Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 16, 2006 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16,2006 Page 3 of 82 Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: AZ 05-067 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 Medium-High Density Residential zone for Cas a Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from March 2, 2006: CUP 05-060 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 32-unit multi-family development in a proposed R-15 Medium-High Density Residential District for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: Rohm: We are almost through the page and it's ten after 7:00. We are doing good. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from March 2nd, 2006, for AZ 05- 067 and CUP 05-060, both relating to Meridiana -- Casa Meridiana and begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you remember, this project is located at the southeast corner of Victory and Locust Grove. The project does include about 6.9 acres. They have submitted for a redesigned project, which does not show the gates. It has reduced the number of units from 32 to 31. And shows more of the concerns that the Planning Commission developed of the March -- March 3rd hearing. The applicant has made a good attempt at addressing all of the concerns that were addressed -- or brought up at that hearing. Staff has prepared Findings consistent for approval. There are some special considerations in there for the Planning Commission, which do address the public versus private street issue, as well as ACHD still needs to provide documentation on this project. ACHD has not made comment specifically on the redesign, but has indicated to me that their comments would be consistent with the previous design as well. They should be receiving final comments in the next couple of weeks and they indicated that they would have final comments prior to the City Council hearing, if this goes forward tonight. Again, staff is recommending approval with the conditions as listed in Exhibit B and I will stand for questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Before I call the applicant forward, I would like to just kind of comment to the audience here on the procedure that we go through when we have a Public Hearing and, basically, what we do is, first of all, we hear from the staff and they present the project as it relates to Comprehensive Plan and ordinance. They don't speak out for or against specifically, other than how it relates to Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 4 of 82 those two documents. Then, the applicant has an opportunity to come forward and sell the project to the Commission and once that presentation has been made and questions asked, then, the audience has an opportunity to come forward and speak on the project as well. Each person coming forward has three minutes to speak, unless they are speaking for a homeowners association or something of that nature, and, then, we, typically, will grant a spokesperson up to ten minutes to respond to an applicant's testimony. Once all of that's been completed, then, we will either -- we will call the applicant back up to respond to any specific questions asked from testimony offered. Once that's completed, then, we will either continue, deny, or approve a project. So, that's the procedure. And with that I'd like to have the applicant come forward on this, please. Phillips: I'm Russ Phillips with Insight Architects, 2238 Broadway Avenue in Boise, Idaho. And to start out with, I guess a quick recap as far as for annexation. Where we left the last meeting was I believe that -- seeing that there -- understanding that there was support for -- not really any negatives for annexation. The use seemed to be positive as far as we were hearing. It seemed like there was a general consensus that the development we showed -- next slide, please. Next slide. Thanks. This was the -- the proposed site that was brought in, the development. At the previous meeting -- and the next slide. And, then, we believe we have incorporated the comments from the staff report that was presented at the prior meeting, which mainly focused on eliminating access to Locust Grove, which was at this point providing a stub street to the south at this point and, then, setting up the development so that if gates are approved at a later date and time, that we would have stacking for a minimum of three to four cars and, then, a turnaround area in case someone changed their mind and wanted to leave. We still are -- have presented this development as a PUD, utilizing private streets as a way of conveying traffic -- excuse me -- traffic to the area. We have worked -- we have worked with the proposed property owners to the south. As we understand it, they are not under contract at this time, but they are moving ahead with some plans. So, we have worked with their civil engineer and allowed for three lots to be along this area here and, then, a stub street that they would continue and join to -- at the south. So, I believe we have, you know, satisfied the -- at least, as I understood and reflecting back through the minutes, we have responded to the comments that were made, mainly redesigning this southwest corner and providing an area for gates that would be in if that came about that would work for a gated community. Again, this is a very unique development to Meridian. It's not unique elsewhere in the country. It's not that complicated, but it is new to Meridian, and it provides that diversity and residential offerings that isn't currently here. In reading the report, the staff report, you know, there were a couple items that -- that appeared that weren't in the first report that I'm compelled to respond to and the first item there is -- there was a memo to Planning and Zoning Commission by your planning director and in reading through it it seemed that it was a kind of a general, more philosophical about public streets. We feel that we are not talking in this case about drive aisles in parking lots or a rental multi-family community, that this is set up more as a single family attached type development and when considering public streets versus private streets, the private streets -- seems to me that there is latitude in your Uniform Development Code to allow for a variety of Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 5 of 82 projects, case by case unique situations, and we feel this is one where -- where as staff mentioned in the meeting the other night two weeks ago, that if these were public streets it would take on a different character. We also look at if these were public streets, we would lose, for example, the type of parking that we provided right here for that center, because of backing out onto public streets. The streets would be wider, which would cramp setbacks and the homes even further. And we just look at this as a -- you know, we really think that you have got a good ordinance right now where it does allow latitude, so that when unique sites come along, when creative solutions are presented that you have the latitude to evaluate those and approve those. Looking in the staff report, there were a couple of new things that appeared that we hadn't -- that weren't brought up in the last staff report. One item is that staff has concerns about using private streets for, essentially, a single family residence and some concerns about setbacks. Again, we have got over 40 percent open space here and this is a planned unit development where some areas are tight, but others are more open. It was also mentioned we have not submitted a UDC text amendment, which is true. We attempted to yesterday, but we were advised that it needed to be defined further. So, we did not submit that yesterday. There was also mention -- and this isn't really -- it's under I guess number five, that the L-shaped roadway system. Well, that's -- we have eliminated the L-shaped roadway system and gone to this next one to the south. So, that ought to be changed. It's under special considerations. There is a notation about additional trees being planted along driveway cuts. We can certainly do that. We'd prefer not to make everything entirely uniform or that would start destroying the free flow design that we have here. Proposed pathway connections to the east should be landscaped. That's fine with us. It mentions, again, that ACHD would prefer these streets to be public. When we met with ACHD in the beginning, they indicated that they could be either private or public, that due to the city's preference for connectivity, vehicular connectivity, they'd prefer that they were public. I believe now that we have got the connectivity that, really, satisfies, as we understood the intent of the ACHD report, that they mentioned in the report public streets, so that there was an assurance of connectivity, but we are providing that even though we still have private streets. Now, there is a -- there is a new comment about eliminating our access to Locust -- or, excuse me, Victory Road and we really don't find that that would be the way to go. It would be advisable here that this is our only access now to the property. The property to the south, you know, to all respects to the sellers of the property and the proposed owners, you know, this may not happen and at this point we would prefer to keep Locust Grove as an egress and even if, hopefully, this all develops some day and there is a loop that goes clear around here, I still feel it's important to have -- to maintain access to one of the collector streets and the ACHD report did classify both these streets, Victory and Locust Grove, as collectors. The staff report goes on to suggest, essentially, that there would be perhaps some type of a loop drive and so we met with ACHD -- or, excuse me, we met with staff and your director yesterday and -- next slide, please. And took a look at what that would entail. This is kind of a general diagram that was being proposed and, then, that -- at some point this would become an emergency drive only. And we found that contrary to the verbiage in the staff report that there would be less pavement, we have the same amount of pavement. This becomes a very standard, uniform development, in our opinion. It becomes much like other Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16,2006 Page 6 of 82 developments you have seen. We have concerns regarding -- and my eyes aren't good enough to read all this, but we had concerns regarding in -- solar concerns in the late afternoon during the summer that all of these outdoor patios and outdoor kitchens would have full summer sun and if any of you own homes where you have experienced that, it's not comfortable this time of year. The neighborhood to the north, when we had our neighborhood meeting, they expressed concerns that there is traffic noise along Victory and Locust Grove and so in this configuration we would have a number of homes facing those noise generating areas. As far as views, the -- essentially, we end up with a wall of housing fronting these streets. It doesn't respond at all to the neighborhood or to the intersection. It really turns its back we felt. The amenities that we tried to bring into the project become very minimal. There are eight homes that would really enjoy that amenity and if you were to take a look at which homes you would want to purchase, I don't think you would want any of the perimeter homes, because of the noise, the solar aspects. Even those homes now would have a street behind them. These homes would be okay and we really have eight that would share the amenity. If we could go back a slide, please. The whole concept that we developed for this site is there is an existing water feature that meanders through this area here and what we did was we looked at what made homes -- if you're a homeowner, what makes your home inviting, what makes it something that's pleasurable to be at and a retreat to retreat after a hard day at work and so what we built our concept on was the fact that place the homes first in a way that makes sense and, then, let the streets develop to serve those homes, rather than the previous mind that -- where you design streets first and, then, you force communities and residences to fit around those homes and that's really the -- you know, the bottom line here is that we feel that we have spent 11 months designing something that seems that have been appreciated with every one that we shared with this and we believe that our assignment after last meeting was simply to redesign the southwest corner and provide for gates if that happens. Do you have any questions? Rohm: Any questions of the applicant? Zaremba: I do have a couple clarifications, if I may. Phillips: Okay. Zaremba: The display on the wall here slightly differs from the paperwork as I noticed it only in this spot here. It looks like this dead ends. Is it the intent that that really see a stub street that connects to the next property? Am I misinterpreting what I'm seeing on this one? Phillips: Commissioner, no, that will be a stub street. We just threw in a little landscaping there, just so it didn't look like a stub street until -- Zaremba: But you don't really plan to put landscaping there or you plan to put some and, then, remove it when it connects? Phillips: Commissioner, we would put some there and, then, remove it. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 7 of 82 Zaremba: Okay. Then, my other question -- there was a mention -- and, actually, this was in the last staff report, but we never talked about it. Are you connecting one of the regional multi-use pathways or are you only having internal pathways? Phillips: That's a good question. We -- and I'm honestly not entirely clear on that. We do have front -- you know Ten Mile Creek is down to the south here at some point and so at this point we do have a pedestrian connection here and a pedestrian connection over here and how that develops, you know, we need some more guidance on it. Zaremba: Okay. We will ask staff to chime in on that, but where I was going with that question is if it's a private pathway for the use of your people, I don't have any problem with it having gates or fences on it, but if it's part of the regional pathway, there is a mention that you plan to put gates and that wouldn't work on a regional pathway, because people need the pass through it. Phillips: Sure. Zaremba: Let me ask staff if this does connect to the regional system. Guenther: Let me just show you where the regional pathway actually is. Currently, this phase of Tuscany right here is undeveloped. The pathway would come up to Ten Mile here and it is on the south side of the creek in this location. What we looking at is internal of Tuscany. There is an open space lot approximately here and we anticipate that this property here, as well as this one, would connect through with -- it would not be multi-use pathways, but will be micro-path connections to the regional pathway. Zaremba: So, this project would have connection to it, but it would not be a through portion of the pathway. Guenther: That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. Then I don't have a problem with the gates. Phillips: Neither do we, then. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Mr. Phillips, I don't want to belabor this, but I realized that what you're proposing now does not have the gates in there, but the simple fact that we are looking for connectivity to the south and whatnot and that will be a thoroughfare through your project and whatnot, I guess I'm -- I'm still a little bit confused why you worry about putting gates in now when you are going to end up having to allow access through your property down into the other subdivision to the south. So, I'm not sure why we are so concerned about those gates. And the other thing I'm kind of curious about is -- as far going to public streets, have you guys done any analysis as far as what that would do -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 8 of 82 and I realize you're talking about the setbacks and whatnot. I was just curious if you guys did take at look going back to a public -- Phillips: Okay. Commissioner Moe, we did -- early on we did take -- we did make an analysis, taking a look at public streets versus private. And, again, to fit the number of units that we are proposing here, the width of the streets affected that, our number of units, and -- the colored version was a lot nicer to look at. It did affect that -- the parking for the activity center also was affected by that. And in talking with the owners, they elected to still meet the ACHD standards for public streets -- private streets and -- but take over control of those. And that's the simplest answer, I guess, as I can provide you. Regarding the gates, we'd still like to see these gated, because the -- as we met with staff, the overall plan is to really have -- this is a small parcel, but to have an overall loop that goes around this piece and so that -- that this parcel, if this develops first, it would still have access out through here and, then, our residents here would still have the ability to come through the gates and out. And that when we first met with staff, the idea of connectivity was -- in our minds it was presented more for pedestrian connectivity, rather than vehicular, because this is a small development. Moe: So, then, you're basically saying that you have talked to the developer on the south and whatnot, so it's -- you're anticipating, then, that they will have access around your property, so, thereafter, you will be able to, basically, have the feel of a private street within your own development. Phillips: That's correct. Moe: And that's why you do want the gates? Phillips: Yes. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Phillips: All right. Thank you. Rohm: At this time I'd like to call Vickie Richardson. Richardson: My name is Vickie Richardson. I live at 1835 East Victory Road. Our property is directly east of this parcel. I have four questions, three of them pertain to, basically, the same thing and it's the water issue and he brought up another one I didn't even think of. He's talking about a natural water feature that already exists winding through that property and I guess my concern is we were contacted six to eight weeks ago about them piping or tiling the drainage ditches that exist that run through our property, the parcel next to us, and back to this parcel, so that they could get the property dried up. I guess I'm in question what they exactly are going to do to address the runoff water from the other two parcels that wind through this property. And, then, if Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 9 of 82 they pipe it, it's got better than a 600 foot run across their property. It needs to be adequate enough and somebody needs to make sure that they can maintain it and clean it, because the nature of irrigation water is sediment. The third one -- let's see. Whether or not they are using pressurized irrigation to water their property. If they do that, our property is where the main irrigation ditch feeds that parcel with its irrigation water. I guess my concern is if they are using pressurized irrigation, how do they plan on doing it? And, then, my fourth one is something, I guess, that could be fairly minor but we have livestock and, then, the problems that we have had with the rest of the developments around there is the garbage. And with that being directly adjacent to our property, I'm not really into huge vet bills because somebody's picked up somebody's garbage. Okay. Rohm: Okay. Richardson: Thank you. Rohm: May have questions. Any questions of this testimony? Newton-Huckabay: Mrs. Richardson, are you talking about like construction garbage or -- Richardson: Construction garbage. Newton-Huckabay: -- household garbage? Richardson: Everything. We have had beer cans. Beer bottles. Pop cans. Fast food. Bags of concrete. Roofing. You name it. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Borup: I had a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. You had several questions about the runoff. You said you had met with the developers before? Richardson: He had contact -- Borup: Did you call them to ask these questions to them? Richardson: They told us that they were going to address it and so far I haven't seen it. Borup: So, they told you they'd address it in this meeting, rather than just answering your question? Richardson: No. What they told us, that it was a -- they had planned on tiling it, because they needed to dry the property up. Zaremba: Okay. So, they never really gave you an answer you're saying? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16,2006 Page 10 of 82 Richardson: No. No. Borup: Now-- Richardson: And, then, legally they have to maintain that runoff ditch. Borup: Yes. Yeah. That still -- and it needs to be sized accordingly to handle it and everything else. Richardson: That's correct. And it needs to be elevated, so that it drains. Borup: And Mr. -- I thought I heard Mr. Phillips say earlier that your property -- someone was looking at it to develop it. Richardson: No. South. Our is to the east. Borup: Right. He's talking about eventually -- when he's talking about the loop road. Richardson: Well, eventually -- I guess eventually. But right now, no. Borup: Okay. No intentions right now? Richardson: No. Borup: All right. Thank you. Richardson: Uh-huh. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. And, Caleb, do you want to come forward, please? Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Caleb Hood. Sometimes I feel like I live at 660 East Watertower. I am going to read the memo that Mr. Phillips referred to earlier on behalf of Anna Canning. Hopefully, it will maybe clear up, at least from the planning departments, side things or Anna's side of things, that latitude that Mr. Phillips talked about with the private streets and just kind of take you back maybe on how we came to having new private street standards in the UDC. So, I'm going to read that memo from March 13 -- dated March 13. As the Casa Meridiana project has progressed through the review process, I'm increasingly concerned about the proposed private streets. The purpose of this memo is to document my concerns related to, one, the intent of the current private street provisions to the previous prior UDC private street provisions, the interconnected street system, and, four, the applicant's stated desire to have gated streets. The intent of the current private street provisions, as stated in the UDC -- as the UDC was being developed, we recognized the need for a means to address apartment complexes and commercial projects that did not have internal street systems. For example, it was very difficult for emergency responders to quickly identify Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 11 of 82 an apartment unit that may have a Franklin address, but is actually tucked at the back of a complex. You will notice that the standards for private streets are, essentially, the same as a parking lot drive aisle. In apartment complexes you would typically have drive aisles with 90 degree parking off of a drive aisle. This is the original intent of the provisions. We later expanded the private street provisions to accommodate -- accommodate new developments. In that instance it, essentially, allows homes to access -- to take access from the alley. Again, private streets were allowed so that we could get addresses on those homes. Casa Meridian is being processed as a multi- family development, because there are multiple attached and detached homes and townhouses on a single lot. The intent of the developer is to submit a condominium plat to create homes for individual sale. I'm very concerned about the precedent this project may set regarding the use of private streets for, essentially, single family homes. Prior to the UDC the zoning code did allow for private streets. Private street standards mimicked the ACHD requirements for reduced right-of-way street, 29 feet back of curb, with sidewalks on both sides in a residential district. This allowed parking on one side of the street. The standards were purposefully based on ACHD requirements, so that you did not have developers choosing private streets in order to avoid the higher construction standards. Most developers opted to use public streets. The Casa Meridiana design has a 24-foot back of curb, back of curb, with sidewalk on one side for a portion of the project. I'm very concerned about the precedent this project may set regarding the use of private streets in order to have reduced construction and development standards. As you know, the Comprehensive Plan strongly encourages an interconnected street system, so that people can travel within a section without having to get onto the section line road system. Generally, those section line roads are arterial roadways. In this case they are currently classified as collectors. We anticipate that as more land gets developed to the south, both Victory and Locust Grove will likely be upgraded to arterial roadways. The applicant's original proposal was for an L- shaped circulation pattern that connected to both collector streets and did not stub to either of the adjoining undeveloped properties to the south and east. ACHD has pointed out that this is very similar to the Sageland Subdivision circulation pattern that we struggled with for months trying to devise traffic calming solutions to discourage cut- through traffic. The applicant has presented a revised site design that now addresses the interconnectivity issue, but now we have new issues. We have had two pre- application meetings with the property owners to the south of Casa Meridiana and we anticipate they will submit and application soon. For a homeowner in that subdivision that is headed east, the shortest path will be to use the Casa Meridiana private street and, then, turn right onto Victory. Clearly, that homeowner should be traveling on public, not private roadway. Again, I'm very concerned about the precedent this project may set regarding a private street that connects two different public streets. Although gates are not specifically noted on the current plan, the vision of the applicant for this project includes gated streets. Staff acknowledges that gated streets will address staff concerns about cut-through traffic and about a private street connecting two public streets. However, gates are not an acceptable solution. The UDC specifically prohibits gated streets. The applicants have not submitted a text amendment -- talked about that earlier. The applicant -- the amendment to allow gated streets will not comply with the Comprehensive Plan's emphasis on interconnected streets and circulation pattern within Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 12 of 82 each mile section. Because the only way this project works with private streets is to have gates on them, I'm very concerned about the precedent this project may set regarding gated streets within the City of Meridian. I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Any questions of Mr. Hood? Hood: Thank you. Rohm: Thanks, Caleb. That is all that have signed up, but at this time anybody else that would like to come forward and speak on this issue now is the time. Seeing none, at this time we will -- would the applicant like to come back forward and respond to testimony given? Phillips: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I believe there were a couple questions that were raised that I would like to answer. Regarding the water management on the site, we are in the midst of engineering the site, looking at ground water levels and some other factors, and as a possibility, we may end up, because of ground water separation and storm water retention and separation, we may need to pipe the irrigation water that comes from the east, which is, I believe, runoff water. We may need to pipe that water to its outlet over at the -- at this corner here. So, it depends on the separation and how the grading turns out. If that scenario happens, then, what we will do, as our kind of seasonal water feature that runs through the center of this area, that will become our storm water area and will -- so storm water will be diverted to this area, along with plants that augment that field, and it will be designed so that within 24 hours any standing water will percolate through the soil. That may entail three feet of sand. So, hopefully, that answers that question. Regarding the maintenance of a tile or pipe system, if we go that route we do have a very qualified civil engineer that will design this system. There is roughly -- I believe something like six or nine inch drop in grade from this point inlet to the outlet over here. So, they are working on that design now. And, then, the homeowners association that will be developed for the entire site, of course, will be in charge of maintaining that. Regarding the pressurized irrigation, I don't know all the answers at this point, except that our civil engineers have been working with the irrigation district and have mentioned that will bring that water from the south. And we will use pressurized irrigation water for this site. Regarding garbage on the site, of course, we have a six foot concrete block wall with stucco that goes around the perimeter of the site. During construction that wall may not be the first thing built, but I'm sure what we can do is like with any owner, any contractor, try and insure that they keep a clean site. A lot of times merely putting up a construction fence will handle that. When winds pick up it will take care of blowing wrappers from shingles or other building products. Rohm: So, are you saying that you would put up a construction fence during that phase before the permanent -- Phillips: We can certainly make that a requirement. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16,2006 Page 13 of 82 Rohm: Okay. Phillips: Let's see. There was one other -- regarding the irrigation water, the owners have -- did contact the owner to the -- to the east and, then, also the owner to the south, because right now we have monitored the ground water for a year and during the summer it was at grade, but that's because this whole area was being flood irrigated. At this time of year the water level is down I believe somewheres around six feet to eight feet, something in many vicinity. So, what we are asking the owners to do is -- is if they don't need to irrigate their property, it would give us a truer picture if they didn't irrigate. If they had, then, to the east we could -- we would need to manage that water and take it around the site while construction is going on and at the south we can gate that water and that will be diverted around the site. So, that's all we are asking was what their irrigation plans were for the year, so we know how to manage it during construction. I believe I have addressed Mr. Hood's -- the letter he read. I addressed our feelings on that earlier. Rohm: I think that you have addressed them. I'm not sure that we are any closer to agreement, other than you would like to see private roads and our planning staff has concerns that private roads will set an adverse precedence and -- and I kind of think that the stub street to the south gives indication that the intent is to have interconnectivity between your roadway system and any future development to the adjacent properties and in your earlier testimony it sounded like it was more of just egress and no ingress and -- and I'm not sure that that's desirous within the interconnectivity process and so I just throw that out and possibly other Commissioners may have concerns along those same lines. So, at this point in time I'd like to turn it over to the balance of the Commission if there are other questions of the applicant. Borup: Mr. Chairman, a couple. Mr. Phillips, I think you have -- I'm not sure if you have completely answered the Richardson's question on runoff, but I think you did say that you have still got some studies and analysis to decide what you're going to finally be doing there; is that correct? Phillips: Yes. If there is any point that I need to clarify -- Borup: Well, I think, from what I understood what you said, maybe at this -- it's premature to maybe answer completely, because you're not sure what you're going to do until you finish that analysis. I guess what I'm asking -- I assume that you would be contacting them once you do determine the procedure and coordinate with the Richardsons. I mean that's where the water's coming from and I think it would be pertinent to -- Phillips: Absolutely. Borup: -- have that coordinated. So, you would be contacting them. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16,2006 Page 14 of 82 Phillips: Yes. Borup: The question I had, then, on -- you mentioned several things earlier in your comments on the staff report -- and they have prepared a report, but I don't know if I wrote completely which -- which items that you felt that you had a concern with and which ones you felt okay. I'm specifically looking at section nine on page nine under the analysis. I think that's -- that's the section that went into things that staff said, special considerations, and also other conditions that -- that they felt were necessary. So, any of those conditions that you had a concern with? Phillips: Yes. I -- at least mine says page ten under special considerations. Borup: Uh-huh. Phillips: Let's see. The item one, two -- under three, ACHD staff report, regarding public streets, that I guess we just want to reiterate that we would prefer to have private streets, instead of public, and, then, under private streets, second paragraph, staff would recommend that applicant consider eliminating Victory Road access after construction is completed in the following fashion. And we do have an issue with that, eliminating the access to Victory Road. Guenther: Mr. Chairman, I might shed a little light. With this we have just a conditional use request. We don't do the detailed site review at this time and typically we see a pretty close site plan that's going to be what we anticipate seeing on the ground in the future when we do staff level final certificate of zoning compliance. With that we still -- as the staff report details, we are going to have a redesign of this one, just because the multi-family unit standards don't -- are not met with a lot of the design of these -- the front of these garages. There are I believe 15 units that show 15 feet and we do require 20 feet to back of curb. So, there is a lot of elements that need to be addressed. Staff wasn't necessitating that they do a loop design like they were showing, it would have just been that if they are going to do a public street, that they provide one public street and, then, possibly do an emergency access similar to what Sageland did to Victory Road, so, then, all the traffic to Victory Road may be eliminated. Now, when we do these compliance to CUP, that's what I was trying to get at with that portion of the ordinance, is that when they submit a new site plan to us for final approval for certificate of zoning compliance, that we can make substantial conformance to your approval with those special considerations. If they used one, two, or all of the elements of them, that would be something that we could also concern significant conformance. So, they were not made or even put in there as conditions to be written into any type of design for final approval, just as considerations for potentially alternate designs that staff would find in substantial conformance to the UDC. Borup: And that's kind of -- thank you. Because that was kind of the direction I was -- I was wondering. So, it looks like -- I mean the staff report would not at this point require a redesign of their project, necessarily, would it, for approval? I mean -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16,2006 Page 15 of 82 Guenther: I would not. They have some design elements that need to be readdressed, but staff feels comfortable with the design. Borup: As far as annexation and zoning. Guenther: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Then I don't know that I need a -- I don't know if we need to answer, in my mind, some of these other questions, unless some of the other Commissioners -- unless you wanted to -- well, again, depending on what -- on what direction it went, those things would have to be addressed on a final plat and that you understood? Phillips: Right. Borup: Okay. Guenther: Commissioner Borup, just to clarify, there would not be a final plat, it would be a staff level certificate of zoning compliance. Borup: Okay. But -- right, because we are not doing lots and blocks. But the staff level would still need to comply with the -- the same standards that they were addressing. I don't know -- I don't know if I had anymore questions at this point, unless you -- you were going through some of the things you had concerns in, but I think all of them maybe are not going to affect the annexation and zoning. Phillips: Commissioner Borup, yeah, I -- that's our understanding of this process. However, I just wanted to insure that these weren't being conditions of approval listed that way. Borup: Okay. I think that was explaining that, no, they are not, but those are concerns to consider in the future. Rohm: Back to the public versus private roadway. Maybe this question is more of staff than of you, but if, in fact, we were to make the applicant have a public thoroughfare from the stub street to the south out all the way through to where it dumps out onto Victory Road, where -- that connection portion of it, make that public and allow them to have private roadway for their two cul-de-sacs, would, then, there be a requirement for lots along the public roadway or is this -- could they still maintain the development just as presented, except with a wider roadway? Guenther: Well, I would have to defer that answer to any ACHD representative, because it would come back to how do you dedicate that roadway without a plat and since they are not doing a plat, that question I cannot answer. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16,2006 Page 16 of 82 Rohm: Okay. Well, ostensibly, that does answer it. If you have a public roadway, then, you have to have a plat. Thank you. Are there any additional questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Phillips: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: If we are commenting, just to kind of speak my mind -- and I'm not sure it will help, because I could easily go either way on this. I'm very sensitive to the issues raised by the director. They are important considerations for Meridian to think about and incorporate into projects. I also know that at least, I, myself, and I think most of the Commissioners always wish that we would get unique and interesting projects. This appears to be one of those unique and interesting projects that I could easily support if there weren't the controversy of whether the street's public or private. I like the basic design of it, the basic idea of it The only thing I would offer is that if we could somehow make it clear that if we do recommend approval of this, we are not establishing a precedent that everybody else can use, but this is a unique experiment to see how it works and we wouldn't approve another one like it until this one has been in effect for five years or something like that, just to see whether it works or not. But other than the plat issue, I like the chairman's suggestion that a portion of the road be public and that was exactly the portion I would suggest and, then, the cul-de-sacs be private. If that means a plat, I don't have a problem with that either, really. So, now that I have not given an opinion -- Rohm: Commissioner Borup, would you like to add any comments? Borup: No. I think I feel a lot of the same as Commissioner Zaremba just expressed. I like the uniqueness of the project a lot. It's nice to see something -- something that's different and I think it offers some -- some opportunity. I think the -- I don't have a lot of concern because of the size of it. It's close enough to the intersection that -- that if it's gated -- I mean people don't need to cut through that. It's not that they are gaining anything. So, I guess I'm saying I like the project. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay? Newton-Huckabay: I was hoping for public streets through there and I would still like to see public streets. I would be okay with the concession of the cul-de-sac arms of it that's private, but I would like the connectivity to be public streets. And I -- oh, I do want to add, though, I wouldn't mind private streets if the only access was through the south - - the main access through the south. But I don't think that that's desirable for the applicant to have no access to Victory. So, I would like to see at least the cut through that -- for the north -- the south heading north or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 17 of 82 Rohm: And, then, that has other concerns, then. You end up with a plat requirement, as opposed to the development as currently -- current application indicates. Commissioner Moe. Moe: Boy, it's always good to be last here in this explanation point. Actually, I concur pretty much with the other Commissioners. A couple things I would like to point out that I do appreciate the applicant -- since our last meeting, you guys did come back with a different design that did address our concerns in our first meeting. I do appreciate that immensely. Although I also feel that I want the public street basically from the stub street out to the Victory Road point. I do believe that that should be noted as a public street, although you'll have to go in for a plat. I do believe that -- other than that, I could support it, because I do believe it is a nice project. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question for staff. And I may be reading this wrong. On page 13 we talk about staff recommendations and say subject to conditions listed in Exhibit B. Is that supposed to be Exhibit C? Guenther: That is correct. It should be Exhibit C, the conditions in this report. Borup: Okay. That makes a lot more sense. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if we are mentioning typos, I have one also. Rohm: By all means. Zaremba: On page six, roughly in the middle of the page, there is a paragraph six, but the paragraph that precedes paragraph six, in the middle of that it has a reference to Amity Road and I believe that should be Victory Road. Rohm: I believe you're correct. Okay. Then, at this point in time I have a question of staff. If, in fact, we are going to recommend approval of this with standing the public roadway versus the private roadway from the sub street to the south to the connection on Victory, can we make that as a condition of approval and, then, the applicant would, then, have to come back with a plat or how do you make a motion to that effect? I'm a little -- Guenther: I'd have to defer that to the legal representative. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I might just mention one of the conditions that's already in the staff report says the applicant shall contact ACHD to determine that the private roads are not deemed a competing road system. The applicant shall certify on ACHD letterhead that this finding can be met prior to City Council. Does that help clarify that some? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 18 of 82 Rohm: Well, it clarifies if, in fact, it remains private, but if we want to make it a condition of moving forward that it be public, then, that almost seems to be a moot point and maybe at this point in time I'll ask legal counsel for his impression. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Council, I think that you can just make that a condition of approval and he -- the developer will have to decide how they make that happen and if that involves backing up and including a plat in this, then, that's what they will have to do. I don't think you have to decide for them how they accomplish that, but if you are going to make that one of your conditions, just go ahead and do it. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I think -- I mean they still have the opportunity take it on to City Council the way it is with our recommendation. Rohm: Well, we are going to make -- one of you is going to make a motion forwarding it on to City Council with a recommendation. How City Council reacts to that recommendation is solely up to them. So, maybe at this point in time we will just make a motion as we see it and City Council can react accordingly. Borup: We don't always necessarily agree with ACHD, but in this case I'm inclined to let ACHD determine what kind of street system they are comfortable with. Rohm: Would you like to make a motion to that effect, sir? Guenther: Mr. Chair, first thing is that you still haven't closed the Public Hearing. Borup: Right. Guenther: And, then, Mr. Hood wants to make a comment prior to a motion being established. Borup: And I did have a -- well, maybe Mr. Hood needs to speak first, but I did notice that none of the director's comments were incorporated into the staff report. Rohm: I believe the reason why is the director's comments came at a late hour and it was best to make sure that it was included as public testimony. Borup: Oh, yeah, that was quite late. Rohm: And that's the reason for that. Caleb. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16,2006 Page 20 of 82 kind of inconsistent and he is correct in saying that it may be awhile before he gets another written comment from them. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup. Borup: I move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded we close the Public Hearing -- Borup: Both of them. Go ahead. Were you going to repeat those? Rohm: Yes. On AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date March 16th, 2006. End of motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, discussion? Borup: Yeah. We don't have a second, so I guess it would be discussion. Zaremba: I would ask that we add two elements. I agree with the basis of the motion, but I would want to ask -- Borup: The motion is consistent with the staff report. Zaremba: Well, the staff report asks for all public streets and I like the compromise suggestion of a public street from the stub to Victory and private streets for the two cul- de-sacs. But, then, I would also add an if and that is if the applicant puts landscaping across the south end of the stub street, it's with the understanding it will be removed as soon as there is a stub street available to connect to. I don't want there to be any lack of clarity on that. Rohm: And I think that what you're saying is consistent with the balance of the Commission. I believe that the motion -- the intent was to let Ada County Highway District make that determination and that's why Commissioner Borup cut his motion off at that point, but maybe I'll let Keith respond to that himself. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 16, 2006 Page 21 of 82 Borup: Yes, it was. And I -- unless I'm missing it, I'm not seeing where the staff report required public streets. They said it, you know, essentially, needs to be determined by ACHD. Unless I missed the sentence that had that. So, I think the motion is consistent with the staff report, so -- Rohm: And so the motion, basically, is let Ada County Highway District determine if a public roadway is necessary to meet their objectives. So, that's -- I don't believe that Keith's motion would include your comments. Borup: At this point it didn't. Rohm: It didn't. So, I guess at this point I will see if we get a second. Okay. Borup: Let's try another motion from someone. Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd entertain a second motion. Zaremba: I'd be happy to try, Mr. Chairman. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Very similar. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 16th, 2006, with the following modifications: One, that the roadway be a public dedicated roadway from the stub street and including the stub street, through to Victory Road and the two cul-de- sacs may be private streets if the applicant so desires. And the second is that if the applicant chooses to put landscaping across the southern end of the stub street, it's with the understanding that it would be removed immediately as soon as there is a connecting stub street available on the property to the south. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-067 and CUP 05-060, with stated modifications to the staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thanks very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from February 16, 2006: PP 06-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 23 commercial lots on 22.85 acres in a C-G zone for Gateway Marketplace Subdivision by Landmark Development - southeast corner of Ustick Road and Eagle Road: