Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes' PLANNING AND Z~G COMMISSION JUNE 9, 1998 PAGE 28 MacCoy: Now we'll go over to item #8. (Inaudible) Does you have a conclusion on that? Does anybody have - Smith: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that it deny the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application, however if the permit is approved the applicant shall satisfy the conditions as set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code, parking requirements and the paving and landscape requirements and all ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the City. MacCoy: Is there a second? Nelson: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? Abstention or negative? MOTION CARRIED: All aye. ITEM #8: TABLED MAY 12, 1998: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 (7 TOWNHOUSES AND 2SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS ON 1.157 ACRES) BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING -NORTH OF E. PINE AND WEST OF LOCUST GROVE: MacCoy: Commissioners, do you have anything you want to first put into this? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I only received one copy of Findings of Fact on this item #8 and 9. Prior: There's a preliminary plat that's involved, there's no Findings (inaudible). Berg: Findings of Fact are not prepared for preliminary plats, recommendations to City Council and whatever - Smith: So we just need to make a motion? Berg: To whatever you want to give to the - Smith: So since we just voted to deny the conditional use permit I'd like to make a motion that we deny the request for preliminary plat for Maws Subdivision No. 3. • Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 21 ITEM NO. 10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MAWS NO. 3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING -NORTH OF EAST PINE AND WEST OF NORTH LOCUST GROVE. Corrie: At this time I'll open the public hearing and invite the representative from Maws Subdivision No. 3 to testify. RICHARD PAVELEK 915 W. JEFFERSON WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Pavelek: The owner of this property has had this land for approximately six years. It was originally developed in two phases, Maws 1 and 2 and there was an annexation order and I believe it's ordinance 580 that brought the land in, and under that it was zoned R-8 zoning category. Also specific in that ordinance was a number of lots that would be considered. It was 45 lots in phases one and two of Maws there have been 36 lots with homes constructed on that property. It wasn't developed at that time because of a development that was proposed down the adjacent street and so it sat there undeveloped for a number of years and we basically are in need of starting off with a development plan for this as a separate. It will not have any direct access to the adjacent or prior phases. We submitted anumber -two applications. One was for a conditional use. The other was for a preliminary plat. And I believe that you have copies in your file that show the proposed layout. In prior action by the Planning and Zoning Commission they were some items that were discussed and have since been clarified. I think the first one which was of great concern to the Planning and Zoning Commission was the issue related to irrigation rights, and there was in staff report an item that inferred that the owner had not proceeded according to the ordinance with the irrigation rights for phases one and two. We have since gone through the city archives at the city treasurer's office and we provided you in your packet copies of the receipts for payment of items associated with the development of those phases and specifically the well development fee, which was the mechanism for exclusive this project out, so the irrigation issue was taken care of at that time and should not have been brought up at the time of the commission. Basically follow the ordinance at the time in terms of asking for an exclusion, it was granted, and paid for at that time. So that item should not have been part of the previous record. In terms of the density both by a calculation of this specific development as well the overall original anticipated density, we're well within the allowed density of the R-8 zone as well as the overall density for this property. One of the things that has changed in the time that this property was originally subdivided and now where we are looking at the final remnant parcel is that there is a desire among the public to have basically low maintenance yards, and have a townhouse type of unit which is self-owned. Each side would be self owned. And that's specifically what the applicant is proposing. These basically are tend to be a loose category of buyer, but generally it's people without children that would like to cut down on the maintenance and would prefer to spend their time other places rather than their Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 22 back yard. By the standard of the townhouse, these are large lots nevertheless. They do have in the side yards on each open side of the property a 15 foot setback from the side property lines. So there's 30 feet between the units. In terms of the size of the units if we would have proposed basically a duplex unit for these properties the house size is sufficient to meet the ordinance standard for a duplex. As far as a single family unit, no, they do not make the 1300 square foot minimum for single family, but that is not the type of housing we hope to build here. These are large -the interior space is three bedroom unit is large for a unit of this type. There are two elements that we think need to be addressed in the proposal that we have made. First one is basically the street frontage. Street frontage being proposed is 45 feet per lot. The second item that we would request the council consider is modifying the original annexation order of single family being determined by only detached units. The ordinance, I guess it was a surprise when I went back to it and finally gained a copy and read through it, there was an exclusion of detached units, and it may have made some sense at that time but we would propose that at this point the townhouses that are proposed as attached units be the appropriate form of development on this parcel and that you consider the modification to that annexation order to allow for the attached units. I think that those are the predominant factors. I think we've tried to address all of the issues, the servicing in previous correspondence. As far as we can determine we have suitable street access. We have all the utilities. We've accommodated the underground line that currently is there. That line dates back to a farm field and I guess no one at the time of development of the first two phases were in fact aware of it, but we have accommodated that, and we would meet all other requirements of the Meridian ordinances if we could deal with those two items. Currently the preliminary plat has been tabled pending the outcome of the conditional use hearing so that's what we're here to discuss and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. Mr. Gregory the owner of the property is here. I guess he has looked from his perspective he has looked at adjacent properties or properties within a mile of this. It seemed to him to be a similar type of project. He has seen townhouse units that are down to about 800 square feet in size and his perception is that those would be self owned and would be a smaller standard of street frontage. We don't know that for a fact ,but we know that the product is there, and I'm sure that beyond ours there are going to be other proposal for units of this type. So we could answer any of your questions and be pleased to do so. Corrie: Council, any questions? Bentley: I have none. Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have a question for staff. The conditional use process is why? Because the change and desire to use or to move away from the annexation ordinance or is this a PUD? I mean conditional use is not a normal process for a subdivision. Meridian City Counal September 1, 1998 Page 23 Stiles: Councilman Rountree, Mayor and Council, this was initially proposed with a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit was required as a planned development because they did not meet the ordinance requirements. The preliminary plat was not tabled. It was denied by Planning and Zoning Commission. However the conditional use permit had to go forward because of the way the ordinance reads. Pavelek: Mayor and Council if I could the reason why we basically asked for a conditional use was simply to deaf with the street frontage were deficient in fact in that aspect and there is no determination in the Meridian ordinance but as far as what classifies a zero lot line unit. It's a single family but its standards are not spelled out so what we wanted to do is to try and find a way of bringing an acceptable project to council that could be approved in the CU process seemed to be the viable way of doing so. Corrie: Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else from the public who would like to issue testimony on this item? Okay. Hearing none, I will close the public hearing and now for discussion from the council. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, reviewing the documents and the plan for this project, I'm inclined to agree with the P & Z in denying this conditional use permit. I'm prepared to make a motion if there's no more discussion. Corrie: Any further discussion? Bird: I have none. Corrie: I'll entertain a motion. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as presented by the P & Z and denying the conditional use permit for Maws Subdivision No. 3. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Rountree to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the applicant conditional use permit. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.