development agreement that would incorporate the site plans and elevations as submitted and presented tonight. End of motion. O'Brien: I second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of RZ 07-006 and CUP 07-005, to include all staff report, with the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you, folks, for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.