Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 20, 2007 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 21 of 42 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 07-018 and PP 07- 024 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 20th, 2007. No modifications. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 07-018 and PP 07-024, to include all staff comments, with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 12: Public Hearing: RZ 07-020 Request for Rezone of 10.1 acres from R-4 to R-40 zoning district for Selway Apartments by Meridian Apartments, LLC -west of N. Goddard Creek Road and north of McMillan Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open RZ 07-020 for the Selway apartment project for the sole purpose of continuing this to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 7th, 2008. Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item RZ 07-020 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 7, 2008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: PFP 07-004 Request for Combined Preliminary / Final Plat approval of 3 residential lots on 0.59 of an acre located in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 22 of 42 the R-4 zoning district for Blackstone No. 2 by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - 4700 W. Aspen Creek Street: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on PFP 07-004 and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applicant is requesting a combined preliminary/final plat for three residential lots with a shared common driveway on 0.59 acres. The proposed project is a re- subdivision of Lot 5, Block 1, within the Blackstone Subdivision, formerly known as the English Gardens Subdivision. The subject site is located at 47 West Aspen Creek Street on the southeast corner of Black Cat Road and Cherry Lane. The property is bordered on the north by Mill Iron Place Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the south is Blackstone, Coral Creek Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the west are single family residences, zoned RUT, Ada County. And to the east is the Blackstone Subdivision, zoned R-4. The site is currently a vacant single family residential lot being used as a storage lot within the existing residential subdivision. So, right now it's just a vacant lot with a bunch of trailers and debris in there being stored. The proposed plats illustrate three building lots ranging in size from 8,546 square feet to 8,604 square feet. All lots meet the dimensional requirements of the R-4 zoning district and the Comprehensive Plan density range of three to eight dwelling units to the acre. Access to the site will be provided from a public street to and from West Aspen Creek Street, which was along here, by a shared driveway. So, here you have your three -- here is your shared driveway into the development off of Aspen Creek. Lots 1, 2, and 3. Again, they are all meeting the dimensional requirements of the UDC. The UDC does not require additional open space and site amenities for a development of this size. However, the applicant will be responsible for providing a minimum of five foot perimeter landscape buffer along the interior lot lines adjacent to the common driveway with trees and groundcover. So, on the submitted landscaping plan, the applicant has not shown that -- the five foot landscape buffers along this common driveway. Here is kind of the site plan. You can see the houses on the lots and how they are situated., how they are oriented on there. The applicant will be required to have 20 by 20 foot pads and two additional parking -- garage car parks and a drainage swale for the common driveways proposed here. The applicant has provided staff with elevations for this project. Staff likes the appearance of the conceptual elevations shown in Exhibit A. The features that staff approves of are the gable roof lines facing the street, vertical siding, the covered porches and the brick veneer accents on the front facades. The applicant should construct homes on the site that contain the above- mentioned design features. One thing to note is this picture here shows vinyl siding. Staff has conditioned that no vinyl siding be used within the proposed development. While preparing this report staff realized that the gross density of the project does not conform to the maximum allowed density in the R-4 zone. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 23 of 42 The subject project contains a gross density of 5.1 dwelling units to the acre and the maximum density allowed in the R-4 zone is four dwelling units to the acre. The Comprehensive Plan designation of medium density residential only serves as a guide for future residential development. The zoning district dictates the density, uses, and dimensional standards for individual sites. Except for the gross density, the proposed project does comply with the dimensional standards of the R-4 zoning district. Therefore, staff is not recommending denial of the project, but is recommending the applicant modify the proposed preliminary plat to reflect two residential lot, instead of three. If a lot is removed, the gross density for the project would decrease from 5.1 dwelling units to the acre to 3.4 dwelling units to the acre. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat provided that only two residential lots are allowed. Further, staff recommends denial of the final plat associated with Blackstone No. 2. This concludes my presentation. 1 will be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. Rohm: Thank you, Bill. Any questions of staff? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. Bill, I need you to walk me through the density thing for just a minute. The proposed three lots meet the -- they all meet the minimum lot size of the proposed R-4 zone? Parsons,: Chairman, Commissioner Siddoway, that is correct, they do meet the minimum 8,000 square foot standard. Siddoway: Okay. And they are within the three to eight dwelling units per acre per the Comp Plan. So, the standard that they are not meeting is -- is the density dictated by the zone? Parsons: By the R-4 zoning., yes. R-4 -- the code requires a maximum of four dwelling units to the acre and their proposed development is at 5.1. Siddoway: What has me perplexed is that they meet the minimum lot size of the zone and yet they exceed the density. I'll mull that over while the applicant makes his presentation. Rohm: That's probably a pretty good place to leave that. So, at this time would the applicant like to come forward., please. Richio: Okay. Before I begin, if I may hand out some late exhibits to the Commissioners. Rohm: Please state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 24 of 42 Richio: Absolutely. Lenny Richio with Landmark Engineering, 332 North Broadmore Way and I haven't been sworn in. Baird: Just tell the truth. Rohm: Yeah. But it says right here at the top, it says we expect you to tell the truth. Richio: All right. Baird: To the best of your ability. Richio: Okay. Well, as I mentioned., my name is Lenny Richio, I'm with Landmark Engineering and Planning and I'm out here on behalf of Projects West, Incorporation. And they are the original developers of Blackstone, the original Blackstone, and right in front of you tonight is just a replat of a lot that was left out based upon future -- for future development. Right now what's in front of you is a subdivision that's a little more than only a half an acre We are requesting three residential lots and the reason why we are doing that is because three residential lots makes this project work. It's very feasible with three residential lots as proposed. In addition to that, as staff has stated, we are in compliance with the zoning., minimum lot sizes, setbacks, frontage, depth, common drive. And in front of you tonight, just like to reiterate that this is the same developer that developed blackstone number one and if I may I'd like to tell you a little bit of the lot history of this project. Originally, when Blackstone No. 1 was platted, the developer of the project, Wes, incorporation, saw this site as a future development for a commercial site and that's the reason that we are in front of you tonight, is because originally this site was meant for commercial use. That was the best use of the lot, in the developer's opinion and after this subdivision was platted, he was in negotiations with the abutting parcel owner, which still at this time is not annexed into the city. Those negotiations fell through. The future land use map was changed a couple of times, about two times, and the city never envisioned the area as being a commercial site. So, as a result of those two reasons, I'm in front of you tonight proposing a residential subdivision for three lots. I appreciate the time that staff took in reviewing this. Appreciate the time that they took in meeting with us last Friday. I understand where they are coming from regarding their -- regarding the density, but I'd also like to state that we believe that the density of this subdivision is in accordance with what's out there right now. The conceptual elevations that were -- that are in front of you, those pictures are of existing homes that are in Blackstone No. 1. Those homes are going to be able to be placed on this site. We are trying -- we are making this site to be consistent with the existing site, the existing project of Blackstone No. 1. In addition to that, all living space and everything else for the zoning will be met. In front of you I have an exhibit, it's 11 by 17, showing what's going -- what Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 25 of 42 exactly is going on in the area and, originally, if this was not a platted lot, there would be dedications required.. Landscape dedications. Right of way dedications. The density requirement that the staff has found is, essentially, the net density, because this slot is already incorporated within Blackstone No. 1. This is the net density. If this were not platted already, the gross density of the area -- of this area with -- including the landscape buffers, because that was only dedicated, be 3.93, I believe, that's what's listed on there. Underneath the cap of four dwelling units to the acre. And, in addition to that, I'd also like to reiterate that the open space in our pre-application meeting was waived and the reason was, as staff stated., developments of this size it isn't required. But also the planner looking and reviewing the pre-application meeting stated don't worry about the open space., because the open space can be utilized from Blackstone, the original Blackstone. We believe that this same reasoning should be taken into consideration as well for the density. If taken in consideration the landscape buffers isn't enough, we would also like for the Commissioners to take into consideration the whole subdivision, as this is a re-plat of an existing subdivision. Take in the whole density of the area -- of the existing subdivision., take in the whole density of the subdivision as on the eight and a half by 11, you will see that the density is 3.2 dwelling units to the acre. This is the same reasoning that was utilized for the open. space and we believe that's the same reason that should be applied to the density and also through meeting with the staff, they were concerned with creating precedence for the city. I believe that there isn't going to be anything that's going to be precedent setting. This is a unique situation that's in front of you this evening. It's unique for a number of reasons. One., because it's a re-plat. There is not many re-plats of an existing subdivision in the city. Two, this lot has been owned by the same developer of the original Blackstone. And, three, it meets all the zoning minimum lot sizes, minimum setbacks it will meet. It's going to accommodate for 1,400 square foot homes as accordingly to the code. In addition to that, the lots -- the homes will be designed to be consistent and harmonious with the rest of the subdivision. And we feel that this is a quality project in front of the Commissioners tonight and we request your approval to City Council. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of -- O'Brien: I have just one, Mr. Chairman, and it might involve staff as well. Is there any concerns about the fire department getting in there through that driveway to access those homes to the back? Richio: I held a number of meetings with the Assistant Fire Chief Joe Silva. The concept plan that's in front of you and also the preliminary plat has been approved for driveway compliance. So, yes, sir, that has been addressed. O'Brien: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 26 of 42 Siddoway: I have a question. Could you address the issue of the five foot landscape buffer required along the edge of the driveway whether that requires any modifications to what's proposed? Richio: Any modifications to what's proposed in our -- the five foot landscape buffers we would have -- we would have to address that with the City Council if there is any necessary revisions and we would be more than happy to sit down with staff. When we presented the concept plan in front of the -- the pre- application meeting, that was something that they noted and I think it was something that failed to make its way on the preliminary plat, but, nonetheless, was something that was noted. So, we would work through any staff considerations on that. Any significant changes would more than likely occur with the common driveway and we will address any changes with the assistant fire chief on that. Siddoway: Let me follow up on that with staff, if I could. Bill, you had mentioned the five foot buffer requirement along the driveway. Now -- because when I look at this I see five foot dimensions adjacent to the driveway here. Is that requirement addressed by what we are looking at or is that something that needs to be modified? Parsons: If you look at -- I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Siddoway, if you look at the submitted landscape plan, you don't see any plantings along that common driveway. So, that's why I addressed it in the staff report. Siddoway: So, the space is there, but the landscaping is not; is that correct? Parsons: That is correct. There is five feet on each side. Siddoway: Thank you. Richio: That's easier. I'll just refer to Bill. Rohm: Any other questions? Thank you. Richio: Thank you. Rohm: I'm not sure, but I think the balance -- Chris Todd? Are you part of the development team? Todd.: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Go ahead and just leave the timer as it's -- oh. Leave it off. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 27 of 42 Todd.: Members of the Commission, Chris Todd with Landmark Engineering and Planning, 332 Broadmore Way, Nampa, Idaho. 83687. Thank you for your time this evening. Just wanted to state that I agree with the comments made by my colleague Lenny Richio. Tonight just want to expand on a couple of items. We held apre-application meeting with staff and the Director of Planning Services Anna Canning. This layout was presented in it's initial layout and we left the meeting with a vote of confidence that the plans were acceptable and fell within the guidelines of Meridian city. Construction drawings and engineering work followed., which is why you have in front of you tonight a short plat with a preliminary plat, a final plat, and construction drawings. Lenny and I, then, held a neighborhood meeting, we had a few neighbors out, some couples with their children coming by asking questions. We didn't have any opposition from the neighbors, they were just more concerned about when construction was to take place, about the different safety precautions that we could go in setting up cones and things like that for construction vehicles coming in and out. I feel in my professional opinion that this site has many hardships that warrant the Commission to acknowledge the landscaping and the area surrounding the site and its relation to the overall subdivision Blackstone One. All lot specifications, dimensions and setbacks have been met. The subdivision complies to Meridian's Comp Plan and is the best use of the land. I believe by analyzing the entire area that Blackstone No. 2 stands alone as a well designed subdivision and almost like a phase of the original Blackstone. As Commissioner Siddoway indicated with his questions, this plat complies with the majority of Meridian's criteria and we ask for your approval this evening. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you very much. Todd: I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: Any questions? O'Brien: Just one quick question, Mr. Chairman. What kind of fencing goes around the arch? Is there going to be fencing around the outside perimeter of that -- Todd: There is already fencing present. I believe it's a six foot cedar that's around the perimeter presently. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. John Carpenter. Did you want to speak? I have four names down here and you're welcome to come forward if you -- Meridian Planning 8~ Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 28 of 42 Carpenter: I appreciate my colleague signing me up. John Carpenter. I don't know if I have much further to say, other than just to reiterate if these lots were part of the original subdivision it would have complied with the density. It meshes well with the subdivision. If we had the open space adjacent to those three lots and the road right of way adjacent to it, and we did the calculation based on that, it would be under the four units per acre. So, I, again, ask for your approval on it. Stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Paul Edminster, did you want to -- you don't have to come up. You might as well. Absolutely. Edminster: I'm Paul Edminster, the president of Project West, so I own the property. So, I am asking for this to be passed, basically, because we have owned the thing for about six or seven years thinking that we were going to turn it into commercial and that was our intentions and feeling like that end of Meridian would definitely be served for some type of commercial building. The neighbors to the side of us just -- we haven't been able to work with them and since, then, he's passed away and so it's gone to the family and, then, it's a bigger issue than that, so it's just something that we could see isn't going to work, as well as all the zoning, so we felt like the best interest for the neighbors -- and they probably would prefer to have some residential houses there than some commercial there as well, so that's why we thought, well, let's just turn it into lots and go from there. If we -- if we only have two lots out of it, then, my -- what I will do is just keep it until there is time that maybe we can get this rezoned for commercial, because it doesn't benefit -- it isn't cost effective to get two lots out of it, so -- thank you. Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. That concludes everyone that's in the audience, so I'm pretty sure there is not going to be any other testimony. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have a couple of questions regarding that pesky out-parcel that is a result of -- left on here. It appears that that isn't a stub that's -- on that shared driveway, it's just a driveway that ends prior to stubbing to that piece of property. Do you understand what -- I'm talking about this piece of property right there that's an out-parcel. We are stubbing to it, so we are only leaving to access onto -- the only way to access that property in the future is to access it on Black Cat and I'm wondering if there is enough frontage between Thorn Creek Street and Cherry Lane to realistically do that or if we should be getting a stub there, so that we don't have to have access onto Black Cat if there isn't -- I don't know if there is enough frontage, but it seems to me like it would be awful close. Meridian Planning & zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 29 of 42 Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, yeah, you're right, we aren't requiring that street frontage -- or that to stub to that property. I don't have an answer for you at this time, but I would have to talk with ACHD, they would be in that jurisdiction, but, you're right, we could -- if this was just to be one lot, it was -- again, it was platted as a lot within that subdivision and it wasn't -- didn't have that requirement to stub to that at that time either, so we can make that argument as well, but I think ACRD would have that -- I think the applicant would have preferred that that develop with that site, too, and, then, they would have had that -- that wrapped up, but, unfortunately, they didn't. And I think staff would have been more supportive of that, too, if that would have come in with that other parcel as well, but I struggle with an answer for you on that question, unless Caleb can elaborate on it more. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. The -- now, to the south of -- can you go back to the - - the other slide with the -- excuse me, can you go back to the other slide. Parsons: Which one is that? Newton-Huckabay: That one. Thank you. This right here is -- if I remember correctly is -- is like -- is common lot in this other subdivision -- in Blackstone One. I mean is there a possibility I suppose to stub through into there? Well, wanted to -- okay. You're right, it's outside this application, but I don't want to vote in favor of this application if the only option is to create a stub here that's too close to one of the intersections. We already have that at Ustick and Meridian Road and I think it's awkward and dangerous, so -- Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may. Members of the Commission, Commissioner Newton- Huckabay, it looks like on the aerial anyways, as was mentioned through the audience., that there is some type of a drainage facility that runs for a couple hundred feet roughly along the north side of -- is that Thorn Creek Street. Your first point -- certainly the common driveway could be stubbed to that property and, then, an additional dwelling unit if there were only two in this project or two if there are only two in this project, could all utilize that. Now, I don't know what the radiuses are -- would be if that were stubbed.. The fire department access and things like that, if they would need a full blown turnaround and how that would kind of all work out, but I agree, I think that that makes some sense to have access be provided to that lot and maybe there isn't an outlet, maybe it's just -- it comes in and dead ends and all three or four of those lots all come in and out of that same driveway, rather than an outlet, either to Black Cat or down to Thom Creek Street. So, that certainly is something that -- that could happen., 'I mean could be conditioned as such and could make some sense. Again, it's kind of hard -- don't have all the dimensions for that lot, so it's kind of hard to tell you what could go on there, but it's -- it's almost as deep as this one, not quite, with their -- the flag portion of this and some of that, but they -- you know, that's Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 30 of 42 probably still in the neighborhood of a hundred feet or after dedication of right of way and landscape buffers and whatnot, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I guess I would like to see us do what we can to avoid making that very difficult to access in the future. So, if that's stubbing the driveway -- I think if that's the best we can do out of this development, I certainly think we should do it. I certainly -- I would just hate to not -- well, you know, it's kind of lame, but we are just going to move on, because we can't think of a solution. I think that we would be remiss doing that. Can we stub the driveway? Moe: Can you put the slide with the houses shown on there? Right there. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission., there was a question there, don't know if it was necessarily directed to staff. You can sure condition the plat however you'd like. Again, Isee -- some of this is pertinent to this application, some of it will have to be discussed at a later date when that property to the south does redevelop. Does that driveway, then, go out to Black Cat or down or nowhere, just with a fiurnaround. But certainly what's in this applicant's court and what you need to decide is do you want to see that -- an easement provided to that parcel to the south to also use the driveway they are proposing with this development. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair? Oh. Hood: I'm sorry. And I was just going to say, if you don't do that, then, I see the scenario you're talking about, their access is going to be to Black Cat. There are no more options after that. So, you either do it now or you don't do one. So, that's -- that's up to you at this point anyways. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mr. Chair, I guess I would like to say that -- I'd like to know what the rest of the Commission thinks, but I'd like to see the potential for an easement and a stub than give that applicant the opportunity to speak on that. -- and I'd like to hear what the rest of the Commission thinks. Rohm: I'll weigh in on that. I would say if this project was rotated 90 degrees and the access was Cherry Lane that we are dealing with for the adjacent property, then, we should definitely make provisions for that to take access off of an internal roadway, but I don't think Black Cat is in a -- I don't think the traffic on Black Cat is as heavy as it is on Cherry Lane and that parcel that you're concerned about I think will be able to take access off of Black Cat and if it ends up with aright-in, right-out in order to accommodate development, so be it, but don't -- I don't personally think that to encumber a residential development with access to what potentially will be something other, is the right thing either. That's just -- that's where I'm coming from. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 31 of 42 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Question for Caleb if I could. Caleb, I know you can't speak for ACHD. I'm wondering if, based on your experience with them is it conceivable that they would not allow access to Black Cat if they had a stub that's a private drive or would they still be required to provide public street access to them? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, the -- the Ada County Highway District may -- their access to the public street system could be still through this common driveway and out. Siddoway: So, it's conceivable that they could deny access to Black Cat Road. Hood..: Again, yeah, they just need to provide access to the public street system and that would be facilitated -- and Icould -- Bill and I were just looking at it, it looks like from the existing approximate edge of pavement on Cherry Lane there is about a 175 feet south to the north property line, so, yeah, right about where that pointer is at is 175 feet from that. So, going with ACHD's policy about right- in, right-out, you have to come down about another 50 feet before you could even have aright-in, right-out. And now you're getting into separation problems with the existing -- can't even remember the name of that street. Thorn Creek. You're almost in between there. So, I don't know where a driveway would land for that place. If there isn't a stub, yes, Commissioner, they would have to provide them a driveway, because you can't have them access their property, but Siddoway: Okay. Then, afollow-up question. If additional lots were built down here that took access from -- from that drive, does that kick it into additional requirements to become a private street with a sidewalk and things like that? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, the -- the common driveway provisions allow a maximum of four dwelling units. Our private street provisions you cannot construct a private street for single family detached residential. You can do a private street development in multi-family or in commercial developments. So, there isn't kind of an in between, at least by the code. Our code explicitly and prohibitively does not allow private streets for single family detached developments. Siddoway: So, then, following that logic, if there -- this property's only access is through this common drive it would be limited to one single family dwelling. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 32 of 42 Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Siddoway, with three lots on it it would be limited to one with two lots. They could have two. Siddoway: They could have two. Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Commissioner Moe, do you have some comments on this? Moe: Well, I thought I had my mind all made up, as a matter of fact. Now, I'm not so sure, quite frankly. I am struggling a little bit in regards to access into that other lot -- that other property to the south. I probably would have liked to have seen a stub there, but at the same point per access and whatnot, ACRD is going to have to grant an access into that property at one point or another and I'm not real sure I like the access out -- or through the private drive that we have go there. So, I guess in a round about way is I probably would not be in favor of a stub into that property there and although the zoning isn't proper, I'm having a hard time not seeing that the development as it's shown right now -- it would be fine with me. I think it's a good way to take care of the property that's left in that subdivision, even though it is a separate subdivision from the original Blackstone, it -- kind of take it all at one area and it works. So, the long and short of it is would say that I'm in favor of it as it is. Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien. O'Brien: I, too, was -- thought I had my mind made up, but it could go either of two ways. One, we could sit on it and wait and see if the owners of the other property might come around to either developing it or going commercial for all that whole section, both sets of properties. Or leave it as it is and let the other owner to the property take care of their issues. I'm not quite sure the responsibility the current applicant would have in making that work, since the other property owners aren't willing to negotiate. So, I'm kind of wishy washy there. I haven't made up my mind completely yet. Rohm: All right. Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: Well, it's -- it's messy. I don't -- if this were to stub, then, you have vehicular traffic, you know, coming around back behind this home. Don't particularly like the feel of that very much, but I think what I'm struggling with right now is this density issue and I have a round about question here. I have a question about open space requirement and is -- there isn't -- is there an open space requirement that would be for this subdivision that -- we heard testimony earlier that they weren't required to do open space, because the open space for the overall subdivision was counted as part of that; is that correct? Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 33 of 42 Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I heard testimony to that effect, too. I wasn't at that pre-app meeting. I don't know what was said at that pre-app meeting. We don't count other open space that was provided toward new projects. This project is not required, just because of its size, being less than five acres to provide any open space, so -- Siddoway: So, it doesn't have its own open space requirement anyway. Hood: Correct. Correct. Siddoway: You know, I -- my gut is that I want to approve it as is. However, the thing that's in my way right now is this -- the word if in the statement that was made that this would meet the density requirements if it were platted with the overall subdivision. But the reality is it's not. It wasn't platted with the overall subdivision, so I -- I don't know if we can without violating that code and I guess looking to legal counsel and -- Baird: Mr. Chair, if I may I think Commissioner Siddoway has hit the nail on the head.. If you're going to approve this, I would hope that the maker of the motion could provide us with an interpretation of how this does fit the code and it simply doesn't. If it was a different zone, it might. But they are stuck with the decisions that were made in the past and we are stuck with the code that we have at the present. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway, in response to your comments and not necessarily in agreement with our legal counsel, I think that in all of our city codes there are provisions for hardship cases that we can say that the development that's being proposed, based upon its specific dimensions or what have you, mitigate the -- the rules on -- that we have as part of our UDC and I think that your earlier comments about each and every one of these lots being over the minimum lot size for that zoning is the compelling response here and this development as proposed by the developers, even though it is not part of Blackstone No. 1, it is -- in all other ways it complies with the zoning of the R-4 and from my perspective I think that that's the best utilization of that property and think we should move it forward with recommendation for approval. Siddoway: And I would just state that it -- it does -- it does bother me that a project can meet the minimum lot sizes and not meet the density standards. Rohm: And I think that that's -- that's a math issue. This is .59 and you divide three lots into .59 and you end up with five lots per acre, but the fact of the matter is if all lots within this proposal are in excess of the minimum lot size within the R- 4and Ithink that it -- if you take a look at its current use and where this developer is trying to take this, I think that it is in the city's best interest to develop Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 34 of 42 it as proposed and it will enhance that corner from where it is currently and I think that that's part of our responsibility is to make sure that the interests of the city as a whole are addressed. O'Brien: Could I respond to that, Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Absolutely. O'Brien: I appreciate where you're coming from on that and I agree that we need to keep the interests of the city at hand, but what about the lot next door to it? Are we getting ourselves into a quagmire that's going to create a black hole there and not be able to do anything with it? Rohm: I think that that adjacent property will at such time that they come forward with an application for a development will find their own answer. O'Brien: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question? Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: Is this piece of property eligible for that step up in density? Rohm: I was going to ask that myself. Newton-Huckabay: I don't -- I guess I don't understand why they couldn't have applied for a step up in zoning to allow the density of the three homes. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the applicant could request a rezone of the property to R-8, because it is medium density residential in the Comp Plan. However, staff would look at that as spot zoning and if you look at the surrounding residential subdivisions in the area, they are all R-4 zoning. It would be kind of hard for us to make those findings and justify that zoning. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may just add to that, though. That's certainly the cleanest way. If you like the plat, certainly the cleanest way on -- it creates the record where you have the zoning that allows the density that's being proposed, as well as lot sizes that are being proposed. So, although staff isn't jumping up and down about spot zoning an R-8 parcel, we are less excited I would say about approving this without having the zoning to reflect what's actually on the ground. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 35 of 42 Rohm: Okay. Please come forward.. Carpenter: I appreciate that. I just wanted to point out one issue in regard to that out-parcel. Mr. Edminster asked us to analyze that out-parcel. We spent quite a bit of time looking at it, doing layouts on it. We did layouts for commercial, they opted for residential, and reviewed ACHD's policy. We were able to get an access off of Black Cat to that out-parcel and comply with separation to Cherry and to fhe next entry. So, have made it work. I don't have the dimensions here in front of me. I don't have the layouts. If I knew it was going to be an issue I would have brought them., but we were able to get access to that parcel. Rohm: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Uh -- Carpenter: John Carpenter. Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry, Mr. Carpenter. I wrote everybody else's name down but yours. Would you be willing to rezone -- or request azone -- zone change to R-8? Carpenter: You know, that's what we had talked to staff about originally. We didn't have an issue with that, but we were told that would be considered a spot zone. Not an issue. We are looking to get three lots out there. If we are required to change it to R-8, yeah, that's not a problem.. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Carpenter: I don't want to carry and I guess spend a bunch of time and money on this. There is not a lot of profit in three lots, as you can understand., a small subdivision is minimal as far as what we want to spend on it, so I don't know if we could get a recommendation for approval with the condition to change it to R-8, but, yeah, we would be willing to work with you guys as needed to meet the legal requirements. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: I like that answer. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 36 of 42 Newton-Huckabay: I just want to go on record as I think that the three lots fits with the spirit of the rest of Blackstone and it doesn't -- you'd have two rather large lots if we didn't go with three. So, I would be in favor of going with an R-8 zoning., understanding that spot zoning isn't an ideal situation, but I think that would sell under the hardship of the shape of the lot better than any alternative. I'm concerned about access to -- to the lot below. If the applicant was able to get an access onto the Black Cat, I guess I can go with that. I don't think it's ideal, but I don't know that I'll burden these three lots with that. I'm not getting a lot of support to do that anyway, so -- Rohm: I guess my question of legal counsel at this point, then, can we move this forward with the recommendation that they adjust their application for an R-8 zone or are we going to have to continue it so that their application can be re- noticed for R-8, as opposed to the existing application as R-4? Baird: Mr. Chair, I'm actually going to have to defer to planning staff, because I think they are more familiar with how they would prefer to see that. I am glad that your question didn't include can we approve this conditionally, because that creates a conundrum if -- if the zoning isn't approved and you have to come back and undo the approval. So, I wouldn't recommend that route, but I'd look to planning staff to see whether we should table this until the rezone would catch up or move it forward and hold it -- not let it get to see Council before the rezone application and maybe there is a preference. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission that, in fact, are the two options. So, it really comes down to you. I have heard this body say in the past you don't want to forward on any recommendations until what you're forwarding on is clean. Do you feel comfortable having the plat sit at City Council before seeing that rezone application and certainly from my perspective a little bit cleaner to have them be on the same agenda here and forwarded as a complete application to the City Council. But either way will work, I mean if that's the direction that the Commission is heading. What we will do is if you move this on tonight with a favorable recommendation is we will ask the clerk not to schedule this for Public Hearing for probably three to four months, depending on how long they can get an application into the city, we have to notice appropriately, it has to be to the Planning and Zoning Commission on an agenda and, then, to City Council. So, three months is going to be cooking if we can get three months. So, it would be at least three months before the City Council, if maybe not a little bit more before it would even get there. So, that's kind of the only advantage I see is to having that packaged, they are here and., then, they just move on together, rather than having that one kind of sit at the clerk's office waiting. Rohm: Not speaking for the balance of the Commission, but I think that keeping them together is in the best interest of everybody and if you want to hold it up Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 37 of 42 until the application for rezoning can make its way through your staff, then, so be it. But at least there is an assumption that it's a viable project based upon those changes. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, do we want to give the applicant an opportunity to determine whether they want to move with a recommendation without a rezone to City Council? I mean I don't know what the motion would be from the Commission, but I would want to give the applicant opportunity to say, well, I'll take your recommendation for denial and take my case to the City Council or wait three months for the rezone. Rohm: And the applicant is certainly welcome to give us their position. Do you want to go through the rezone app? Todd: For the hardship option to move it forward., how would that be -- what would the wording on that recommendation be? Rohm: I'm pretty sure we would have to recommendation denial of three lots and you appeal to City Council. I am pretty sure that's the way that's going to end up. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I would recommend -- I would make a motion to recommend approval of the application with two lots to city. That's how I would word the motion and, then, we would recommend approval with the staff condition of two lots, rather than three. Todd.: We'll take our time and have it together for you next time. Newton-Huckabay: The rezone? Todd: Yeah. Newton-Huckabay: So, you want to continue the hearing? Todd: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Perfect. Hood: And., Mr. Chair, while we have got the applicant up there, the time frame, when can we get -- if I can ask the question to the chair and if you could ask the applicant when can we get that application for annexation in, because that will help us knowing when to continue this item to. Todd: Tomorrow or by the latest Monday -- or Wednesday. There is no excess fees for that, right? This would just be a -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 38 of 42 Siddoway: There are. Hood: Yeah, there is a fee associated with annexation. It's in the neighborhood of a thousand dollars, 950 or -- Todd,: Annexation is already done, it would just be the rezone? Hood.: Rezone and annexation fees are exactly the same. Todd.: Okay. Well, this would be the rezone from an R-4 to an R-8, so there would be a fee associated with that rezone that it would have to come through? And -- so, yes, we will do that. Rohm: Thank you. All right. Hood: And., so, Mr. Chair, if they can get us something tomorrow is good. We have got a lot of folks with Christmas holiday coming up out, but we could probably get them on the February 7th Council -- or Commission agenda if you like. That's really -- that's putting the clerk in a bind and noticing -- I mean that's right at 35 days, so -- Rohm: I'll tell. you what we have got a marvelous staff at the city and I'm sure they can get that done. Todd: Members of the Commission, for this case I have been in hearings before where when there was a hardship in place for a subdivision or application that went through, the Commission had the option to waive that fee for the applicant. Is that the case for this application as well? Rohm: I don't know that this Commission has ever waived a fee ever. Baird: Mr. Chair, if I could -- if I could chime in on that. The only authority that can waive a fee is the City Council and they would have to go there first before they even submit the application, you'd lose about four or five, six weeks. But that option is available to you. Rohm: All right. With that -- I guess at this time we need to have a motion to continue this to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 7th, 2008. Newton-Huckabay: I can do that. Rohm:. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 20, 2007 Page 39 of 42 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue file number PFP 07-004 to the hearing date of February 7th, 2008, for the following reason: The applicant is going to do a rezone application from R-4 to R-8. End of motion. Siddoway: Second. Rohm,: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item PFP 07-004 to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 7th, 2008. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: We are going to take a short break here and we will reconvene in about ten minutes. Hood: Mr. Chair, I don't know if that was an official motion or action or not. have got like a 30 second presentation and., then, just elections, unless you guys are really just wanting to take a break, but -- okay. That's fine. Rohm: We are going to take a short break. (Recess.) Rohm: At this time I'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission and open up Public Hearing ZGA 17-002 and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That was pretty close. It's actually ZOA 07-002. Rohm: Didn't have my glasses on. Hood: I noticed you didn't have your reading glasses on, so -- thirty seconds. I'm already on the clock. Okay. This is a temporary use UDC text amendment and the primary purpose is to amend the current definitions in the UDC regarding temporary uses. We have been working with legal department staff and basically we are going to take everything currently in the UDC regarding temporary uses and move those over into Title 3 and kind of get fireworks stands, garage sales, temporary sales, carnivals, those types of things, outdoor markets, model homes, sales office, citizens use permits, they will all kind of be home together in this Title 3. So, we are amending our definition of what it is to be a temporary use. We are keeping just a minor minor section in here, but, essentially, we are striking everything out and you probably should see a new Title 3 -- I believe Emily is trying to put this on an agenda for January or February at the City