Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 1, 2006 P&Z Minutes ~"4t" Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 42 of 64 Veatch: And I just wanted to clarify and it -- the applicant seemed in agreement, but we could add more windows on the east elevation. Zaremba: And I think she suggested a dormer or two, something to break up the thing to make it more attractive from the street. Veatch: Okay. And so just on that east side will reflect that. Zaremba: East elevation. Yeah. Borup: The other two buildings in there look real similar and they just added a gable on them on the east side. Veatch: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move to approve file number CUP 06-016 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1, 2006. And the site plans labeled C1.0 dated October 14, 2004, and April 14th, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. And that is on -- have the right place. On Exhibit B, page one, paragraph 1.5, I would change that sentence to be the hours of operation shall be contained within 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. And I further move to direct staff to prepare the appropriate Findings document to be considered at the next Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on June 14th, 2006. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-016, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Thanks for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: AZ 06.013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: PP 06.011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122 residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: A.~ Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1,2006 Page 43 of 64 Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from April 20, 2006: CUP 06.006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a multi-family development consisting of 200 multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten Mile Road: Rohm: At this time I'd like to reopen the public hearings for AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006, all three of these items are pertaining to Canterbury Commons Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. There are actually two other applications that were submitted concurrent with this application. You do not need to make action on those, just thought that you should be aware. Anna gave the presentation on this on April 20th, as I was out of the state, but just thought I'd let you know that they have also applied for a private street and a variance. The variance I'll touch on real quick. We do have -- and hopefully I will check with all of you and make eye contact to make sure that you got the letter dated May 31 st, 2006, from Hawley, Troxell, Ennis, and Hawley, from Geoff Wardle regarding this project. It outlines their comments regarding the revised staff report, so, hopefully, you all have a copy of that, because I will be -- oh, no. Okay. All right. At least one. And I think legal's got one. May 31 st. HTEH top left corner. The city clerk may have stamped it, too, received some date, hopefully. Baird: Mr. Chair, actually, the one that's in my packet is April 20th. You say there is a May 31 st letter? Hood: Correct. It looks like the applicant's representative may have some additional copies. Baird: We can get some copies made. Rohm: We have got them. Hood: Okay. I think I can proceed anyways. Really, just a quick refresher. As I mentioned, you know, it's been five, six weeks now since this was before you, but just to refresh your memory, we are looking an annexation and zoning of 21.7 acres. The revised preliminary plat does show 116 residential lots. Originally, there were 122 residential lots. They have lost one four-plex lot and -- let's see if I can do the math real quick. Five townhouse lots. So, making those revisions -- and the staff report -- the revised staff report for June 1 st is based on the revised landscape plan and preliminary plat. I think I may just jump right into the comments here, because there was -- I read through the minutes from the last hearing and there was some pretty specific comments and I think most of them have been addressed by the applicant in the revised plans. Does everyone now have a copy of that letter anyway? Okay. The first part refers to -- ., Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 44 of 64 at least comment number one refers to the variance application and they are withdrawing -- I guess if the Commission would accept their -- they do not need variances any longer, so if you want to accept their withdrawal of that variance request, I think that would be appropriate. The second comment has to do with revised the preliminary plat. It was just unclear to me in the plat and landscape plan that they were showing covered parking. It's my understanding that they are willing to provide that, it just wasn't tabled very well in the plat, but their intent is to provide 399 covered parking stalls for the four-plexes as required by city ordinance. Number three, they are going to provide the parking pad. Number four is one that just needs some clarification. I think their can be an agreement reached, it's just at the staff level we are hesitant to grant a substandard setback from where public utilities and drainages -- or drainage easements typically go without having something in writing from those utilities. We are still willing -- and I will let Mike maybe touch on this a little bit, because I think he's made a modification to his condition in his portion of the staff report, but, essentially, what it says is unless otherwise approved -- or as approved by Vick Steelman, I think, provide setbacks for the four-plex units. They are proposing -- originally there was a five foot setback to some of the four-plex units adjacent to the private streets and here and now they all are at least seven -- some of them greater than seven, but there are some of them that go down to seven for the utilities and typically -- I mean that can work, it's just that there needs to be some coordination there and I guess that's where I'll pass this off to Mike at the end of my presentation. Some of the other things that were talked about at the previous hearings were amenities and there are at least a couple Commissioners that commented on some additional amenities. They may show up a little bit better on the -- please offer concise remarks is right where I was going to go. But they do have a half basketball court that has been added to this area. And they have also added some picnic tables, which don't show up on this one, but they do on the preliminary plat. So, a little picnic area here. Let's see. What else. The pathway running along the backside of these is now within a common lot. Before it was proposed within the back sides of these condominium -- four-plex lots, now it is within a common lot owned by the HOA. Staff made a comment in the staff report about having another connection to that pathway here, so that the only access into that pathway isn't right here, that it allows a circular area for pedestrians anyway, or multiple access points into that area. And some additional open space was also added. So, I just wanted to point those out for you. Let's see. Lot 29, number seven -- I guess I'm skipping to number seven. That was an old comment from the previous staff report. It had to do with this was previously Lot 29, this four-plex lot. Staff had a comment about their trail system and getting access from a townhouse. This is facilitating that a little bit more. There are sidewalks here, but they have added a pathway here, it just kind of makes movement easier for pedestrians as well. I think that we are all in agreement on that, at least the staff and applicant are on the same page. Dumpster location, there is not an issue there. Eight. The revised ones are fine. I think that comment just didn't get updated. I may just stop there for just a second. Some of the last comments are old and they are based on the original submittal. I have not gone back to the police department, I have not gone back to SSC, I have not touched base with any of these other agencies regarding their original conditions. The revised plat appears to comply with those conditions. So, they are still in there as conditions, but they have, really, complied with them as shown on Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 45 of 64 these revised plans. So, I'll leave that up to those specific agencies to verify that they are in compliance. But as far as I can tell they don't to need make any -- any of those other changes in there. So, that applies to SSC, the police department's concerns over Lot 1, Block 1. Originally there was a four-plex lot that stood out here that has since been removed. It was isolated. Planning staff had the same comment, just -- I didn't want to take out the police department's comments. So, I guess the only thing that has not been changed or that -- that has been called out since the beginning of this application is the double fronted lots for this four-plex block, basically, and kind of that -- that lot that is -- it juts out I think is the language that may be in the staff report, into that drive aisle a little bit. So, that hasn't changed. That is -- they have added the variations as you can kind of see on the building setbacks, is another concern that they weren't all straight in a row. So, there are some building setback variations to both the roads. So, that helps a little bit I think. I guess the other comment, going through the minutes, they did submit a color rendering of the entire project, as well as -- I don't remember which Commissioner it was, but they requested color renderings for the townhouses and the four-plexes. So, I do have those and I can slow down, but I just wanted to show you that I do have those if you want to study them in greater detail, I can sure go back to them. So, staff is recommending approval of the project as revised. The preliminary plat was revised by Treasure Valley Engineers on May 19th, 2006, and a revised landscape plan prepared by Jensen-Belts, stamped by myself on May 20th, 2006. So, I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Hood: I was going to pass it on to Mike. I forgot about that. Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I had a conversation with Greg Anderson from Treasure Valley Engineers regarding the setback. Public Works had concerns -- especially with the five foot setback. They have got -- I haven't gone through and studied the plat in detail, but they have indicated that they have -- all lots now have a ten foot setback, except for I believe it was Lots 14 through 26 have the seven foot, and I believe it's -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's these lots here. He said that he had had discussions with a designer from Idaho Power and that they could find a way to fit their facilities, either in that setback or in the parking lot -- the parking spaces. If Idaho Power joint utilities, in fact, are fine with the seven foot setback, Public Works can get their facilities in there and I just would add one condition, 2.2.5, that prior to signature on the final plat for those lots that had the seven foot setback, that they submit something in writing from Idaho Power that they are fine with that seven foot setback and if they submit -- if Idaho Power is fine with it, that's who we really were looking out for, we wouldn't have a problem with that. And I'd stand for any questions on that. Rohm: Thanks, Mike. I think at this time it would be appropriate to have the applicant come forward, please. Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 46 of 64 Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Geoffrey Wardle. My address is 877 Main, Boise. I'm here on behalf of American West Homes, the applicant. And Caleb has done an excellent job of going through what comments we had submitted. Caleb, could you go back to the color rendering? So, rather than put this up, we'll just look at this. We did take your concerns and your issues to heart and the issues that you raised at our meeting six weeks ago we have addressed. There was the concern expressed about the path along the Ten Mile Lateral being within an easement. That is now within a common lot. There was concern -- the police department expressed concern about a unit here and the fire department had as well. That unit has been removed. And we also addressed the police department's concern that this area not be too attractive, because it's kind of stuck off there to itself and, obviously, the geography here and the confinements of the laterals does confine this site to a certain extent, so we have done that. We addressed your additional concerns about the variance. As Commissioner Zaremba pointed out, that, you know, much work went into the UDC and that, you know, we need to conform to it. So, in doing that we removed what had been a pathway along here and have changed it so that there is no variances that are required. The lots now have been enlarged, the substandard lots, and the setback issue has totally gone away. Now, what that has done is that's meant that we eliminated a pathway here, but as Caleb indicated, we are amenable to having a condition to improve that connection right there along the lateral. That's a condition of approval which ought to be added, because it makes sense, it's just one of those things that slipped through the cracks that nobody caught as we looked at it. As suggested by the Commission, we added a basketball court. We added a picnic area. We added a second tot lot here within the townhouse component. Now, to address the concerns about the lot sizes, as you will see, there are some empty lots, vacant lots which don't show footprints. That's because these are larger townhouse lots and in dealing with staff and discussing with staff how to proceed with this, we have come back with a larger lot size, which requires, obviously, a larger footprint, so we are going to have larger units. We, unfortunately, do not have them to -- we do not have architectural renderings for those. But what that has done, that resulted in a loss of five townhouse units and that's where those units went. Additionally, there had been a -- one of the multi-family condominium units which had been inserted over here, which was removed and replaced with -- with more common space and more -- more of the amenities you expressed. The biggest issue, obviously -- we believe that we have addressed all of the technical issues. The preliminary plat has been revised to reflect the covered parking, to reflect the changes that have been requested as to garbage and those other items. As Mike pointed out, the only seven foot setback issues are, really, right here along this area and we have diligently worked with Idaho Power to make sure that they are satisfied with that. We think that we have a resolution. We don't have any concern with the condition of approval that's been suggested by Mike tonight. That's totally appropriate. We would ask that -- and Caleb raised the issue, that it was a condition of approval suggested by the police department, which dealt with a version of the preliminary plat submitted in October of last year, which had to do with, you know, lot one, parcel one, and we are comfortable based upon our discussions with staff that this will not cause design issues down the road, but I guess we do need some clarification to make sure that what we have done meets the spirit of what the police department has Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 47 of 64 requested, because, in reality, we have a parcel that is constrained geographically and you have an area which is off there by itself. In order to meet your fire distances for the roads, we removed that unit, we removed some of the other stuff, and we have put the trail there, which, then, connects on up to the sidewalk along Pine, but it is what it is and I believe, you know, earlier tonight you heard some discussion about how do we address some of the concerns the police department has raised and they are just design issues, which are driven by geography, which, unfortunately, you know, preclude you from having necessarily the perfect situation. That brings us, really, to the final issue, which Caleb pointed out. You had expressed concern about the double frontage of these units here and we have evaluated this site and we have evaluated what to do about that concern, because, in reality, the concern of double frontage here is really no different than the issue raised up here, that you have lots that front on a private drive that back up to a -- a major thoroughfare, Pine Avenue. Now, there you do have a 20 foot wide buffer. We recognize the importance of that, so in coming forward back with a revised plan, we directed our landscape architect to enhance the amount of landscaping right there. We also directed Treasure Valley Engineering to modify the location of those, so that there is greater modulation. But, in reality, when you have a project on a site like this, which has -- you know, is constrained and is not a nice square -- you know, rectangular piece because of this, we have some design issues. And the design issue that we have is in trying to provide a greater buffer and transition from the R-8 zone over here to the higher density and industrial over here, you find yourself with some constraints. There was some discussion about, well, could we relocate this, could we double -- could we change it so there were other units there, but what that starts to do is impact this central open space that you have and that we really didn't want to take away from the open space that's there in the center. We believe that this is a plan which conforms with the UDC, that this is -- this is a design issue, it's not an issue that's necessitated by the UDC, it's not an issue that contravenes the UDC, but it's really necessitated by the site. In order to address that, like I said, we have looked at some alternatives and at the end of the day, as the discussion was held at the last hearing, you know, in a multi-family condominium project like this, these private streets in here really function more as, you know, driveways and parking areas, not necessarily the type of thoroughfare that you would have. So, with that, you know, I guess I would stand for questions at this point, because I believe that we have attempted to mitigate this issue to the best that can be done at this site. We have eliminated any need for a variance, so it creates greater -- greater variety in the types and configuration of the units. As depicted by the schematic that Caleb has shown, we have come forward with, you know, two different footprints in the multi-family condominium component of the project, with two different elevations. So, you have diversity there. We have also taken into consideration your concerns and issues with how do we enhance the value of the waterways and one of the other things that we added at your request was a better connection here at this point to insure that this walk -- this pathway here provide a greater connectivity and value. And the same we did with here, to insure that this was a path that would satisfy your concerns. Finally, I really do appreciate the work that staff has put in on this, because we have met with them repeatedly, both Mike and Caleb have been -- have been open and helpful and we have had, you know, very -- very constructive discussions. It's through their direction that we have come back with you Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 48 of 64 tonight. We are fully in support of the staff report with that exception to the police condition as to what was formerly lot one, parcel -- block one and with that I would stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I'm somewhat interested on the double loading areas and whatnot in your elevations, as far as front to back and whatnot. Are we going to see some diversity there? My biggest concern is the project to the west, it looks like a major barracks out there and the last thing I want to see on this project is anything like that. So, I'm very concerned about overall and I did like your elevations that you showed, but I am curious as to what you are doing front to back on the double loading area. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, Caleb, if you could go back to those elevations. I do have our -- America West Homes principal Joe Reice here who may be able to answer more of those questions, but in meeting with staff, they expressed the concern that there be a diversity of materials and there be a diversity of styles and here are the front elevations of one of the four-plex footprints. Caleb, can you go to the next one. Because this is -- these are the ones that are located there on that parcel. And so what you see there is the front that we have -- we have really taken into consideration the direction that we received from the Mayor when our client first came in about the concerns of the barracks on the west. We have really tried to come up with an elevation which is not barracks like at all, that has a true diversity as to design and has true diversity of the materials. Caleb, if you could go -- do we have the reverse elevations or are they just in the package? Hood: I do have black and whites here that I can -- I didn't get any color renderings of them, but I do have black and whites for side and rear. If you can give me just a minute, I will pull them out. Moe: And along that way, would I anticipate that we would see a couple variations that the elevation will be -- yeah. That would be fine. Okay. Wardle: There is the rear elevation. And as you can see, you know, we have really tried to make sure that these are livable. You have a lot of glass. You have -- you know, you still have the dormers and change of elevation on the rear side, that it's not intended to be, you know, nothing but siding and air conditioners, but it really tries to blend in. Moe: But based upon what the other Commissioners showed me a minute ago, that's a lot different, so -- just to expand one more time, as far as the elevations, we will see the ,# Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 49 of 64 different -- you had about three different types of elevations in that area there. I assume we will see all three in there, we won't be picking just one; right? Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Moe, we are committed, we have two different footprints with two different elevations for those footprints. So, you, essentially, have four different -- you know, four different looking units and it is our commitment to make sure that they are, you know, diverse, that they are not all the same, and that's why we are committed to the elevations that we have presented to you. Moe: Thank you. Wardle: And I would also note that for the townhouse units we have depicted two different elevations that we are committed to and, then, obviously, with the larger lots that's going to come in with something with a slightly different footprint, so you're, in reality, going to see probably three different types of townhouse units, four different types of multi-family condominiums. Rohm: Thank you. Any other questions? Apparently not. Thank you. Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. Rohm: There are two others that have signed up to speak to this and they are both for the project. Are they part of the development -- that's what I thought. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this application? Thank you. Discussion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, my comment would be that all of the items that were raised last time appear to have been addressed and my opinion is it's a better project than was first presented. I think it complies with what we need it to comply with. Rohm: I think you're right and if the balance of the Commission feels the same way, maybe we could move forward. Newton-Huckabay: I do not. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you have got the floor. Newton-Huckabay: Can you put the site plan up again? I, myself, had really hoped to see -- and I know you said the design constraints and what have you, but had hoped to see something different there in that middle leg of the development, so -- but -- Rohm: You're referring to these? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. I went back and read my comments and I tend to -- I, basically, thought that it would look -- I think it will look funny when it's done. But I had - - I had thought that those units should be facing the other way, so that you had a ; Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 50 of 64 town home development and a multi-family development, you know, on the west and the east. To me I felt that it would be natural -- that one down the middle would be a natural divider of those two type of homes. I don't feel like I am being very clear. Am I clear in what I -- my comment? But as -- I guess as long as I'm on record that I -- that that's what I had hoped to see, we can forward it onto City Council for whatever -- and I will vote in accordance with my feelings on it. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Any other comment? Could we get a motion to close -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006. Borup: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: 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 numbers AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006 and PS 06-005, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1, 2006, with the following modifications: Exhibit B, page one, prior to site specific requirements preliminary plat, add an annexation and zoning comment that there will be a requirement for a development agreement. Details of that are found on page 12 of the staff report. On the second page of Exhibit B, add a paragraph 1.1.13 and that's a requirement to add a pathway at the southwest corner that will connect with the multi- use pathway. Exhibit B, page four, there is a paragraph 2.3, directing them to work with Idaho Power on the common trench and I would add to that a statement that if Idaho Power is comfortable with a seven foot, they will provide a letter to the city stating that. And Exhibit B, page seven, the police department comments, I would give the police department the opportunity to revise their requirements after seeing the new plat. Did I miss one? Moe: I do have a question. In your motion you're going for PS 06-005 and that is not something that we are answering to, are we? Staff? The private street. Borup: Did you mention that one? -':/ Meridian Planning & Zoning June 1, 2006 Page 51 of 64 Zaremba: We didn't actually have it on our agenda, but it was in the -- it was in the statement about approving it. I could delete that, since we haven't discussed it. That's a City Council issue, not ours. Moe: Exactly. And, then, also the variance, they are willing to drop the variance. Do you want to make note that we are in agreement with that? Zaremba: Yes. I would add to the motion that the applicant is dropping the variance as no longer necessary. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, CUP 06-006, to include all staff comments with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Newton-Huckabay: Aye. Rohm: Motion carries. Thank you, folks, for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2006: AZ 06-009 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.57 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from May 18, 2006: PP 06-007 Request for a Preliminary Plat with 85 single-family residential lots and 12 common lots for Cedarcreek Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 470 West McMillan Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-009 and PP 06- 007. Both of these items related to Cedarcreek Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I am following up on this application for Joe, who is no longer with us. The staff report you have is, actually, from April 20th. I will refresh your memory just briefly, give you some of the specifics of the project, and, then, maybe we can go home. So, this is an annexation and preliminary plat for a 28 acre subdivision, proposing 85 single family residential lots and 12 common lots. They are located on the north side of McMillan Road and on the west -- just west of Meridian Road. See if I can find some of the specs for you. I can't do that density in my head. We are looking at -- they have 5.7 percent open space, 4.34 dwelling units per acre, and the main reason that this application -- it shows up pretty well on this aerial view, that this application was -- has been continued for a couple of times now --