Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 19, 2006 P/Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 17 of 92 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. Item 7: Item 8: Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: AZ 05-051 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.84 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: PP 05-052 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 4 common lots on 12.84 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Continued Public Hearing from December 15, 2005: CUP 05-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for multi-family residential units with a request for reductions to the street frontage requirements for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing on AZ 05-051, PP 05- 052 and CUP 05-047. All three of these items relate to Ellensburg Subdivision and at this time I'd like to hear the staff report. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You may recognize the name Ellensburg Subdivision. It has been on the agenda a couple times before. It was originally scheduled for the November 3rd, 2005, hearing. ACHD had not reviewed the project and I think the traffic impact study was a little behind. So, it was continued from that date to December 15th, 2005, for that hearing. The site was not adequately posted, so, then, the item was continued to tonight. The project is located at the -- what is presently the end of this section of Pine Avenue along Ten Mile Road. It is located at the northwest corner of Pine and Ten Mile. The -- let's see. This will show the boundaries a little more clearly. It is a triangular piece of property with pretty limited frontage on Ten Mile Road and, then, quite a bit of frontage on what would be the Ten Mile Avenue. The site is this one here in white. Currently the site is vacant. There has been some recent development since this aerial photo, but this site does still remain vacant. The surrounding land uses to the south -- there are some existing rural properties on large lots. To the north there is Mosers Farm Subdivision, zoned R-8, as indicated here with some -- it looks like fairly typically sized R-8 lots and, then, also to the north and a little bit more west is a park and an elementary school that is Chaparral Elementary School and a park that is owned by the West Ada Recreation District, not by the City of Meridian. To the east there is the recently approved -- I guess Somersby -- I think it was year before last or last year, with some limited office at the corner of Pine and Ten Mile and, then, some higher density residential developments around that. The general area of the project is -- is a mix of rural areas and developments. Staff does Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 18 of 92 anticipate this area will rapidly change when the Ten Mile interchange on 1-84 begins construction and is completed -- scheduled right now for 2008 to begin construction and completed a year or so after that. The City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan does list the area to the south of here mixed use regional and the area will be -- will be vastly different than it is today. The proposal before you is for 164 multi-family units, consisting of -- in four-plexes. There are 41 four-plex buildings and four common lots on 12.84 acres. Currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The applicant has proposed annexation to the R-15 zone. It doesn't look like we got a plat in here. The applicant has submitted an annexation application and preliminary plat application and also the CUP is for a planned development, an addition to the multi-family buildings. The planned development does ask for reduced frontages. And I apologize for not having a plat. The building lots are, basically, the footprint of the four-plex buildings and do not have any frontage on a public road, therefore, needing the planned development for those reduced frontages. It's important -- and I should have mentioned this first thing -- is that this application, because it has been continued a couple times, was submitted under the old code. This is being considered under Titles 11 and 12 of Meridian City Code. It was submitted prior to September 15th, 2005, when the Unified Development Code was adopted. This may be the last project you see under the old code, because it has been continued twice. Most of the others have ran their course through the Commission. Some key items to touch on. Really, topic of the most discussion is the Unified Development Code, when it was adopted in September, did adopt some fairly stringent new standards for multi-family developments and that deal with amenities. It deals with amount of open space. It deals with also some architectural features. This application is not subject to those requirements, because it is under the old code, but as a Conditional Use Permit, the Commission does have the ability, as they see fit, to impose any of those requirements that they feel are necessary or would approve the project on the project. So, as part of the staff report, I did include analysis of those newer items that are in the Unified Development Code and I will go through those now. As part of the Unified Development Code there was -- for units of 20 -- actually, this one falls in the over one hundred units category. For units over one hundred units they are required to provide four amenities and also any others that the Commission feels are commensurate with the size of the development. They also are required that they provide an amenity from each category. The category is defined in the new Unified Development Code as being recreation, quality of life, and open space. Staff feels that the applicant has met this requirement as submitted. They do have the amenities that would qualify under the new code, would be the pool, the walking trails, the clubhouse, the tot lot, children's play area, and grassy area of at least 50 by 100 feet. So, they have satisfied that requirement. The new code also requires that for multi-family developments they are required to provide covered parking. For one bedroom units they are required to give one covered parking space and for two bedroom units or larger, they are required to give two covered parking spaces. The applicant has proposed cover parking, so that is one item where they would not need the new standards. The new code also gets much more specific about the amount of open space that is required for the development. It breaks the units into categories by square footage and gives standards for amount of open space by square feet that are required for each unit. One hundred and fifty square feet of open space is required for each unit Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 19 of 92 from 500 square feet -- or 500 square feet or below. Two hundred fifty square feet of open space is required for each unit that contains the 2,512 square feet of living space. And 350 square feet of common open space is required for every unit above 1,200 square feet of living space. The other stipulations on that open space is that for it to be eligible must be a minimum of 20-by-20 feet. This application does appear to comply with that requirement. I think it's evident from the colored land here. There is a large amount of common open space on the project there by the applicant's calculation. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I have a question of Josh. Wilson: Yeah. Moe: In regard to the open space within your notations you speak of the common space out there by the collector, basically, by Ten Mile Road. Wilson: Okay. Moe: As far as fencing, per se, have we got anymore information on the applicant, what they are going to provide out there? Wilson: I have not received anymore information about fencing. Moe: Hopefully, we will be hearing from -- Wilson: I will ask the applicant to address that. I did find my figure here. They have provided 13 percent of the site as open space and that is outside of any required street buffers and, therefore, qualifies as open space. There is the large one in the northwest corner -- there is the large grassy area that will also serve as storm water retention. In the center of the development there is the grassy area with the children's play area, the tot lot, and, then, some grassy area provided by the clubhouse and pool and there is also the large open space out by the intersection of Ten Mile and Pine, in addition to open space provided along the rear of the units. So, from staff's analysis they do apply -- or they do appear to comply with that requirement that the UDC would place on them. An item that staff feels does not comply as submitted is the elevations. The new -- the new multi-family standards do have some fairly specific architectural standards that they are required to meet. There is required to be a mix of materials and articulations on the elevations of the buildings. I think it's probably shown more clearly on Buildings Band C, that they are proposed to be of one material for the entire facade of the building, with some -- with -- there is some projections on the architectural facade here, but they are -- on this building in particular they are fairly minimal and would not meet the requirements of the new architectural section. This building does have a little more modulation in the facade, a little more variation and probably would meet those requirements. Again, it doesn't have that mixed materials that the new code talks about. And this -- this building facade does also have the modulations, but not the mix of materials. The new architectural standards also refer to an appearance of durability of quality of construction and they reference material such as stone, stucco, wood, tile, brick. These Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 20 of 92 buildings are proposed to be stucco, but it does -- they do lack the -- any rock or brick accents that that architectural section does mention as well. It also talks about a variation in roof lines, which I think you could go either way on these. You know, there are some projections that do give some variation, but, then, again, you also have the -- you also have the pretty consistent flat roof lines that mayor may not meet that section as well. I think the -- as noted in the staff report, they really do meet most of these new multi-family standards and I think the applicant has made an effort to provide as many as they can. The main ones that they don't meet being the covered parking and the elevations. The elevations in regards to the site layout are fairly easy to change. The covered parking -- and the applicant should address this -- covered parking may take up a little more space and they may lose a few parking spaces due to the posts that are required for canopies over parking spaces and fitting parking spaces around those. That may require some site redesign and lose some parking on that. But the elevations should be fairly easy to incorporate a mix of materials and just slightly change architectural styles of those without really changing the plat or the site layout too much. I think with that I will end staff's comments and take any questions the Commission has. I do apologize for not having a copy of the plat in the presentation. Rohm: Thanks, Josh. Any questions of staff from the Commission? Borup: I have got one. And not necessarily on this specific project, but are the -- your references in the UDC, are those correct? 11-4-3? Wilson: Are those -- I'm sorry, Commissioner, are the references correct? Borup: Yes. Wilson: Is that what you're asking? Yes. Borup: They are not in my book. I mean -- maybe I have got the wrong one. Zaremba: It does take some interpretation. The entire new UDC is Title 11, so ignore the 11. When you're trying to look one up. you want -- the one you're referencing, 11-4- 3.270, I think, ignore the 11. You need to look for Chapter 4 -- Borup: Okay. Zaremba: -- and, then, within Chapter 4 -- Borup: That's where I was at. Zaremba: -- the paragraph 270D. Borup: I was in Chapter 4. Zaremba: It took me awhile to figure that out. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 21 of 92 Wilson: Commission Zaremba is correct. The 11 is -- the entire UDC is in Title 11 now, but that is the property reference to it, but -- yeah, so ignore the 11, look for Chapter 4. I will -- I will, I'm sorry, correct one code reference. Under the section elevations, under the CUP analysis, it references the elevations as complying with UDC 11-4-3.270D. That should, actually, be E is the section for architectural standards. Zaremba: You're on page nine and you're talking about Roman numeral V? Wilson: Yes. That is Roman numeral V on page nine. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would make a couple comments, if I may. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: On page four there is passing reference to the fact that the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designates this -- I can't talk tonight. Designates this property as public-quasi public. At the time that the Comprehensive Plan was being formulated and adopted, there, actually, was no definition of public or quasi-public in the existing ordinance. It was something that the Comprehensive Plan group looked around and said we should have this designation for certain properties. The property that we are talking about at the time, and maybe still is, was owned by a church, which the group call public-quasi public and had a sign visible from Ten Mile at approximately this location, indicating that a church was going to be built on that site. They made no request to become public quasi-public, this is something that the Comprehensive Plan group did. This Commission in previous actions has established the precedent that that designation is not a zoning designation, does not run with the land, it's a use designation and if the use goes away, that designation goes away. It, essentially, evaporates. The applicant doesn't have to do anything to remove a public-quasi public designation, other than change their use. So, I don't know whether or not it's still owned by the church, but if they are proposing a different use than building a church, they don't have to do anything about this designation in the Comprehensive Plan. It does not run with the land. So, I would comment on that. Rohm: Well, I remember that sign being out there and so -- and that's probably how the Comprehensive Plan designated that as such, so I appreciate your comments. Zaremba: I would also comment on another thing that staff has asked us to consider -- and now I'm on page eight, under the new multi-family standards that appear in the UDC, which we would only be able to incorporate if we added it as a condition under the conditional use. But the item four that says developments with 20 units or more shall provide the following: Property management office, a maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location, and a directory and map of the development at a convenient location. I was on what was called the Process Improvement Group that helped develop and write the new UDC. We at various times had experts in different fields come and talk to us, things that perhaps were new to Meridian, but not so new in other Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 22 of 92 areas. One of the people that came was somebody who has built and managed multi- family developments for many many years and I emphasize the manage part of it, because his expertise was telling us what was wrong with these developments, what did they discover long after they had been built that they should have had in the first place. This paragraph four he was very strong about. All of those things they discovered they should have had and it's difficult for the area to continue its own management, they end up with maintenance materials just stuck out in one of the parking spots and I would suggest that this Commission consider incorporating that somewhere in there. Think about it as we are talking about this project. It was a reason for it getting into the UDC. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Commissioner Zaremba, I would note that I have had the same concern on that same issue. I'm, actually, waiting for the applicant to tell us what they thought of the conditions within this proposal. Rohm: Yeah. And before we hear from the applicant, I would like to say that not only this application, but every application that we have heard since the development of the Unified Development Code we have tried to incorporate the things that we have learned in years past into proposals as they come forward, even though it had not yet officially been adopted. But we made those conditions of approval in other projects and so more than likely we will at least consider that for this application as well. With that being said, I would like to ask the applicant to come forward, please. Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Shawn Nickel, 839 East Winding Creek, Suite 201, in Eagle, here tonight representing Centennial Development. And I'm going to make this easy for you. I do understand staff's intent of analyzing the new code and we understand that we did submit this under the old code requirement. However, we did look at the new code when designing this to a certain degree. And I believe by looking at what staff has analyzed with the new code that we meet or can meet the majority of those requirements. So, I'm not going to be up here arguing too much about those, I'm just going to get right into it and we can kind of follow along. With that, I'll, first of all, thank staff for laying out the intent of the project. I can get into more detail about that if you'd like, but going specifically to the new standards as suggested by staff, first of all, regarding fencing, we are going to have vinyl fencing surrounding the property, with the exception of the drainage ditch along the north, that will be a chain link fence. Everything else will be -- exterior will be vinyl fencing. As staff has indicated, we do comply with the new standards for setbacks for the service areas, the outdoor storage areas, waste disposal areas. We do comply with the open space standards, old and new. With regard to number four, we do intend to provide a management office within the clubhouse, a maintenance storage area, a mailbox location, and directory location sign within the development. So, if you'd like to make that a condition of approval, we will adhere to that. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 23 of 92 Nickel: Regarding covered parking, we also intend to provide that within this development, so if you would like to make that a condition of approval, we believe we can handle that within the existing layout without wiping out too many parking -- or required parking spaces within the development. Regarding the amenities, we do comply with those. As you can tell, we have the walking pathway, the clubhouse and pool area, the tot lot, and the green -- or grass open areas, in addition to the green area around the units themselves. So, we do comply with that and those standards of both the old and the new code. That brings us to the elevations. If staff will put those on the screen. I do believe we meet the intent of -- as far as the -- how did he put it here? The offsetting -- the offsetting walls. If you look at all three of these elevations, you can tell that there are offsetting walls within each of the -- each of the three examples. I think what we need to look at is what staff is talking about, the extra treatment. These are all going to be stucco, so we would have no problem. And, if you recall, we did this on Medford Place not too long ago. So, on these elevations, we would have no problem adopting or incorporating elements of brick, rock, something other than the stucco to kind of provide that with an extra -- an extra esthetically pleasing look to those elevations. So, again, if that's something you're interested in putting as a condition of approval -- I'd prefer to get this moving along, as opposed to coming back with a drawing like Kevin did in the past, but we could provide something more detailed to the City Council based on your recommendations tonight. Rohm: Shawn, before you leave that subject, I want to make sure that you have read through the architectural standards of the new UDC. Nickel: Yeah. I have got them right here. Rohm: And I'm not trying to move this beyond this point -- a conclusion, but I think that as long as what you propose is clear before it goes to Council, then, I think we are -- we can live with that. It's just everybody understands that you have to have different materials and just break it up some and, then, as long as you can respond to that, I think that that's the intent from this Commission. Nickel: Yes, Mr. Chairman. And after your discussions on the Medford development, if you recall, we kind of scribbled in there little cobbles and things. When we took that forward to the City Council, they also wanted us to elaborate on that and so we spent some time with them as well. So, I think in this case we will go ahead and, actually, revise the elevations. So, I don't want to go through that same thing again, but -- yeah. Rohm: Okay. Thanks, Shawn. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt while we are on the same subject, speaking of the elevations. I see they have provided three different types and let me ask are you providing those because you, eventually, plan to choose one of them and make them all the same or will this project have a variety of the -- of all three? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 24 of 92 Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we are showing on the site plan or the PD plan three types of buildings and so those represent those three types of buildings. So, they will be intermixed within the development. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Nickel: Everything else I believe we do meet and I think staff -- I have talked to staff in the last couple of days and I think we are on the same page as far as what's, you know, technically required, because this was submitted with -- you know, under the old code. What their suggesting is and what the applicant is willing to do and provide you with, if you want to condition those, I -- there is nothing in here, really, that we could not live without agreeing to. Rohm: Good. Nickel: So, if you want any other information on the development itself, I will be more than happy to or we can wait and we can let the neighbors talk and I can get up afterwards and talk about that. We can do that. Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. Zaremba: I do have one other question I want to asked before we go to open public testimony and it has to do with the private street -- actually, there is two questions that have to do with the private street. It mentions on the plat that all common areas will be maintain by the homeowners association. Is Lot 2 -- is that what the private streets are? Nickel: Yeah. I believe that's a private street over there. The private street would be contained within Lot 2 and that would be under the -- Zaremba: So, that's a separate lot and the maintenance of it will be done by -- Nickel: Yes. Zaremba: Then, the other question is a reference to the fire department's comments and they are -- let's see. On Exhibit B, fire department comment number nine, they have the concern about the ability to address the project and have all of the addresses visible from the street. I guess my question relating to that is do you have any intention of naming the private streets and addressing off of those or -- just discuss what's going to happen, if you would. Nickel: I will ask staff, as I believe that's the reason they want us to come back with an application for a private road prior to final plat, is so those will be named for the -- so the fire department does have the ability to address those off of a specific street, rather than Pine Street and, then, having unit numbers, they'd rather have the actual addresses. Is that correct, Josh? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 25 of 92 Wilson: That is correct. The private streets will be required to have names. The comment from the fire department would have come before the UDC was enacted. The UDC brought about the ability to get these private streets and, therefore, eliminate the need to have that big monument sign out on Pine where every building in that complex would be addressed off of Pine and, you know, Building A, Units A1, A2, A3, A4, or however they would do it. Now, what the private streets allow them to do is name those streets and address each building off of the private street it's located on. So, it's quite preferable to the old method. Nickel: And, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner, our -- when we originally -- and this has been going on for quite some time, but when we originally laid this out and met with staff and met with the fire department, the intent was to have this as a service drive, which is why it's not labeled with any street names and when we met with Joe Silva, we really met regarding emergency access, turnarounds, circulation. At that point he -- I don't think he was verbally real strong on the addressing. In the last several months that has come up more and more. So, again, we would be happy to apply for the private road and satisfy the fire department. Zaremba: Great. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I had one question. It seems to me on the Medford Place we went to great pains to insure that the units facing the street, their rear elevations were also architecturally appealing. Are these rear elevations all along Pine Avenue or -- I can't tell by the -- Nickel: It's somewhat different, madam -- or chairman, madam, commissioner. This is somewhat different than the scenario with Medford, because, as you recall, Medford kind of sat down in a hole. It was not -- we were not able to landscape or fence the units from Eagle Road or Victory. In this case, with the flat elevation, with the berming that we are going to have along the boundary and the landscaping, you're better able to hide that and offset those elevations. So, what we are proposing is just those different materials along the front elevations of the development. Newton-Huckabay: I remember the conversation going the other way and that Mr. Amar was making the point that because they sat down low, an argument against architectural detail, in fact. Nickel: I don't recall that, because I know we did agree to -- because of the visibility of Eagle Road and Victory, that we did agree to provide those elevations all the way around the building and that's what I recall from that. Newton-Huckabay: Is there going to be, what, a three foot buffer, landscape berm? Two to three -- is there a six foot fence around -- is that a fence around the perimeter? Nickel: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 26 of 92 Rohm: I think Commissioner Newton-Huckabay's comments are well taken, though. I mean if, in fact, the architectural elevations are -- the intent is to make the project look better from the front and you have a whole row of them all along the extension of Pine Avenue, it's just as much in keeping to that same architectural review in place on the back side of those as well. I think that was kind of your point -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, I would think from those looking at it from the south -- because it's -- these are all two story buildings, generally, the back of four-plexes are stucco with a deck and a slatted deck -- deck off the top level and -- Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Although my memory does fade sometimes, I would, actually, say that I would be in agreement with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay as far as what we had decided on the other development was from the back -- from the street side. If you're looking at the back of these buildings, we just didn't want to see one constant look all the way down the street and that is why we tried to make sure that we did have some esthetics to those other buildings. And realizing we are going to have a fence here and whatnot, we are still going to have, I assume, two story structures going through there, so I, actually, do have a concern that the upper level is just going to look like one solid plane all the way through Pine Street as we go and I would think that you guys may need to kind of review that when you're going through your final before you get to City Council as it goes forward. Nickel: Okay. Rohm: Well, I think that it would be in keeping to make that a condition of approval. So, any other questions of the applicant before we take testimony from the public? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: Thank you, Shawn. At this time I'd like to ask Rick Jensen if he'd like to come forward. Jensen: Good evening. My name is Rich Jensen. My address is 3720 West Pine, Meridian, Idaho. It, actually, borders the eastern portion of the boundary of this property. My property line is this property line also. This is my property here. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'd like to go on the record opposing this project, this type of development west of Ten Mile. I believe it's inconsistent with existing single family, fairly expensive homes in that area. I also think that there may be an impact to property values of the land -- of the current landowners in the area west of Ten Mile. I also think that this development -- this building density is too high for the amount of space that's there on that acreage. I would recommend reducing the number of lots that are in that area. And, therefore, my recommendation is that this type of development, basically Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 27 of 92 four-plexes, stay on the east side of Ten Mile where it is consistent with existing four- plex developments and would fit into that plan better. If the project is approved, the applicant has talked about vinyl fencing and I would hope and ask that if the project is approved, that this fencing along this boundary is high enough and stout enough to keep primarily children and other people from trespassing on my property, because I raise livestock in that area, so there is a safety issue there, just keeping out of that property. We'd also be interested in not having two story buildings along that property line to protect our privacy and view. The applicant -- it looks like everything in there is going to be two levels. I'm also interested and concerned about how the applicant is going to maintain privacy of the -- of the private lane. That lane is a dirt lane, as you're familiar with, and its upkeep and maintenance is the responsibility of the landowners in that area and trespass is probably inevitable and I would just like to know a question as to whether the applicant has addressed a way to limit the amount of trespass that will go all the way down Pine Avenue -- our dirt lane. Excuse me. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Appreciate your comments. At this time would Lora Wilder like to come forward, please. Wilder: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Lora Wilder. I live at 3401 West Pine Avenue, which is the property immediately to the south border of the proposed development. If you would show the aerial view I can point that out. This is our house right here and this is our property line right here. I'm not going to either say that I oppose or support this project. I have concerns and some things that I would like to ask and some questions. First of all, I appreciate the effort the applicant has shown towards complying with the new Unified Development Code. I would urge you to make as conditions of the project the architectural standards. We live on the south side, we will be looking at the rear of those buildings and we realize that anything else that develops in that area will have to adhere to the new standards and that way the project will fit better with the existing surroundings. I feel that that's very important and it needs to be officially made a condition. As well, I would like to see item four on page eight that we discussed with the property management office, even though the applicant has expressed that they are going to do these things, I would like to have it be a condition, so that it's formal and that we are assured that it will be done. In addition to that, I have some questions. As you can see -- well, first, I would like to say for the public record, too, that we raise -- we have an agricultural production operation, which is part of our livelihood. We raise sheep. In addition, my children raise 4H pigs and cattle and the pig pen is very close to the property line, which I showed that to the applicant when we had the neighborhood meeting, and I just don't want to have any trouble. So, we would like to state that for the public record and on the plat we would like to see the Idaho Right to Farm law referenced. We have pretty much accepted the city is growing faster than we had hoped and so for that reason we are not going to oppose the project, but we, too, are concerned about our privacy and the privacy of this road. Applicant will be building their own road just to the north of the existing road and they do state in Exhibit B that it will be prohibited for people to be on the private road, but I would like to know if there is currently a fence to the north of that private lane and we would like to see a fence remain in between what they are extending for Pine Avenue and what is the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 28 of 92 private road. Otherwise, I don't know how we will keep pedestrian traffic, children, bicycles, others off of that road and for the safety of our livestock and our privacy, we would like to insure that there is some way that we are going to limit and keep people off of the road. And I'd like to know how that's addressed. Also, on the intersection down here, I understand part of the property is going to widen to the south on the Shawl property and I would like to know a little bit more about how they are going to set up that intersection. So, as I understand it, those of us on the private road will merge onto their new road down there and I'd just like to know a little bit more about how that's going to work. So, thank you very much. Rohm: Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. Seeing none, Shawn, would you like to come forward. Nickel: And, Mr. Chairman, Shawn Nickel. Appreciate the neighbors' comments. We did have a neighborhood meeting -- it seems like forever ago. And I do understand their concerns, specifically with the -- with the roadway kind of a -- Pine Street comes in process again. If you recall, the other side to the west, we had the issues with Pine and EI Gato and everything. And in this case it's the same thing. You have got the existing Pine private lane, which is not on our property, and it's privately owned and maintained and it, actually, aligns up with Pine Street on the other side. We are offset, so at this intersection we are going to have to do a transition and we are, actually, purchasing a small portion of Mr. Shawl's property in order to properly align that intersection per ACHD's guidelines. So, we will have a transition. We are going to be paving a portion of Mr. Shawl's property over here and, then, transitioning their private lane as it comes up and goes -- it comes up -- or, actually, you can kind of see that little triangle right there. So, we will pave to this area right here and, then, it will transition to the gravel road to the west. I think a fence along that boundary is probably a good idea, so we would agree to have fencing along that south boundary to keep people from encroaching on the neighbor's lane. I don't know if we need to work with them, if the neighbors were intending to access our roadway and I will -- and we can work with them at a later date on that and coordinate that -- the location of that fence. So, that shouldn't be a problem. The gentleman -- Zaremba: Mr. Nickel? Nickel: Yes. Zaremba: While we are on the subject of the road, tell me -- I guess the question is what width -- are you building the whole road bed or what would be a half plus 12 or -- Nickel: Yes. Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. Nickel: Enough of a travel way for us to meet ACHD's requirement. But it's going to be completely on our property. We have no access to their -- to their private lane. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 29 of 92 Zaremba: Okay. Nickel: Regarding the gentleman to the west, there will be a six foot high solid vinyl fence with no gates or accesses to the west. So, it will be a straight shot all the way across there. Regarding the density, we do understand we are encroaching into a rural area, but this is definitely an area in transition and as staff has indicated, the Ten Mile corridor is going to change significantly in the next couple of years with the -- it already has, but once the interchange is complete, there is a combination of mixed use, there is industrial, there is high density residential all the way down to the -- to the interchange and keep in mind that when the new Comprehensive Plan was adopted, transportation was really looked at and this is an area -- this intersection of Pine all the way down to the interstate is an area that high density and mixed use was looked at very -- very intentively and transportation was looked at. There is a designation for a future rail station in this area for future light rail consideration along the railroad track. This particular piece of property, high density, with the park and the school located to the north and the transportation corridor, it's an excellent place for a higher density development and that's one reason we have proposed that. Commissioner Zaremba, you were correct in your definition or your explanation of the public-quasi public designation and that's exactly what staff told us when we initially looked at this property. Regarding the conditions that the neighbors spoke of, we are in agreement to those conditions, as I stated earlier. And we will put the Right to Farm Act on the plat as well. So, that's all I had. If you have any other questions, I would be more than happy to address them. Rohm: Shawn, how many units are along this west line? Nickel: There are six buildings -- kind of hard to see. Josh, can you put the other colored site plan up? There is one, two, three, four, five, six buildings, so 24 units. Rohm: With it being all of similar color here, it's hard for me to outline the specifics of the -- Nickel: Is it shown better on this one here? Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I believe one of the testimonies was a request that they break up that -- that skyscape along that west line, because it's right adjacent to their property and I was wondering if you had considered any change in the building structures along this west line, as compared to the balance of the project? Nickel: Commissioner -- or council member -- Commissioner -- I guess you're chairman. Mr. Chairman. I apologize. Can you put up the aerial again, Josh? I'm butchering everybody's name tonight. One thing we -- one thing we did consider is the location of the house, the existing house of the neighbor. I do understand their concern. We believe that there is enough of a buffer. If their house was closer and these buildings were looking right down onto them, I could see the concern. I believe that with Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 30 of 92 the solid fence, with the landscaping, the setbacks that are required by code, I think we do meet the -- we are compatible -- probably not as much as they would like to be, but I think that we have done what we can to at least look at that. Rohm: Well, I think the fact that not all of the buildings are faced specifically the same direction, there is some break up as you go along that west line and so that's appreciated. Thank you. Nickel: Great. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Nickel? Mr. Chair? It occurred to me -- and I'm looking at this - - that on this five foot pathway, is there any opportunity to -- in that northwest corner to at some point endeavor to meet up with access -- thank you. I mean right here. Access into Fuller Park at some point? Because they have a nice walking path that goes the perimeter of the park and I would just think that somewhere in here would be nice, if that's at all possible, I would just -- Nickel: I would say yes, because, if you recall, some of you, the Chesterfield Subdivision over here and the Castlebrook Subdivisions over here, had the pathway and, the bridge across to the park. So, I think the ability, if the gentleman here was ever to redevelop, I think the ability to connect a pathway through that property to that pathway would be appropriate. We could mention that in an easement somewhere on the final plat, that that is anticipated for connection. Newton-Huckabay: I think given where this is -- I mean there was quite a large development in here going in, that getting across here walking around the outer perimeter and up here into the park through -- this is across the drain; right? Nickel: Yeah. The drain is right there, so -- Newton-Huckabay: But I think that would be really nice in that area to get up into the park through there. Nickel: And also keep in mind that Pine Street eventually will connect. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Nickel: And, then, access to that pathway on this side would be available, as opposed to trying to cross this ditch or that ditch a second time, so -- but, yeah, we can -- we can put some sort of easement recognition in that corner if they -- and you guys will be looking at that -- Newton-Huckabay: Okay. That would be great. I think that would be nice to have that kind of connectivity. Nickel: I'm looking back at my engineer. Do you see any problems with that? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 31 of 92 Newton-Huckabay: Well, I'm not asking you to make -- to do that, I just -- my -- personally I have spent a lot of time using that park and the path around it and it's quite nice and it would be nice to have that access into what's going to be -- I envision probably fairly commercial area in the future. Nickel: I think that would depend on their layout -- Newton-Huckabay: Right. Nickel: -- but, if not, we would have the access across Pine, eventually, for that. Newton-Huckabay: All right. So, we would be, then, leaving Mr. Jensen more options that he would have otherwise -- Nickel: That's true. Newton-Huckabay: -- when he goes to redevelop his property. Nickel: That's true. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Borup: Thank you, Mr. Nickel. Any other questions of the applicant before we move forward? Zaremba: I would ask one more and it's probably a question of staff while Mr. Nickel is still here. Conditions of approval, which is Exhibit 8, paragraph one, the planning department, 1.1.6 says other than public street access approved by ACHD, direct lot access to West Pine Avenue is prohibited and a note shall be placed on the face of the plat restricting access to West Pine. I realize this layout doesn't at this time indicate any direct access to Ten Mile, but once it's annexed and somebody comes up with a different plan, I'm just wondering if we should add the statement that there is also no direct access to Ten Mile? Wilson: Commissioner Zaremba, I think that's appropriate and -- Zaremba: And is the applicant comfortable with that? Nickel: Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. That was the only issue I had remaining. Rohm: Good. Thank you, Shawn. Appreciate your comments. Okay. At this time does the Commission have any further discussion or could we entertain a motion to close? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 32 of 92 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearings on AZ 05-051, PP 05- 052, and CUP 05-047 relating to Ellensburg Subdivision. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-051, PP 05-052, and CUP 05-047. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carnes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Thank you. Lots of notes on this one. Zaremba: Yes. I would start by saying I appreciate the applicant's willingness to work with the issues that have been raised. I would comment, in deference to the gentleman that asked that there be lower density, this is an area where this kind of density is really envisioned and, in my opinion, appropriate. As has been stated, the transportation changes that are going to happen in the near future, in the short-term longer future, and way down the road, almost require this area to develop with the heavier densities, so that they have access to transit, which may been there, to the rail line which may be there, and it is one of the ideas to actually pack the density around this kind of area. So, I'm afraid we are not going to be much help on that one. And I believe the applicant has been very cooperative on all the other issues. It seems like a good project to me. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner Zaremba. Any other comments? With that being said, I would entertain a motion. Newton-Huckabay: I suppose we should kind of tally up the notes that are going to be needed to add to the motion. Borup: Good idea. Newton-Huckabay: For Commissioner Moe, who is getting quite prepared, I might add. Rohm: Commissioner Moe has been taking excellent notes here, might I add. Moe: Oh, I'm so glad you have noticed. Basically, what -- if I was to go forth with a motion, basically, items that I would be looking to include, basically, within the preliminary plat, would be, basically, at 1.29, noting that the preliminary plat will have a note to the Right to Farm Act be put on the preliminary plat. As far as the preliminary plat, that's about all I have there. Under the CUP, basically, l'd start off with 1.3.7, to require that all comment -- all items within the multi-family standards in UDC 11-4-3.27B be included within a Conditional Use Permit and, then, a 1.3.8 that the elevations -- the Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 33 of 92 elevation standards within the UDC 11-4-3.27E be required to include both the front and rear of the buildings. Zaremba: I would modify that at least the Pine rears. Moe: Oh, yes. Say Pine Street side only. Newton-Huckabay: Pine Avenue. Zaremba: Pine Avenue. Moe: Okay. Pine Avenue. All right. We will go back over these when I get through the notes. Then, basically, the next item would be 1.38, which would be that the applicant will provide fencing between the private road and the paved road. I did not understand what type of fencing that was to be. Zaremba: Vinyl. Oh, between -- Moe: No, between the private and paved roads. Zaremba: I'm not sure we discussed that. Moe: We did not. That could be a work-with-staff item. Moe: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: What would be an appropriate type of fencing for that use? Zaremba: I don't think vinyl would work well separating two roadways. Just too brittle. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah, that's what I would -- Moe: I would just say to be determined with staff. Zaremba: And work with staff. Moe: That's the end of my notes. Newton-Huckabay: I had a note on an easement for potentially continuing the path on the northwest corner of the property. Moe: 1.39 would be to provide an easement for a walking path. Newton-Huckabay: Path extension. Micropath extension to neighboring property. Moe: To the northwest? Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 34 of 92 Newton-Huckabay: Northwest. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Moe, back on the plat, site specific requirements 1.1.6 references only not direct lot -- direct lot access to West Pine Avenue is prohibited -- Moe: And Ten Mile Road. Zaremba: I would add Ten Mile. And that should be stated on the plat as well. Moe: Yes. On the plat. Yes. Zaremba: Other than that, I think you have excellently captured the tone of what we are asking for. Rohm: We are ready for a motion. Moe: All right. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 05-051, PP 05-052, and CUP 05-047 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date January 19, 2006, and the preliminary plat dated September 13, 2005, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. Under the preliminary plat, item number 1.1.6, at the end of the sentence where it is noted: A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting access to West Pine Avenue. I would like to add: And to Ten Mile Road. Next item, also under the preliminary plat, a number 1.29 -- 2.9, excuse me, be added to include that the preliminary plat will note the Right to Farm Act on the document. Under the CUP items I would like to add an item 1.3.7, all items within the multi-family standards, UDC 11-4-3.278 be required to comply. And another item would be 1.3.8, that the elevation standards under UDC 11-4-3.27E be complied with, with the addition of the rear side of all lot -- all buildings on Pine Avenue be required to comply as well. That's it. Newton-Huckabay: I think we get the spirit of it. Moe: Next item would be 1.3.9, the applicant will provide fencing between the private road and the paved road at Pine Avenue. The fencing type will be determined with staff. And, then, the next item would be one point -- I think I'm down to 1.4.0, which would be that the applicant will provide an easement to allow path extensions to the northwest of the property. Meridian Planning & Zoning January 19, 2006 Page 35 of 92 Newton-Huckabay: Can I have a point of clarification? Moe: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Were the elevation changes going to be made prior to City Council, so that we would have that review? Moe: Yes, they would be. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Moe: So noted. End of motion. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Zaremba: Let me ask staff do we need to add what used to be a standard condition, that the new plat will be submitted to staff ten days before the City Council meeting or is that handled another way now? Wilson: If you are proposing changes to the plat -- and I believe you are with the -- with the easements and also the notes, I think that, yes, we should get those prior to City Council hearing. So, that would be another condition. Moe: So moved. End of motion. Wilson: And ten copies to the clerk. Rohm: With ten copies. Moe: With ten copies to the clerk. End of motion. Zaremba: I'll second that. Rohm: That was a fine motion, I will tell you. Okay. Zaremba: Would you read that back? Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-051, PP 05-052, CUP 05-047, including all staff comments with amendments as noted. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: At this time we traditionally take a 15 minute break and we will reconvene at 9:15. Thank you.