Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 20, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 22 of 72 Rohm: Right. Canning: You may need to direct staff to come back with a recommendation or some item of that, but putting it to the end of the agenda will not accomplish anything tonight. Borup: Commissioner -- I mean Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I would be interested if Mr. McKinnon -- if we did hear it now, if he would be staying for the final vote? So, he's going to be staying for the vote anyway, since we don't have any public testimony. The only thing it would accomplish, we would be able to move along and maybe get to some of the issues that most ofthe people are here to address. Zaremba: Well -- and that was my feeling. I -- the end result is that we are likely to continue the RZ and the CUP anyhow for further input and my instinct would be to take that testimony at the end of the meeting as -- whatever there is to be said about the two public hearings, to take that at the end of the meeting, since I think we have already learned that most of these people are not here for that subject. Borup: I would be favor of that. Zaremba: I would entertain a motion to continue these two public hearings to the end of the meeting. Rohm: I'd like to make that motion. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recommend that we continue Public Hearing RZ 04-017 and CUP 04-051 to the end of the agenda. Moe: Second, Zaremba: Motion and second to continue these two items to the end of the meeting. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ. 04-034 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.63 acres from a RUT zone to a R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction - 6000 North Meridian Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 04-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 98 building lots and 27 common lots on 19.63 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction - 6000 North Meridian Road: Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 23 of 72 Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 04-052 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction - 6000 North Meridian Road: Zaremba: Next item on the agenda is -- are, actually, three public hearings. We will deal with eight, nine, and ten together. This is AZ 04-032 request for annexation and zoning of 19.63 acres from RUT zone to an R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction, 6000 North Meridian Road. Also Public Hearing PP 04-043, request for preliminary plat approval for 98 building lots and 27 common lots on 19.63 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction, 6000 North Meridian Road. Also Public Hearing CUP 04-052, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a residential subdivision in a proposed R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction, 6000 North Meridian Road. And, again, we will begin the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. On this first item number eight, the property is located on the north end of our area of impact. North Meridian Road is the frontage that this property has. It is approximately 20 acres in size and recent applications in the area that the city has seen include Paramount Subdivision, which is shown in yellow here on the west side of Meridian Road, Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, which abuts a portion of the east property line, and, then, the Ventana Subdivision, which the City Council just approved last week, is located on this 60 acres here. This map doesn't reflect the fact that it's zoned, but it is zoned with the preliminary plat approved for it. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property a medium density residential and they are proposing an R-8 zone for annexation. Staff has submitted some findings to you and we do find that the R-8 zone meets the intent of that designation and we are recommending approval of that. The aerial photo is included in here, largely to help you understand the site. It currently is used for some agricultural, but there is a large estate type house here in the center of the property, as is the property -- 20 acres to the south has the same similar design and setup. This plat is, actually, a revised plat from what was submitted with the application. We received this about a week ago. The application originally did not include a stub street here to the east, nor did it include a stub street to the north. That's really the main two changes, but our staff report was based on this design, just so you know. So, if you recommend approval with our staff report, you would be recommending approval to the City Council of this plan, not the one that was originally submitted with the application. There are 125 lots total, 98 of them are build-able, and the remainder are common lots. The applicant is proposing two access points onto Meridian Road. All of the street system is public. They have one here on the south and one on the north, which they have shown generally to be their main entry. It does have a median in the center. There are two different types of products, a house product that they are proposing with this application, both detached single family, which is in this area here, generally, along the north and along the west and in the center are all single family detached. Then, along the south and the east they are proposing three different structures. There is -- they are all town homes, as they are defined by our ordinance, attached single family, four attached, Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 24 of 72 five attached, and six attached. So, there is, actually, three different types of buildings, but they are all single family in terms of the ownership. Each, as you can see, have narrow lots, but the -- there is no separation between the structures and these areas, other than where you see some of these common lots that do break it up. The other thing that they are proposing is, fortunately, to maintain the existing residence and would convert that to a clubhouse. They are also proposing to construct a parking lot in this location off of the southern public street that would cross a common lot here in order to access the clubhouse. Let's see. As far as some of the features, they are proposing 14 and a half percent of the site as open space. There is 4.99 dwelling units per acre. That is a gross number, so net density is slightly higher. The planned development, which is here, Item No.1 0 on the agenda tonight, the planned development is submitted for a couple of different reasons. One is they are asking for an exception to the lot sizes in the R-8. That does affect, of course, the attached products. You can see the groupings better with this planned development site plan. You can see these open space lots, how they break up the units. So, the planned development is asking for an exception -- right now the city ordinance says you cannot do two attached dwelling units -- more than -- more than two. You can do one zero lot line per lot and, as you can see, some of these need two zero lot lines. Most of them actually, in order to be constructed. So, that's one of the waivers that they are asking for, is to do more than one zero lot line on the lot. Another one is the lot frontage. They are asking to be reduced to a 30-foot minimum lot frontage. and, again, that 30 foot mainly applies to the 37 attached units. Most of the other detached homes have the standard lot frontage or slightly under. The stub streets were asked to be created or provided by the Ada County Highway District when they went to the highway district. That was one of the requests of them. Staff is supportive of it. The one question -- I will just go back to the aerial, so you can get a little bit of a sense. This is the Catholic Church here on the corner of Chinden and Meridian Road. This green area down here is owned by the church. However, as you can see, their parking lot -- they don't have any structures, there is no -- there is no uses on that. So, in terms of do you put a stub street to that or not was a question that was raised by staff and, you know, is certainly partly dependent on the church. Without -- at this point the record doesn't state if they intend to do -- what they intend to use that for. It certainly is possible that that ten acres could be sold off or redeveloped as residential or office or something else in the future and in that case we really would like to see a stub street there. If it's just a church parking lot, does it make as much sense, probably not. But it is a little bit of an outstanding question. I'll ask the applicant to kind of provide us a little more information on that if they have it tonight. And, then, there is just three other items on page ten of the staff report that I wanted to call the Commission's attention to. We have asked that the applicant address the status of the North Slough lateral easement. You can see, down here on the southeast corner of the site, the existing South Sough -- I'm sorry, the North Slough, and they are proposing to realign that and bring it up through this common lot from the south and, then, go underneath the street with it and, then, into this common area. It would actually be piped for a portion of that, but, then, would be open near the clubhouse and, then, of course, piped underneath the street and, then, would be open in that area and the preliminary plat doesn't call out an easement for that, but our understanding on other projects in this area is that there is a 40 foot Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20,2005 Page 25 of 72 easement, so we want some clarification on that. Who claims the easement and is the width going to change if it's piped. So, that was one question. Another one was they are certainly showing a gravity pipe irrigation on a common lot here. However, Saguaro Canyon doesn't show a common lot there, so we wanted some clarification, if that may involve a change of a common lot if they have to shift that. I already talked about the north stub street. Item D on page ten is the street section widths and they are proposing reduced street sections with this project. Standard 50-foot right of way width, but the loop drive around the whole perimeter -- well, up to this point right here. All of this is reduced street section. This main entry road -- I think they are calling it Rio Vista -- would be a standard street section and have parking on both sides. The main reason I bring that up is that if you approve this -- this plat tonight and this stub street is approved with a 32 foot street section, rather than a standard 36, it could impact the property -- the subdivision to the east and they would -- there would be maybe some transitional issues with the right of way there. So, at a minimum we are asking that that be 36 up to -- to this north-south street. But as we are recommending to go ahead and just make it a standard 36 all the way out to the entry, because it is a 50-foot right of way and they do have the room to do it. Then, the last thing I wanted to bring up was item F on page ten. That has to do with the clubhouse parking lot and this was, I guess, mainly, you know, a recommendation for the -- tied to the planned development, not necessarily a code violation, but we do have just a recommendation that the applicant consider moving this parking lot up to this lot here or the one on the corner, so that it's not sandwiched between two residential lots. The police department also made a comment about that in terms of visibility into that and they'd prefer it to be a little bit more open. And, then, the last item -- there is a fence, a concrete decorative wall that is on the -- that currently surrounds the residence. That fence comes within a couple of feet of this Rio Vista Drive. Staff's original recommendation to them was to, you know, try to shift the street, so that that wall isn't so close to the back of the sidewalk right there. They prefer not to shift the street. If possible, we'd still like to see that happen. If not, then, you would need to talk about that and they would need to request a waiver or an exception to the ordinance, we believe, unless the attorneys have another way to handle that, but as a part of that planned development application, that they would need to do that. So, I think I'll just end staff comments right there. Oh, I'm sorry, I did have one -- the last slide has to do with -- this is a concept elevation of the townhouse. This would be a townhouse that has four attached and, as I mentioned, there are concepts with five attached and six attached as well, but I think they are generally proposing that design. Zaremba: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Newton-Huckabay: I have one. On that stub street going to the west -- Zaremba: Speak to the microphone. Newton-Huckabay: The stub street going to the -- I really need a pointer. Rohm: Here, I have one. Remember where you got that. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 26 of 72 Newton-Huckabay: This is -- Saguaro Canyon is down here, not right here; right? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: So, this hasn't been developed. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: Ah. Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Oh, I'm sorry. This location. Newton-Huckabay: Thanks. Zaremba: Let's see. I do have a couple of questions, if nobody else does. Brad, on page three of your report at the top, while you were talking you told us a number of things that ACHD wanted and the applicant has had time to redraw their presentation and that's what your report is based on, but you said the ACHD commission isn't going to hear this until January 19th, which would have been last night. Do we know their final decision? Hawkins-Clark: I do not, Commissioner. Zaremba: We assume it matches with their staff report, probably? Hawkins-Clark: I do, but I have not received final word. Actually, we are being handed something right now. This is magic. It was approved by the highway district. Zaremba: Okay. Essentially as you saw it? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: One minor -- which may be a typo. At the bottom of page four you say Ventana is proposing a 35-foot wide landscape buffer and my question is that's the subdivision just to the south of this. Either your next sentence was going to be this one needs to match that or was that supposed to be that Hacienda is proposing the 35? Hawkins-Clark: That was a test, Commissioner. You passed. It should be Hacienda. Zaremba: Hacienda is proposed? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. Just wanted to be sure. Those were my questions. Anybody else? Is the applicant ready? Is that Mr, Nickle? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 27 of 72 Nickle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Shawn Nickle, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle, representing Doug Jayo. It sounds like we have a lot of outstanding issues, but we have, actually, been working with staff and most of them are -- have been ironed out. So, I will just go through them very briefly and, then, stand for any questions you have. Staff did an excellent job of explaining the intent of the development. I do have a couple pictures that they are going to put up on the screen to show you the wall and the drainage ditch and kind of explain our intent on that. With regard to the South Slough -- Anna, could you put back up my plat with the open space? Thank you. With regards to the South Slough, our intent is, as staff said, to pipe that ditch to this point and, then, we would like to keep the remainder of it open, meandering through the open space. Now, that's going to be dependent upon Settlers Irrigation District and our understanding is they haven't been too kind about leaving those ditches open in the past. I think Saguaro did have to tile those. We are going to ask for consideration to that, because it really does lend itself to the atmosphere with the existing trees and the open space, to leave that open. It's not that large of a ditch. It kind of meanders through the property. In either event, we have provided for 40 feet at all spots, so if we do have to -- that represents the easement and, then, we are to tile it, we would be able to contain that within the open space, as you see right there. But I guess we are asking for a waiver to keep it open and not tile it, but it's ultimately going to be Settlers' decision on whether we can leave that open. Rohm: And so what's your position on this if Settlers says we want to tile it, are you willing to concur with that or are you -- Nickle: I don't think we have a choice. We are going to have to concur with it, if Settlers -- we are not going to fight Settlers. Rohm: That was the question. Thank you. Nickle: Yeah. Borup: I think you have got our permission to fight them if you'd like. Nickle: If you'd like to fight my battles for me, that would be great. With regards to the gravity pipe location that we have on our plat, we provided that -- and my engineer is here and he can explain in more detail if you'd like -- don't like my answer, but we are showing the existing location of that -- of that ditch coming into the property, in the event that Saguaro was not to develop. Now, obviously, their plan shows it in another location, so we will provide for that -- for that connection. But we are just showing where it's coming out right now, because we have to maintain that drainage coming off that other property and pass it along. So, Dave can come up here and explain where we would be pulling it and how we can adjust those lots appropriately. With regard to the stub to the north, I tried in desperation to get a hold of the church, someone at the church, to find out what their plans were for that north parcel and did not have any luck doing that. We are assuming that they are going to develop it at some point and extend Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20. 2005 Page 28 of 72 the church and so a stub street in the middle of the subdivision, I don't believe, and neither does my client, would be appropriate to drain from their parking lot down through our subdivision. I think it's more appropriate to have it at the entrance to the subdivision. ACHD concurred with that. That's where they approved the location. It does split up the block length, as staff has indicated. We would prefer to have it at that location, we just don't know what the church is going to do, and I'll continue to try to track someone down there and if we can get a little more concrete decision from them prior to City Council, maybe we can talk about it at that time, but we'd prefer to have that stub at that location. We did provide the sub to the east. Saguaro did not provide a stub for us and so staff felt it appropriate to have some sort of access to the east and so we did -- we did located that there. Regarding the street section width, it's my developer's intent to have parking on both sides, so we are going to provide a street width that will accommodate that. Now, whether that's 33 or 36, you know, I don't -- I don't know what -- what -- if the city has a preference. The main boulevard will be 36 and, then, also to this point will be a 36 width. What we are proposing is to have I guess a minimum of 33 to accommodate parking on both sides. That would be in line with the -- with your fire -- fire department. So, I'll just leave that to staff. We have no problem building it all to 36. We would like a little bit of latitude on this area right here, it's just the wider the road the faster the traffic is and the narrower it can be, I believe that traffic slows down with a narrower roadway. Of course, we have to meet fire district policy and we will do that. We are going to provide -- we are going to do shared and common accesses to the townhouse lots. Staff's concern is that each lot would have an individual driveway, so it is our intent to have those shared. Regarding the clubhouse parking, we do show it right here. We would have no problem moving it to this location right here, if that's the preference of the city. We'd prefer it right here, rather than over there. This is a build-able lot right there, so regardless if we put it here or here, it's going to be adjacent to at least one build-able lot. Could you put up those wall pictures? One thing that's unique about this site is that existing dwelling. If you have driven by it, it's a very nice Spanish style house and the concept for this development, which is why we call it Hacienda, is to kind of keep that theme going throughout and we are going to convert that existing house into a clubhouse. There is a picture of it right there. This wall staggers from six feet and as you can see it goes down to four feet and, then, the three feet. That's a little bit better of a picture right there. This is six feet at this -- at this juncture right here. Again, we'd like to -- I mean we can remove the walls, if that's the decision of the city. We'd like to keep that and incorporate it into our landscape and the theme of the subdivision. It is a stucco -- bricked stucco wall with brick. I do understand the concern of the police department. I don't know if we ever got a response from the police as to their concerns with people hiding behind that wall. Again, this is going to be a clubhouse with a pool. It's going to be occupied most of the time. I mean we could gate the front entrance that can be opened and closed and locked during off hours, if that would help. I guess I'm looking for some -- some ideas from the city, but we'd really like to keep that. If you look at that picture right there, it really is a neat layout and we'd like to keep that wall in that location. Rohm: I believe the staff had commented that possibly adjusting the location of the road. Can you address that or maybe your engineer? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 29 of 72 Nickle: Yeah. Dave can. I'll let him. Rohm: Okay. Nickle: I think that's all I have. If you have any questions for me, if I didn't answer anything that staff brought up, please, relay that. Everything else -- we are in agreement with the conditions of approval. We will provide a revised plan to show some of these issues that staff has brought up and we are in agreement with everything else. Thank you. Borup: Just one question, Mr. Chairman. One of the amenities listed a swimming pool and I did not see that on the site anywhere. Is it drawn on there? Nickle: Yeah. If we can go back to the site plan again. I don't believe it is on the plan, but it's going to be located back in this area over here. Borup: Well, I assumed it was in that area somewhere, but that's a big area. Nickle: Yeah. Borup: But, still, it's still planned for -- Nickle: Yeah. We will build it. There is not a pool there currently and we will put one in. Zaremba: And that's within the walled area? When it ends up it will be within the walled area? Nickle: Yes. Rohm: Do you have any specific measurements to that pool or-- Nickle: No. I mean it -- I don't. Average size. It will be more of a pool than a pond. Zaremba: How many openings are there in that wall? Are you expecting to have an opening only where they would access it from the parking lot or are there other ways to walk in and out or -- Nickle: I believe the intent is to have it enclosed. Yeah, to have it enclosed and have that access. There will probably be some access points on the other side that will line up with the open space, because there will be pathways and things like that, but for the most part it will be enclosed. Zaremba: Any further questions for Mr. Nickle? Okay. Is this a tag team? Do we need Mr. Bailey? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 30 of 72 Nickle: He will answer the questions I didn't. Thank you. Bailey: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is David Bailey. My office address is 1500 East Iron Eagle Drive in Eagle and I'm representing Doug Jayo for the Hacienda Subdivision. And should I just go ahead and rattle a few here? Zaremba: Please do. Bailey: And maybe we will get those taken out. On the streets, the concept was to keep the traffic -- keep the parking on both sides and I probably missed the mark on that, because I thought it was 32 feet and we could still park on both sides. So, 33 feet I understand is parking on both sides, but we do intend -- and when we designed this we kept this at 36 feet along this south side and down this way and this is 36 feet, so if we have connections, we are maintaining those as the full width through there. I didn't adjust the street when we added the stub street, but I think that we will go ahead and increase the size of this street to 36 feet along the north boundary here to, so where we have connections we have streets that go through at full local street width to 36 feet. We would like to keep this portion of this street and this portion around this end at the 33 feet, with the approval of your fire department to park on both sides within that 33 feet. So, that would be my intent or my understanding of how we would proceed on that. I may cover these, again, real briefly. I think Shawn did, but the door was banging a lot and I didn't catch if he got it all, so I will. This easement that currently runs through on here is maintained by the -- by the Settlers Irrigation District and it is 40 feet wide and we will provide -- actually, the common lots that we have shown through here are, in fact, 40 feet wide and we would have the easement on top of the common lots and so -- and I spoke with Nathan Draper of the Settlers Irrigation District before we even started doing this, talking about pipe size and easement width, we would make sure we would make that and at the time he didn't seem too opposed to portions of it staying open and I think their policy has evolved a little bit since then and I think they have made a decision on an adjacent subdivision since then about piping that ditch and I'm pretty sure they are going to make us pipe it all the way through and we are amenable to doing that. I don't know if Shawn addressed it, but I will real quickly. On the east end here -- currently the portion on Saguaro Canyon field drains across and comes into the east end of the property and, then, dumps into the North Slough down here, so I wanted to make sure that we recognize that on our preliminary plat, so if they didn't develop, we have a plan to take care of that water and not let it run across our subdivision here. So, that was the only purpose for pulling that on there. On Rio Vista Drive here, we could increase the radius of this curb and bring that out a little bit. I guess if we could come to a number that would be acceptable for that setback and I think we are saying that it needs to be 15 feet or 20. Brad? Hawkins-Clark: The ordinance says 20. We have allowed waivers to ten normally. Bailey: To ten. We could easily make the ten on there and I guess I would point out that my understanding, anyway, and they can correct me if I'm wrong, that the purpose for that setback from the road is so that it doesn't create a site distance problem on the Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 31 of 72 street and on a corner or between -- between lots and so that you keep a consistent distance back there and if we bring this back to ten feet, that is on an outside corner and we are not in this case producing ourselves a site distance problem or I don't believe we are. So, I think we could easily make that ten from the right of way by adjusting the street there, if that would be acceptable to the Commission. And the last issue I had written down here is on the stub street we -- when we met with the highway district -- and I'm talking about this stub street. We certainly agree with this one here. We did measure the distance from here to the church entrance, which is to the north of this and there is -- I don't remember exactly what we came up with, but there is more than 600 feet -- a little bit more, it's about 630 or 640 feet. So, that parcel to the north technically could, by ACHD code, get another access to Meridian Road there and still meet the 300 foot offset. So, we said, well, the highway district would like it, we think the city is probably going to like it on there and so we would like to go ahead and put it in here, but in talking with Doug Jayo, the owner, he would prefer this to a mid block, because, then, if it is a parking lot it's not their parking lot from the middle of the subdivision. So, that was the decision making process on that. And that's all I had written. I'll answer any questions you have. I see I'm out of time anyway. Zaremba: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Rohm: Yes. I wanted you to talk about the fencing around the central complex and its relationship to the road. This -- maybe I missed it. Zaremba: That's the one where he was talking about he could gain a ten foot -- Rohm: Oh. Oh. Excuse me. Excuse me. I was -- Zaremba: Just by bending that curve a little bit. Is that what you're saying? Rohm: Yes. Okay. All right. 1-- Bailey: And I think this point here is the only place where that wall fence -- Zaremba: It looks like a very short conflict. Bailey: Yeah. Gets within that 20 feet there, so if we had the ten there, we could keep that in place. It looks really nice as seen from the pictures and we'd move that road back to get our right of way ten feet from the -- from the front of that and I don't think it would affect this lot too much here and just pull this over a little bit in this area. But I do want to maintain the 40 feet, so I would push that into this -- this lot in here. Newton-Huckabay: Are those just lots for a house? Bailey: Those are build-able single family house lots and the square footage on those -- Newton-Huckabay: Ten thousand plus? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 32 of 72 Bailey: Yes. Ten thousand square feet. But they are served by a common driveway, in accordance with your ordinance. They are 15 feet each on the flag. Rohm: And could you speak to this drainage here just a little bit more? And I'm not sure exactly how you're going to tie it to the adjacent subdivisions. Bailey: Commissioner Rohm, on -- what I said on this is that this field in Saguaro right now currently drains when it's flood irrigated. It would flood across that field and it comes in at this east boundary of the property and, then, makes its way down to -- makes it way down to the slough here in the center of this. So, my purpose of putting that on here as far as the pipe location, the intent was if they don't develop, we want a way to handle that water without it going -- and getting it piped to come here and go into the slough down this way, to pipe that into the slough without -- without it running across our subdivision, If they develop that, then, they are going to have roads and lots built there. We no longer have flood irrigation on that adjacent parcel and that's not needed, so we wouldn't use that at all. It's just a drain. The North Slough, I guess -- I guess that's something that doesn't come up here. The North Slough is a -- is a ditch, it receives runoff from this property and from other properties into it, as opposed to -- in this area anyway, as opposed to being an elevated irrigation ditch that provides water out. And so it's low and it's taking water in, so I always -- when I do a preliminary plat and do an irrigation analysis, I always look at the entire perimeter of the project to see where water could come in and could go out, so that I'm making sure that we are handling those issues when we get to that point. Does that answer it? Rohm: Yeah. Thank you. Zaremba: Other questions? Thank you. Bailey: Thank you very much. Zaremba: This is the opportunity; again, for other people to ask and at the moment the only person signed up is, again, Judith Bellcastor. Same comment. She's declining to comment. Anybody else care to comment yea or nay on this or add any enlightenment? Sir, come right up to the microphone. Beeler: I didn't sign up on the sheet, but my name is Doug Beeler and I own the property just -- where the stub street goes to the east side. The only question I had -- and, of course, I wasn't able to attend the meeting the other night, is what type of fencing or separation on the east side is going to happen on that -- on that drawing. I don't see anything on there. Newton-Huckabay: The perimeter fencing on the development? Zaremba: We will get that answer from the applicant. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20. 2005 Page 33 of 72 Beeler: Okay. Thank you. Jayo: I'm Cameron Jayo with the developer Jayo Construction, 1323 South Five Mile Road, Boise, Idaho. On the fencing, we intend to put in a nice upgraded vinyl fence, six foot fence, on the east border of the development and on the south border of the development. So, to answer that question. Zaremba: Thank you. Anybody else care to comment? Mr. Nickle, you would have an opportunity to wrap up. Nickle: Mr. Chairman, again, Shawn Nickle. I think Dave answered all the questions you needed. One thing to note, we did hold a neighborhood meeting earlier this week and we did have a couple people and I think we answered their questions. They didn't come tonight, so -- Zaremba: We appreciate that. The Commission can tell when a neighborhood meeting has been held. Nickle: The system works, I guess. And I'll talk to this gentleman afterwards to see if there is any other concerns he has and show him the plan. So, thank you very much. Zaremba: I guess one question I had for staff while the hearing is still open. You mentioned in your report, of course, that the city only allows one common lot line and, then, there must be space outside of that. I know in other cities brownstones or row houses or whatever they are called, quite a number of separate properties in a row seem to work very well and be very popular. So, in my mind I think, okay, how did we get this rule to begin with? Is there a fire department issue with access to a backyard or is there some other driving force that I'm not thinking of that would have caused us to have that rule? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, I don't believe so. I mean the fire department has asked for the roofing material, because of the length of the structure, to be noncombustible and, of course, there are some firewall separation issues in the International Building Code between, you know, two independent living units, but my -- if I was to wager a guess, I think that the only reason it currently says one per lot is because, you know, it just really wasn't envisioned that you would have multiple -- and I think the definition of a townhouse in our code clearly anticipates having more than two attached, so by no means is it, you know, not looked at, because the ordinance defines a townhouse as three or more attached single family dwelling units, so -- Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Chairman, Mr. Zaremba, the only other thing that I can think of would be during the development plan process there may be a requirement for additional hydrants along those roads to get the spacing tighter, because the fire department does have certain requirements for when they pull a hose line. They -- it's not as the crow Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 34 of 72 flies, they are going to have to go out and around buildings. So, you have to -- when you have these zero lot lines, the longer the building, the fewer attack points you have on the structure. So, that's something that we will be looking at with the fire department during the development of the plans for the subdivision. Zaremba: Okay. Well, I feel like that subject's adequately covered. Thank you. Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close public hearings on AZ 04-034, PP 04-043, and CUP 04-052. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close the three public hearings. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Do we want to ask staff to go through the staff report and identify items that are satisfied or are you ready to make a motion? Rohm: Let's do that. That's a good idea. Zaremba: It sounds like most of them were satisfied, but-- Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it did sound that way. Yeah. Just one clarification. I think the last comment by Mr. Jayo had to do with - he mentioned fencing along the east boundary of the subdivision and the south. The landscape plan that was submitted with the application does show a five foot solid fence on the north for just -- for just a portion on the very west end, but, then, it doesn't have any fencing right now currently shown, so -- as well as it doesn't actually call out fencing on the east and the south, so if the Commission could include it, if that is a concern of yours or you would like to see and require that vinyl six foot fencing, to go ahead and specify that in any motion you make tonight, just to clarify that. Zaremba: I suspect that inclusion would be appreciated. Borup: Either way, solid fencing is required, isn't it? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, actually, the ordinance does not require perimeter fencing. I mean, you know, it -- the only place it requires it is along micro-paths. You know, clearly you do see the vast majority of the time it constructed, but it's not actually ordinance. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 35 of 72 Hawkins-Clark: On the -- and just to clarify on that, construction fencing to contain debris is required during construction, but as far as permanent fencing it's not. So, are you asking, then, Chairman, to just kind of highlight the conditions that would be affected by the comments tonight? Zaremba: It sounded like the discussion solved a whole lot of the issues that you identified and if our motion could include those at your direction -" Hawkins-Clark: Right. I think the -- on page 12, the site specific conditions for the preliminary plat, item number four deals with the North Slough lateral. That was addressed tonight. I think the testimony was that they would be piping it, so that, actually, is a moot condition now, because that only deals if it was going to be left open. If the Commission wants to voice an opinion on that and you'd like to still see them try to keep it open and we could keep number four in there, it doesn't hurt anything, but -- and maybe you could do that. Yeah. Okay. If they are going to keep trying for the open ditch, then, maybe just keep four in there. I don't think it hurts anything. Zaremba: We could add our support to that idea. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Zaremba: It sounds like a nice amenity to me to leave it open. Rohm: Now, where is that again? Zaremba: Assuming that it doesn't become a liability of children falling into it. Hawkins-Clark: Well, that was why staff had recommended that the slopes be no greater than four to one. It's very gradual. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Hawkins-Clark: Item number six, they did confirm the location of the gravity irrigation line and at this point in time it sounds like the correct location is there, so that could be deleted. I think the rest of the items on the preliminary plat are okay as written. The site specific conditions on the Conditional Use Permit start on page 17. And item number four is talking about that decorative wall and if you support an exception, then, they are going to have to submit a revised application basically formally asking for that waiver, so-- Zaremba: I think the offer was a compromise. They can tweak the road just a little bit and -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. Okay. So, if you could clarify that maybe right there, so you would -- that the Commission would like to revise the preliminary plat to provide a minimum ten foot setback for the fence. The one item that really was not discussed Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 20,2005 Page 36 of 72 was the townhouse elevations, all 37 units at this point in time do appear to be the same materials and the same center scheme and the Conditional Use Permit right now there is not, actually, a condition that said that -- that requires that. If that is a concern of yours, that would need to be a condition that's added in there to provide some variation in the 37 units, so -- and the applicant's nodding their head that they are in agreement with that, so if -- Zaremba: I remember that you put that in the discussion, but it was not -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. It was not actually added as a condition; so that would -- probably be appropriate as item number ten under conditional use. So, I think that would be -- that would be it for the conditions of approval. Zaremba: We also didn't discuss -- I had marked it and forgot -- one of the fire department positions is that the existing residence, which is going to be the future clubhouse, shall be brought up to an assembly occupancy and the second part of it is comply with the IFC, which is obvious, whether they said it or not, but have you had any discussion with the applicant about assembly occupancy requirements? Hawkins-Clark: We have not. We have not. Zaremba: I would just comment, so that we know that the applicant is aware that that condition is in there. I see heads nodding again. Okay. That condition already exists, but we didn't talk about it. Hawkins-Clark: Also, I guess the last change would be on page 19, the police department conditions. They have a condition that reads: Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. And, again, that pertains to the common lot there in the center of the project and we did not receive any further comment from the police department on that. I think if you're comfortable with the change that's made tonight, then, that should either be deleted or if you want to ask them to get more clarification for the police department before the City Council hearing, that might be another way to go. Rohm: Deletion works. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, you appear to be prepared. Rohm: I'm not sure, but I'll make a stab at it. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-034, to include all staff comments dated January 18th, 2005, for the hearing date January 20th, 2005, and for this motion I don't believe there was any changes required. Moe: I would second that. Meridian Pianning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 37 of 72 Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of PP 04-043, requesting preliminary plat for 98 building lots and 27 common lots on 19.63 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Hacienda Subdivision by Jayo Construction, 6000 North Meridian Road, including all staff comments dated January 18th, 2005, for the hearing date January 20th, 2005, with the following changes -- I'm not as good at this as you. Zaremba: You're excellent. Borup: Page 12? Is that what you're looking for? Rohm: Okay. On page 12 -- thank you, Commissioner. Item four, we need to add a sentence at the end that says the Commission lends our support to the open ditching and that's just for their -- lending support to the developer. Number six is to be stricken in its entirety. And we will add an item 13, which states the perimeter fencing of six feet will be required as is acceptable by staff. And on page 17, item four, a revised preliminary plat will be provided before this is heard by City Council, depicting the minimum ten-foot setback along the interior roadway. Item ten will be added that says there shall be a varied color scheme within the townhouse development that is acceptable to staff. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: The elevations as well. Borup: Yeah. Wasn't that part of the CUP, rather than the-- Rohm: Oh. Strike that one and -- but all other revisals to be included. This is part of the CUP. Moe: On page 17 -- both of those on page 17. Rohm: Both of the items on 17 will be included in the CUP motion. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Last motion. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-052, including staff comments, dated January 18th, Meridian Planning & Zoning January 20, 2005 Page 38 of 72 2005, for the hearing date January 20th, 2005, with the following changes. On page 17, item four, a revised preliminary plat to be provided prior to City Council, depicting the minimum setback of ten feet and an additional item, number ten, be added that there shall be a varied color scheme within the townhouse development that is acceptable to staff and -- was there something on the elevations as well? Borup: Item A under special conditions, just -- you could probably just include that in. Just include that in as a motion -- I mean as item -- item ten. Rohm: Adding Commissioner Borup's comments. End of motion. Borup: I'll second that. Zaremba: There is a motion and a second, All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Traditionally, around 9:00 o'clock we take a short break to stretch our legs, walk a little bit, and we will do that. We will recess for about ten minutes and, then, reconvene. (Recess.) Item 11: Public Hearing: CPA 04-004 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Low and Medium Density Residential to a Commercial designation for a 2.298 acre parcel for Maverick Country Store by Dan Murray, Maverick Country Stores, Inc. - 201 West Ustick Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ. 04-032 Request for an Annexation and Zoning of 2.298 acres from R-4 zone to C-C zone for Maverick Country Store by Dan Murray, Maverick Country Stores, Inc. -201 West Ustick Road: Zaremba: Okay. We will reconvene our session and note that all Commissioners have returned and the next item on our agenda -- again, we have two items that deal with the same subject, but since one of them is a Comprehensive Plan amendment, I'm only going to open Item 11 at the moment, so we will have a public hearing open on CPA 04- 004, request to amend the Comprehensive Plan, future land use map, from low and medium density residential to a commercial designation for a 2.298 acre parcel for Maverick Country Store by Dan Murray, Maverick Country Stores, Inc., 201 West Ustick Road, and we will begin with the staff comments. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to start off by saying it's good to be back in the saddle again. I missed you all, but we are doing staff reports again, so with that I will maybe jump right to the chase, since we did have another CPA on the agenda this