Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 4, 2006 P&Z Minutes -. .<IJ1 - Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4,2006 Page 66 of 84 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 06-020, to include all staff comments and attached letter from W.C. Moore, with verbalized modifications to each. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Public Hearing: AZ 06-021 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 77.66 acres from Ada County RUT to C-G General Commercial and R-15 Medium-High Density Residential zones for Kenai Subdivision by Kenai Partners, LLC - south of East Overland Road and west of South Eagle Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 06-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 101 single-family residential and multi-family residential lots with 6 common lots in a R-15 zone and 32 commercial lots with 19 common lots in a C-G zone for Kenai Subdivision by Kenai Partners, LLC - south of East Overland Road and west of South Eagle Road: Rohm: Okay. I don't know if I've got enough time to do this last one, we better call it a night. Okay. Good. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-021 and Public Hearing PP 06-019, both related to Kenai Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Veatch: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I will be presenting the staff report for Joe Guenther. The Kenai Subdivision will ask to have annexation and zoning of 77.66 acres from rural to R-15 and 31.78 acres to general commercial. Let me see here. I may have that incorrectly here. I think the total of the annexation and zoning is 77.66 and of that 31.78 will be to R-15 and 45.88 will be to general commercial. The preliminary plat is for 64 single family detached residential lots, 24 alley loaded attached single family residential lots, nine - multi-family residential lots, 25 common lots and 32 commercial lots. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with modifications to the proposed layout. Lots 56 through 59 of Block 3 shall be amended. These lots do not have road frontage and do not meet the minimum standards for the UDC. The bulk of these lots may be transferred to Lot 60, Block 3, with a common lot being created to provide the spur connection. You will have to forgive me, this is not one I'm familiar with. Okay. In addition, Lot 8, Block 3, contains a multi-use pathway through the addition to the Kiwanis park and the pathway should be extended along the western property boundary to connect with Overland Road. A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for all multi-family units and a private street application shall be required for the 42 foot wide private drive in the commercial portion and I believe -- to comply with the standards of the UDC. So, that if there is an emergency that they can be able to address those and know where they are going. With ACHD's report -- let's see. I believe that they had both that they were in agreement with the internal roads meeting their policies. They were still discussing the need for a right-in, right-out driveway and they felt that the applicant should provide an analysis of why these as the combined Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 67 of 84 access points was impractical from their standpoint. Okay. Okay. ACHD is still working on this as a draft, but that was their general comment was that they were in agreement with the internal, but wanted some analysis by the applicant of that right-in, right-out before they would make their final decision. Let's see here. A few other items. Staff would recommend that the residential buildings -- that the applicant has shown several different elevations for both alley access residential, townhouses, and detached single family residential products and we would like their clarification of the specific height, bulk, type of material, and locations proposed. We feel that this might help address some of the concerns of neighbors as to the esthetics of the buildings. Let's see. As far as cross-access internal, staff felt the applicant should provide a cross- parking or cross-access agreement for all lots within the office and commercial portions of the subdivision, to use the driveways and parking aisles. And one other thing we'd like to highlight is that with Lots 56 through 59 of Block 3, that that be redesigned for the pathway stub, which I think I mentioned at the beginning. Caleb, do you have anything to add to that? Okay. And, Mr. Chair and Commissioners, do you have any questions that I might be able to answer? Rohm: Good job. Thank you. Any questions of staff? At this time would you like to come forward, Becky. McKay: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 150 East Aikens, Suite B, Eagle. I'll keep my comments just to give you -- brief and give you a general overview of the project, then, I'd like to turn the podium over to Mr. Erstad to talk about the architectural nature of the project and, then, I think Mr. Koga was going to address the landscaping and amenities. So, I will be as brief as I can possibly be. If Caleb could put up the overall. I will go ahead and begin. This particular property is located along the south side of Overland Road. It's an enclave. The city limits are all the way around it. It's C- G to the north. C-G to the east. You have L-O and R-4 to the west. However, within that R-4 designation is Mountain View High School. So, you have got Resolution Park on the west. EI Dorado. Here is Resolution Park. Mountain View High School. EI Dorado is located here. On the southern boundary is Thousand Springs. The Ridenbaugh Canal separates this subject property from Thousand Springs and, then, to the north it's C-G. This particular piece of property is what, you know, we would consider a large enclave, since the city limits, obviously, wrap all the way around it. It's designated on the Comprehensive Plan as mixed regional, so over the four months that we worked on this, it was a group effort with the architect, the landscape architect, the developers, their own in-house architects, so it was kind of designed by committee. The important thing that we wanted to provide was a good mixed use project, providing diversity of housing and different lifestyles. Offices and retail uses we anticipate will take place up here in the northern portion, so along the Overland Road corridor here you will probably most likely see retail and, then, an office component back in the mid section and, then, we transition -- I think he's still struggling. That's why I like boards. Zaremba: I was going to appreciate your going to the electronic instead of the boards. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 68 of 84 McKay: Old habits are hard to break. As you can see, what we have here is a center, non-continuous collector coming in bisecting the property right here at the mid section. If you have driven down this Overland Road corridor you will see that there is an existing curb cut that was built into Overland Road. It's five lanes through here. There are arms for a future signal and all of the conduit and the base wiring is in for signalization. Ada County Highway District has asked us at some point in time when this development meets that signal warrant, that it will be the developer's responsibility to put in and the rest of the components for that signal. We did ask for one right-in here and another right-in over here. We meet ACHD's standards for those offsets and there are two existing curb cuts, they are not in the exact location as shown on the preliminary plat, but they are very close. So, the property currently has three access points along Overland Road. This center collector would come in -- like I said here, we have got some internal access through these office lots. We -- Mr. Erstad will kind of show you the building configuration or what they anticipate. Staff indicated in their report that they would like these to be a private road. We did not intend those to be a private road, but more to be like a private drive and if you look at the site plan with the building, the parking configuration and the traffic circulation, they are intended as like a drive aisle. So, we would like the Commission to look at that on that summary recommendation and Joe provided that fourth item, it is not our intent to have those private drives. That's why I designated them as a driveway. The gross density here, we have about 220 multi- family and attached single family units located here. They have like a quad product along the exterior. They show condos in the blue and, then, they have Brownstones here. The view corridor will be here to this central open space area, so we will also have islands, paved, little designs at the intersections, so that corridor will look very well landscaped and open as you drive into the property. The R-15 zone that we are requesting is -- consists of about 31.78 acres. It's located here, which is about 40 percent of the property. So, 60 percent of the property or 45.88 acres is requested as a C-G. We feel that considering the intent of the mixed use regional designation that this particular project meets the requirements and recommendations as far as getting a good product where people can live, work, eat, and, hopefully, cut down on those exterior arterial trips. We have got real good pedestrian interconnectivity throughout the project and that was very important to us. I'll have Mr. Koga address that and, then, the issue with Kiwanis Park and our participation in that. I'll first turn it over to Mr. Erstad. Thank you. Mae: Before you do that, may I ask a question? As far as dimensioning from the Ridenbaugh to the homes there, do you have any -- what kind of a distance are we speaking? McKay: I believe there are over -- we were looking at that earlier this evening. There is in excess of a hundred and some feet. It was like about -- Mae: What was that -- McKay: Well, it was like -- what was it, 150? Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 69 of 84 Erstad: At the closest -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Andy Erstad, 420 Main Street, Boise. Suite 202. As we were looking at it -- I'm dangerous with these things, so -- there is a curb that gets kind of close in this area. There is about nine lots across the back that would orient sort of to the north. We are about 125 feet from property line to property line in here and at the closest point we are just a little bit over a hundred feet. So, we have the Ridenbaugh Canal that actually separates us. We also have a park easement and, then, we have an additional 15 feet, which Mr. Koga is going to address. So, there is a considerable amount of distance. And, then, the other thing -- and I'm kind of going out of my purview, so they may pull me here in a minute off the podium, but the elevation of the ground here is actually higher than the elevation of the ground here and as Becky was discussing it, this ground is -- here is 17 feet taller than this ground down in here. So, at this point we are analyzing removing some of the dirt here and actually bringing it into this area here from the perspective that Overland Road -- center line of Overland Road is about four feet higher than -- than the grade down in here. So, we are going to try and get -- get the grade brought up a little bit, so that at least our center line of road, when it ties into that intersection, is at the same elevation. So, again, you will lose elevation of the product -- the residential product at the southern end adjacent to the neighbor's properties across the end and that's -- we actually, when we had our neighborhood meeting, that was a big concern and as we were working collectively on the team and with the client, we looked at ways to mitigate that and one of those ways is by removing some of the adjacent ground on our properties to the north. The other thing -- and we will get through this -- if you could -- before we go to the next slide, I'm going to really mess it up here now if I back up. As Becky identified, we have a number of products in here with a -- basically one and a half story -- a little bit taller retail area here, so it's really one story, but because of the architecture .- and we will show you some inventory, the buildings will be just a little bit taller, more appropriate for the street frontage. A lot of pedestrian access and lot of pedestrian tie to the street, interconnections between the properties along in this area. And, then, we move further into the site where we are looking three to five story professional office buildings of exceptional materials and finished. High quality. And I think the projects that will show you as relevant or referencing it will give you an indication of the quality that we are looking at. This pad here is -- is a pad that's being discussed currently with the potential purchaser and we will meet the design criteria, the design standards that we are going to be applying over the project. These areas here are looking at one story projects. So, what we are trying to do is create a hierarchy of single -- taller single story buildings up to these multi-story buildings and back down, if you will, and as you get adjacent to your residential zone, it's an appropriate mix. There is a 25 foot landscape buffer, which a requirement and we are very comfortable with that. These products are our row house products, you will see some symmetry and, then, as Becky identified, sort of the general mix from row houses and condominium product to the quad and the alley loads. There is one thing I do want to request as part of the record and we submitted this in our application when we did our project narrative and it's applicable to page five of the staff report, which we think it's a great staff report and we concur with staff's Findings of Facts and we can make -- we really can make the adjustments that were discussed. The one area is under item number one, proposed and required residential standards, R-15 bulk standards apply are found in UDC 2-A. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 70 of 84 And in our narrative, where we have the -- where we have the alley loaded product, we had requested that the setback on the alley loaded product be allowed to be five feet. Very much in keeping with the TNR zone, but also keeping with an alley-loaded product. In the R-15 zone that setback is 12 feet and so by the time you do a 20~foot alley and two 12-foot setbacks, you're really making this alley load more like a regularly street section and it's inappropriate for this product type. So, we would request that in the record in the alley loaded product area specific, that we be allowed a five foot setback from the alley. If we could have the next slide. My eyes are fuzzy and I think it might just be because my contacts are cemented in and a little bit unclear, but what we -- what we want to show in these images is that this is Overland along here and this is the one and a half story, if you will, residential -- or retail product and as you come down the main -- the main street into the development you have -- you have the -- what I'm calling the one and a half story retail and, then, you have the two to five story office buildings and, then, you go back down to the lower product on the sides. And it would be our intent that the design of this area be mirrored or picked up in some of the elements along -- along the street front. So, trying to create a cohesive design, also having the opportunity to allow some national branding and things of that nature. So, kind of the mix of working within a good design guideline. The other thing is that, again, all pedestrian access -- to come in, you would come in and come back in and park in these areas. Again, trying to really focus on the pedestrian lane. We do show a right-in, right- out in this area and in this area and we are confident that with the data and working with our traffic engineers, that we can convince the highway district that it's a smart move. And we think it's a smart move for the health of the development that if you -- if you can get people in -- in this area here, you take some of the load off of this intersection and you can also get people in this general area, so that the service to the units doesn't necessarily have to bring you all the way back into the site. So, we will work closely with the highway district on that. The imagery here is this is looking onto the corner of the -- of the intersection at Overland and our main north-south access road. And, again, kind of pedestrian areas between the building, definition of corner elements to design and call out the retail components. Street trees. Dave Koga will talk a bit about that and our landscaping plan. And, then, some articulation in the buildings and trying to create a place, a sense of place and imagery, so that as you go through there is a cohesive thread. I'll use that boring word many times, but -- the next slide. The image up here is just progressing further down in the site. You can see between these buildings here and coming across, really, is a pedestrian access point that connects the west side and the east side. So, you're not literally pulling in and parking there, but you have the ability to walk through. And, then, as you progress further south, you get to the areas where the two to five story buildings office -- professional office buildings are. If you can go to the next slide, please. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I think we need to move this along. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 71 of 84 Erstad: Okay. That's fine. Newton-Huckabay: We have public testimony and it's 11: 10. Erstad: Then, to wrap up, again, the elements, the material we are looking at, the modulation, this is looking to the north from the project, so that you have the courtyard, the motor courts, the alley-loads, the condos, and the row houses. And, then, with that I will turn it over -- that's how quick it is. I'll turn it over to Mr. Koga. Koga: David Koga with the Land Group. 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. I will try to be brief on this. In regard to landscape, some of the key elements -- requirements for this project is we are providing the 35-foot landscape buffer along Overland Road. It is required. But we are also providing some additional elements on this project, which we think is very important in regard to the pedestrian circulation. Along on the west side from the future Kiwanis park to the north we are providing a 40-foot wide landscape buffer between the high school parking lot and the residential area. Our intent here is pedestrian only goes up to this area, where are pedestrian -- the residential areas and, then, bring that directly to the east and more in the central area where we do have a very extensive pedestrian system in there. Your staff recommendation had asked that we extend this 40 foot area not only along the residential area, but to the back side of the -- the retail commercial area, which we don't feel that is the best way to put together the pathway system. On the south side we also have a 15-foot buffer between the residential area and the park. We have -- you can see a better shot right here of the width difference, the narrow to the Ridenbaugh Canal and the residential area. Also, one thing about the Kiwanis park, we have extended a portion -- a little over an acre as part of the Kiwanis park to be able to bring pedestrians from the residential area into Kiwanis park, to extend the park also and also that the residential -- or the developers, excuse me, will participate and have already met with Meridian Parks Department for greening up the park. Along at the main -- our intent at the entrance to the retail is to provide a very lively streetscape -- urban streetscape at the -- for the pedestrian, so we not only have a vehicle circulation, but a strong pedestrian circulation, along the boulevard area and also internal pedestrian areas behind the buildings. As we go further or deeper into the south by the office space, these buildings could be up two to four stories high. We do think it's very critical that we design same type of courtyard area, plaza areas, to bring a human scale, benches things like that for the -- the people working in the office buildings. And last when we get to the residential area, we are providing somewhat of an active part at the first vision when you come into the residential area is you will have a park. One of our concepts is we will have an interactive water feature in there, a large lawn area where the kids could practice soccer and things like that. As we go more to the south we have a smaller park, another park for the residential area and this would be more of a passive park, more benches, pathways, and things like that for the residential. Do you have any questions? Rohm: Any questions of the applicant? Mae: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 72 of 84 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have two, if I may. Because of the tag team I'm not sure who is going to answer it, but I'll present the questions and we will see who answers it. One of them is on the discussion about whether the private road should be designated in the spots where staff has asked. Thank you. The subject, actually, I believe, is generated by both the police department and the fire department and the ultimate question is if these lots don't front a named road, whether it's public or private, how are they addressed so that the emergency services can find them easily. McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we faced that before out at Bridgetower where we had a private drive that ran along the rear of office lots. What we ended up working out with the fire department was we -- we set some monuments where that cross-access takes place and the addresses -- everybody would be addressed, obviously, off of the public streets, but that monument sign would have a list of the addresses clearly shown on each building and who was in there. So, if they did have a call for say a fire for business ABC, they would know as they come in, based on the monument signs, that that's ABC. And that was the system that we came up with at Bridgetower. I mean this is not something unique with office complex or a retail complex, where you have a driveway access or interconnectivity between parking and drive aisles. So, I guess we'd like to work it out with the fire and police department, if at all possible. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. The other question is on the alley-loaded products and a five foot setback from the alley. There has -- there has been discussion and staff maybe chime in. J don't remember what the results of the discussion were. Five feet sticks in my mind as -- the problem or the issue with it was it's too small an area for somebody to park 90 degrees from their garage door. It's also too small for somebody to park parallel to their garage door, but it's very tempting do so. If you have a nine foot wide car, they probably would try and idle up to their garage car door and now they are hanging four foot into the alley. If somebody does that on both sides, you can't get a fire truck through it. And I don't remember how the discussion came out, but it seemed to me the recommendation was either to have no setback, so that you don't attract anybody parking there, or to have at least 12 or 20 feet of setback and staff appears to be ready to express an opinion on that. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, there are a couple different standards for different zones and I don't want to go into -- we recently d I think it was Tuesday night we got the TRN standards -- TNC standards, excuse me, adopted by the City Council. The R-15 zone, one -- you run into a couple of problems. One, we require a 20-by-20 pad for each dwelling unit, too. So, then, where does the pad go. Emergency services also has a problem with that five foot setback to the garage. The fire department has drawn diagrams that I have seen before about how their ladders come out and if there is something that -- you know, swinging the ladder out and, then, putting it down and all kinds of things. But, anyways, the fact of the matter is that the R-15 zone does have a 12 foot setback in the rear and also on the alleys there is a greater setback and if they wanted to go down to five it would require a variance. Their application does state that Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 73 of 84 in the application, that they are requesting this, but the correct mechanism to get that five foot is a variance. A planned development would be the other one. This is not a planned development or at least one was not applied for. I don't know if I should go into it anymore, but -- and legal counsel may have to help out a little bit, but you can't approve a modification to a development standard without a -- a variance is the correct mechanism. Again, the planned development -- it used to be back in the day that a planned development you could ask for and there were -- basically, all development standards were up for grabs, if you provided certain amenities. This is not that. This is just an annexation and a preliminary plat. So, we can sure talk with the applicant about that, if that's the type of building that they are trying to construct, we can assure -- I have discussed that with him, but it would be a separate item that would have to be approved by the City Council. Zaremba: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman. Prior to public testimony I am kind of curious. On your elevations do you have something to show us -- show us something in regards to the R-15 on the south side, as far as any use from farther south looking north to the R-15? Erstad: If we could go back to the image slide with the various products on it. So, one more, please. The difficulty in viewing these slides is just the clarity. The product in the lower right-hand corner is a quad product and that's the product that would be along the south property line and the image of the house just directly above it is -- is one of the houses that would be in that quad product. And up on the top -- so, this is -- this is indicating what that quad product looks like with the motor court and this is more of a direct straight-on image and, then, this kind of gives you an aerial view of what that quad product looks like. Two stories. Separation between each of the units. Variation in roof forms, heights, and everything and I made the comment that staffs -- staff's report was very accurate and we felt that with these images that we meet the intent and will further those design guidelines. Mae: And as far as your elevation changed as far as that grade, do you have any idea how much you're looking to cut? Erstad: The honest answer is we don't know exactly how much we are going to cut. There will be a cut, though. Moe: Thank you very much. Erstad: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Ralph Ingle. Ingle: Mr. Chairman, fellow Commissioners, I'm Ralph Ingle, I live at 2638 East Green Canyon Drive. Obviously, my property backs up to this. I will lose one hundred percent of my view and probably one hundred percent of my privacy. When we moved there six Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4. 2006 Page 74 of 84 years ago we were told that that was zoned commercial, so we were thinking, okay, there will probably be -- as far back as it is, it will probably be doctors' offices and other nonretail establishments that far back. So, in the evening and weekends probably nobody would be there and that was acceptable to us. The other alternative, we thought, well, maybe it will be rezoned residential and there will be single family homes there. With this, we -- I live in a single family home and I will be looking out my back door to two stories all the way across and on the wings they will be three stories. And so I will be pretty much living in a canyon. With all due respect to the engineers and architects, I live there, I went to their meeting, I went and found the lot lines, I did the measurements to the back of that development and I can hit -- I can hit the wall with a rock from my backyard. So, there isn't this big, huge, gigantic buffer that they are trying to portray. What I would like to see, if this development is approved, an eight foot privacy fence, vinyl, no windows on the south side, preferably single level, and I would also like to see landscaping that would not attract residents to that back area, because if I lived in one of those places, the back area is where I would want to go. I wouldn't want to go out front where there is noise and traffic and people coming in and out all the time, because there is going to be a lot of people living there and I would want to go to the back area, which is going to, like I said, totally destroy my privacy. So, if that could be landscaped in such a way that people will not collect back there, that would probably help me out. So, anyway, I'm against the development, but I'm not going to stand here and think that little old me is going to shut this thing down. I just appreciate the time and I can answer any questions if you would like. Moe: Sir, do you have any fencing in the back of your house now? Ingle: I have wrought iron fence, which is open. That's all the way around our subdivision. It's a five foot high fence and we have ducks and geese back there and I feed them and there was some kids back there last week, they were starting to hang out back there and, then, they started shooting paint ball guns at the ducks and geese and anybody who thinks that kids aren't going to hang out back there, I will challenge them on that all day long, because that's going to happen. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ingle, I don't need an exact number, but the applicant has mentioned regrading it, taking, apparently, some of the dirt from the south end of their property, moving it north, which would lower the south end of the property. Do you have a ballpark figure? Is there currently a grade difference between your property and the -- Ingle: Well, actually, there is. They happened to mention that their grade was lower than mine. It's not. It's above my grade. And if you don't believe me, you're welcome to come and stand in my backyard, because that grade is above my grade. The top of the canal bank across from my fence is probably four feet high and on my side it's two feet high. And, then, where the ditch rider drives his truck, I mean it's flat all the way out and the grade doesn't drop until probably three or four hundred yards north into the field, then, it starts dropping down. But that grade is currently above my grade. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 75 of 84 Borup: You're saying, then, that the contour lines that the engineers prepared must be wrong? Ingle: Well, I don't know if they are wrong, but you're welcome to come and stand in my backyard and look. Borup: Okay. Ingle: Because I think they are wrong. There is no way that grade is below my grade. Borup: Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Dan Curtis. Curtis: Chairman and Council Members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk. I reside at 2730 East Green Canyon, which is the southern border of the proposed development. And, basically, what I am -- basically, what I am here for is just to -- not to impede the progress. Obviously, they are going to do something there, but we want to make it a good fit for the citizens or, you know, us that have been there. We have been there since about 2000 when the subdivision was built. Obviously, we bought along that rim and paid a premium for it. If you look at assessed values, the properties right across from me are about 15 to 20 thousand dollars less in lot value than the ones on the north side, but mainly what we are concerned about is that we -- you know, I don't like the idea of having three story buildings when we are sitting at two stories and as Ralph mentioned, you know, there is several houses along there that are single family. And so if you put -- the way I understand it it's going to be two stories and, then, the wings are going to three stories. Well, that's -- that's kind of ridiculous when we are a bordering, you know, community, it's basically to make us look like a big old wall there and I think that you as Commissioners should look at conformity and I think a two story along that back is -- conforms to what the houses that are there is, would be my recommendation. Also, it's mentioned that, you know, we'd like to have some type of a privacy fence. And I think you could do some good things with landscaping, maybe put a berm and, you know, do some things to help security and noise and those are other issues that I'd like to have considered. Our neighbors to the east and EI Dorado I think have done a really good job, they have worked with the landowners in Thousand Springs on the east side there and it's all commercial and there hasn't been really much of a problem. I think the big problem is the multi high density units and, you know, what that impact would be on us as homeowners in Thousand Springs. But I really would like to see some limit on two story and some real thought about how they are going to border that along the canal and how they do privacy fence and also the landscaping issues. And that's my two cents. Rohm: Thank you. Curtis: Thank you very much. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 76 of 84 Rohm: That is all that has signed up for this hearing. Is there anybody else from the -- please come forward. Fern: Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Gloria Fern and I live at 2660 East Green Canyon Drive. I am directly south of the project and just wanted, you know, to give you some of my concerns here. We moved -- my husband and I, Richard, moved to Thousand Springs so we could enjoy a great quality of life, privacy, and wildlife along the canal behind our home and the beautiful views of the Boise foothills and Squaw Butte Mountain. We bought a rim view lot and built a custom home, which we paid a premium for, so we could experience homeownership in a nice community. We have concerns over the proposed high density Kenai Development. The first concern is our privacy. We are concerned with people looking down in our backyard and house from the row houses that will be there, the two to two and a half story houses. And also the condominiums which will be two and a half to three stories along the south side of the development. This will be like a wall of houses that will shield my view. We are also concerned about the foot traffic that will gather along the greenbelt that will take away our privacy. We would like to see an eight foot, no maintenance, privacy fence put up to protect our privacy. The second issue is our view. The height of the commercial buildings, two to five stories, we -- which will be two to five stories, we understand that progress should happen. One to three stories is what this area is building. Higher than three stories will create an obstruction of the Boise foothills and Squaw Butte, which I see from my floor to ceiling windows and my backyard. We built this house to enjoy the views. The third thing is security. The eight foot privacy fence has to come between the greenbelt and our property. Today we encountered a security issue with teenagers building a paint ball zone, which you could see from my -- all across my house, all the back side, plus just looking out my master bedroom, there it was and all these kids. So, I mean it's really a concern. So, the teenagers built a paint ball zone with logs that Kiwanis left next to the canal a year ago to use for the development of the Kiwanis, City of Meridian park next to the Kenai development. It is impossible to get any return phone calls from Kiwanis, which I left about four or five messages when this paint ball zone was, you know, active. It is important that we have the proper security issues addressed from the very beginning. Another issue has been kids shooting at the ducks and the geese. The fourth issue is noise, traffic from the cars that will be entering and exiting the south area of the Kenai development. The next issue is the greenbelt. Landscaping. We would like to see pine trees along the greenbelt, because they are green all year and they do not lose their leafs. And we also talked about the no maintenance privacy fence. Another issue is lighting. We don't want intrusive lighting that will glare through our windows into our house and yard. The next issue, which is a very important issue, is our house value. We bought a rim view lot and built a custom home, which we paid a premium for, and we don't want to see such a high density project with a wall of row houses and condominiums. This will be our view from my yard and the view windows across the back of my house. Since the closest part of the development to our house will be row houses and condominiums two to three stories high, it would be to our best interest to have commercial offices there instead, to match the existing EI Dorado development along the canal to the east of Kenai Development. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 77 of 84 The commercial buildings are one story. EI Dorado planned this so that the homeowners in Thousand Springs that backed up to their development, could retain their privacy and view. Many of the commercial buildings are not occupied during the weekend. Please consider our concerns, so that we can protect and enjoy our home and quality of life in Thousand Springs Subdivision. And one other thing that I did think of was what method would be used for keeping down the dust and the dirt while they are going to be developing, because I mean that's where we live and I mean if we open up a window all the dust is going to be flying in my whole house and, you know, it's part of living and also the -- you know, allergy thing. And, then, the privacy again is -- you know, one thing to consider is no windows on the south side of these houses that they are proposing to put along as that wall right behind my house. So, thank you very much for considering this. Rohm: Thank you. Fern: Any questions? Rohm: Any questions? Borup: I have got one. Several of you have mentioned about the kids and how they are paint balling. Did any of your -- anyone in your neighborhood go down there and talk to -- talk to the kids and see where they lived and what they were doing? Fern: My husband talked with the kids early on when they started raking things and bringing their shovels and bringing their wheelbarrows and moving, you know, a lot of -- Borup: So, I assume they were all kids that lived in Thousand Springs? Fern: You know, they were good kids, they -- I don't think they were going to do anything bad. I mean, you know, they were having fun. But we didn't know what this was going to lead into and he did ask them what they were doing and they said that they were building a clubhouse. That was before they showed up with -- you know. Borup: That -- I just wanted to know if someone had talked to them. Fern: Yes. Someone talked to them and also the police was also talked to and -- Borup: Thank you. Fern: Yeah. Thanks. Rohm: Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Okay. Seeing none. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 78 of 84 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would just comment for the record that we also have a letter from Scott and Roshell Hurshley, who express similar sentiments to those expressed by the Ingles and the Ferns. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come back up? McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I'll try to address some of the concerns and questions as best as possible. As Mr. Erstad indicated, this property does have a considerable amount of elevation. There is approximately 16 to 17 feet of fall as we go from our southern boundary down to Overland Road. To demonstrate that, I'd like to submit this topographic map, which, as you can see, delineates the slope on this property. This being the south boundary and as you can see each one of these contours is jumping one foot and so it starts sloping at a considerable rate and, then, it kind of starts flattening out as it heads toward Overland. So, it does have a considerable amount of fall. Borup: That was one of the questions I had. So, you contend that the topographic information we have on our plats is accurate and the same as what you have got there? McKay: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Borup, yes, that's correct, that is a ground shot topographic map by Idaho Survey Group. I was also the planner on Thousand Springs. I worked on that project for a couple of years. And I also did the plat for this property, Resolution Park, and worked with the school district to split that off for Mountain View High School. So, I'm pretty familiar with the topography out there and that Ridenbaugh Canal is running right along that high point right through here. And these lots are quite visible for a considerable distance, because they are elevated up there. As far as, you know, the privacy being compromised and so forth due to the pathway -- in your Comprehensive Plan this is designated as a multi-use pathway along Over -- or along the Ridenbaugh Canal and, then, leading to Kiwanis park. It also shows a north-south connection of the multi-use pathway, so that that pathway has been designated for a long time. The units that we are proposing here are those auto court units. They are two story in height. They are also detached. They are the lowest density, based on what the architect has indicated to me is along this southern perimeter, which we felt would be a better transition than say putting condos or something that was considerably larger in bulk and height. Borup: Could you clarify that again? Two stories you said? McKay: Yes. These are-- Borup: And there was testimony on three stories being along that south boundary and I was not aware of that in the initial presentation. McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, the three stories were the condo units and it was proposed right here and, then, they had these blue areas here. As far as a specific design, they did not have a design, that's why the staff has asked that we come Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 79 of 84 back with a conditional use for that multi-family product. So, the Commission would, obviously, be able to review the style and bulk and height and so forth. But these are single family detached units. They have a shared driveway, so you come into what they call a little auto court and, then, you go off on into your separate garages. As far as fencing along this perimeter, you know, typically we see a six foot fence. I usually try to work with the neighbors, to the best of my ability, and, obviously, based on what the developer is willing to do as far as coming up with appropriate fencing. But they, obviously, have the wrought iron there. We did that on Thousand Springs based on Nampa-Meridian's input, if I recollect correctly. That's what they preferred. This will change their view here. I mean when properties develop it does change the character. But this is an enclave, as I indicated to you. It's developed all around us. EI Dorado here. Mountain View High School. That's about as big and bulky as you can get at the high school and as you well know it sits up very elevated, which, therefore, accentuates its bulk also. This particular property we have taken great effort to do a transition of the intensity of the residential uses and the office and, then, obviously, the most intensive uses are along that arterial of Overland Road. Lighting. We are required by the city to provide lights. We use those shoe boxes, so that they don't get the glare on adjoining properties. We don't feel that this is going to be a wall of houses -- of buildings here, because they are detached and no windows along the south boundary. I don't think the building code will allow that if they have a bedroom. You have to have the ability to get out of a dwelling. So, I don't necessarily believe that is practical. And we have never been required to do such a thing ever. This is a really good project. We have spent a lot of time and put a team together that we have spent I don't know how many hours of committee meetings going through what we thought would work here. We didn't do a planned development on this particular project, because it was Anna's recommendation that we not, that this just be a straight subdivision with an R-15 and a C-G. Lastly, I just want to note that we do want to take our pathway down the collector here, versus running it all the way down the western boundary. And, secondly, I guess that private road issue will -- I don't know if the Commission wants to make a recommendation on it or prefers that the Council make up their mind, but we don't think it's really necessary. Do you have any questions? Rohm: I have none. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Moe: In regards to the R-15 units with the auto court and such, are you, basically, stating that they would be laid out to where you could, actually, probably, you would have a view through the area there, basically, to the north, somewhat between buildings? McKay: We have a -- we have submitted a diagram to the staff showing how -- what those auto court buildings had looked like with Commissioner Moe -- Moe: Yeah, I would like to see that. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 80 of 84 McKay: Would you like to see that, Commissioner Mae? I'd need to get it out of my file. Mae: While you're doing that I'd just like to make one comment to one of the public comments in regard to dust and whatnot during construction and whatnot, that they be required to make sure that they did dust control throughout the course of construction on that project. That should not be a concern. McKay: Commissioner Mae, we have submitted this with the application to demonstrate to the staff how those auto courts work and, as you can see, they have -- there is -- this is a 20 foot corridor in here. This would be the building envelope. And so they have a common driveway coming in and, then, they go into their own private garages. But they are all detached~type units. I have seen quite a few of these in other -- other cities. They use them a lot, like in Hawaii, it's a very efficient residential type design. It also creates -- okay. It also creates a little bit of a mini neighborhood within a neighborhood. They are becoming quite popular. And if done correctly it looks good. I have seen where they just in with -- with concrete. I have seen others where they come in with stamped colored concrete and just -- it looks sharp. Moe: Okay. I think you did say those are going to be two story units, so, basically, you guys won't have any problems staying within the 40 foot height restriction for the A-15 in area; correct? McKay: Correct. Moe: Okay. And depending upon how much we reduce the elevation in that area and it may not be this bad, to the folks -- McKay: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would make a comment -- and I would like staff to correct me if I'm wrong, but in regards to south facing windows on your buildings and eight foot walls, if, in fact, the Ridenbaugh Canal is going to have a publiC multi-use pathway, at request of the police department, I believe it is, the city ordinance actually is that a fence can be no higher than four feet and that there must be windows on neighboring buildings to have a view onto the publiC areas. So, I'm not sure that's anything you could undo, even if you wanted to. Am I correct in that? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, you're correct as usual. I don't think we have to correct you too many times, but we do allow a four foot -- a four foot solid. They can do a four foot solid or a six foot open vision. So, there are those two options adjacent to open space areas. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: I had a question on the pathway. You said you prefer to bring it along the residential and on the interior. I don't see where it's indicated on a plan and you're Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 81 of 84 saying that's what you would like to design as the plan is refined? Right now I don't see a connection on the landscape plan or where the pathway connects to a sidewalk even. McKay: It was our intent to obviously, take that pedestrian pathway into the project. Borup: So, I assume you're saying --- McKay: So, we have a strip -- Borup: Right there. And end right there. Yes. McKay: -- coming down to Kiwanis park. And, then, it was the intent that that not just dead end there, but to pull it into the project and, then, pull it down along that corridor. Borup: I just didn't -- it's not on the plans yet is what I'm saying, I don't believe. McKay: You may be right. I don't have the landscape plan in front of me. It may not be delineated clearly on the plan. Yes, sir. Borup: Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Becky, I guess are you intending to -- I know you have done some other developments, too, where that's -- and I think we have talked about with another project and I can't remember which one it was now, but in lieu of the sidewalk on that your internal street there, is that where the multi-use pathway would be is on one side of the street or the other, instead of the sidewalk or -- McKay: Yes, sir. We don't -- we don't duplicate the pathway with a sidewalk. We have done it both ways. The Commission and the Council have approved like a six foot. We have gone from ten to six foot concrete pathway if it's running adjoining a roadway. We have also done where we just have ten foot on one side, no sidewalk on the other, but I wouldn't recommend that here, because we are, obviously, emphasizing pedestrian interconnectivity. So, it would run on one side here. Hood: Just to finish that thought, as mentioned by Commissioner Borup, I don't think ACHD's evaluated that, so you may want to -- beings that it's just in draft form, I don't -- if you're asking to put that in, you probably want to talk with Lori about having her address that in the staff report as well. I don't see that it's here anyways. I went through it pretty quick, but -- McKay: Yeah. The draft staff report, as Caleb indicated, we just received that today, so we will make sure that ACHD is aware of that pathway going down along the roadway. Rohm: Thank you, Becky. Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 82 of 84 McKay: Thank you. Rohm: Mr. Mae, do you -- Moe: Mr. Rohm, I believe we have reviewed everything and, quite frankly, I was -- I was happy to see the project. I think they have done a real good job with the mix. I am a little bit concerned -- a little bit to -- of the buildings to the south, but I feel a little bit better after hearing the comments tonight, but I was very concerned it was going to be one big wall to the north. I'm a little bit more relieved that that isn't really going to be the case. And I'm very happy to hear that there is possibly an elevation reduction to take care of some of the height in that as well. But overall I think it's a great development for that area. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I would mirror, basically, Commissioner Moe's words. I think that -- I thought the same thing as you when I read through the staff report that it was a solid row of building along the south there, so I feel pretty comfortable with that and the statements made earlier. We don't have a lot of this type of high quality, high density housing in the area, particularly near the interstate in the south, so -- and I think it will be good. Rohm: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Yeah. I think my questions, concerns, have been addressed. Rohm: Thank you. And Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: My comment would be that we consistently ask for interesting and unique projects, instead of the same old cookie cutters and here is an interesting and unique project. So, I'm -- along with complying with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent for this area, I would encourage the applicant to regrade aggressively, let me put it that way. I think that would also be helpful. But in going for a mix, not only a mix of uses, but a mix of neighborhoods, I think this is a good plan. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: Two things we probably do still need to decide. Do we need to discuss anymore of the five foot setback from the alleys and do we need to discuss anymore the private roads, as opposed to driveways? Moe: As I understand the five of the alley, that's as a variance, so we don't need to deal with that issue. I just made comment that the five foot alleys as discussed earlier, that has to be done within a variance, so we do not have to deal with that issue. I am curious about the pathway. Do we need to make a change in here or is it pretty well ", Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 83 of 84 stated that they have to take care of it, they just need to put the location how they want to do that? I'm just noting in under your site specifics where you have just got to create a pathway connection. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Mae, it's addressed there. If you want to be more specific about that, saying you're supportive of the pathway being on one side of whatever the entry road, Kenai, in lieu of a sidewalk, you could sure add that language if you like. This allows a little more flexibility. It just says get it A to B, but if you want to define B or A -- the point -- Mae: I'm fine with the way it is right there. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Before we proceed, I would comment on one typo that staff needs to be aware of. In Exhibit D, Delta, on page three, the section is number two, preliminary plat findings, the paragraph is D, Delta, and the sentence says: Please see Exhibit B, Bravo, for comments and conditions and that is the exhibit that it's usually in, but in this particular case those comments and conditions are in Exhibit C, Charlie. That's usual, but that's where it is in this one. Newton-Huckabay: You are the only person on earth who would find that at midnight, for crying out loud. Moe: It's not midnight yet. Newton-Huckabay: Well, it's close enough. Zaremba: I found it about 3:00 o'clock this afternoon and I have been waiting all day to say that. Rohm: I'm pretty sure that change can be made. Zaremba: Thank you. Rohm: With that, Commissioner Zaremba, would you like to make a motion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-021 and PP 06- 019. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-021 and PP 06-019. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. ... .1: Meridian Planning & Zoning May 4, 2006 Page 84 of 84 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: The net result of the discussion is we are not changing anything in the staff report; is that correct? Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-021 and PP 06-019, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 4, 2006, with no modifications. End of motion. Mae: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-021 and PP 06-019, to include all staff comments for the hearing date of March 4th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: One more motion. Zaremba: So moved. Rohm: It's been moved to close the Public Hearing -- Zaremba: No. Adjourn. Moe: Second. Zaremba: I move we adjourn. Rohm: All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Let's go home.