Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 20, 2006 C/C Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 20 of 34 proposed R-15 zone Touchstone Place Subdivision by Horizon Development - 1187 East Fairview Avenue: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-028, PP 06-028, and CUP 06-021, all related to Touchstone Place Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. As stated, this application refers to a parcel located on Fairview Avenue, south -- south of Fairview Avenue. It's about approximately 1,300 feet west of Locust Grove Road and it's currently zoned in Ada County, R-1 M. It's an L-shaped parcel, so it has a small access on Fairview and, then, goes back and gets large in the rear -- to the rear of the property. As you can see, it's mostly surrounded by land zoned R-8 in the city limits, but there are also a couple parcels that are adjacent to this property that is zoned C-G and also the property across Fairview were also zoned C-G. The City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel as -- in the commercial district, but -- and the applicant's requesting a zone of R-15. The commercial district in the definition in the Comprehensive Plan does allow for multi-family development in the commercial district for the Comprehensive Plan, so staff finds that it is consistent with that definition. We can move on to the site plan to get a better idea of exactly what the applicant is proposing. Here is the -- we will start -- actually, this is the -- the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat includes two buildable lots. As I said, this is a multi-family development, so there is only two buildable lots with multiple units on each lot. The access is off of Fairview Avenue and it continues through this -- through the two lots and connects with the existing Sandlin Avenue in the Danbury Fair Subdivision. We can move on to the site plan to get a better idea of what is proposed here. The applicant is proposing 48 multi-family units in eight-plexes, so it would be six eight-plexes on this site and each of the eight-plexes proposes to have -- well, all but one of the eight-plexes has underground -- or garage parking on the bottom floor and, then, detached garages for -- to make up for the other parking. And the -- one of the eight-plexes is,actually, only three stories and it has all detached parking and that's the one in the southern most piece of the property. In general staff looked at the design and it's favorable for this area and the only issues that came up as we reviewed this application were -- the first was an issue of setbacks, which on the northernmost property in the -- the lot -- the lines adjacent to the C-G zone on the north, the applicant was proposing a four foot setback and staff found that -- as consistent with the UDC, that a ten foot setback would be required on that -- in that location. And on all other property lines that setback is met or exceeded. The other issue that staff calls out in the report is a perimeter fencing being required along all exterior -- along all perimeter property lines where it is not currently fenced. As stated earlier, much of this property is adjacent to residential properties that currently have financing. So, we, obviously, wouldn't -- that would suffice. But in the areas that are not fenced we do call out for fencing on those areas. I think the applicant may also discuss that the -- there was a property boundary dispute on this -- on this site that has recently been resolved and so there may be some adjustment to the actual acreage at annexation, but that will be resolved before it goes to City Council. And I stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 21 of 34 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just an observation if I may. The materials provided by the applicant indicate that the entry road to this project would be South Jericho Road. It does align with North Jericho Road on the other side of Fairview, but in Meridian Franklin is, actually, the dividing line between north and south, so even on this property it would be north -- North Jericho Road. In the staff report that appears on page four, paragraph L, page 11, private streets at the bottom and Exhibit B, page one, paragraph 1.1.6. And, then, throughout the applicant stuff that this would, in fact, be North Jericho Road. Lucas: Chairman and Commissioners that change will be made in the staff report. Rohm: Okay. Thank you for that observation. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Whitehead: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, hello and good evening. For the record, my name is Sabrina Whitehead and I'm here of behalf of the developer Horizon Development and Briggs Engineering. My business address is 1800 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. 83705. I am here before you this evening concerning our annexation, zoning, Conditional Use Permit and preliminary plat for a 48 unit multi- family development, which will be Touchstone Place. Before I begin my presentation, we do still have an issue concerning lot lines. That will be addressed before we have City Council and the developer will kind of speak on behalf of any questions that you may have. Unfortunately, I wasn't there from the beginning, so I would not be best to answer any questions you may have. The current zoning is R1-M within Ada County and we are requesting the zoning of R-15 to medium high density. We feel that this is a great location to have medium high density for the City of Meridian with commercial adjacent to the north and to the south of the property having zoning R-8. We feel it's only a logical transition to have R-15 between single family residences and commercial. As staff has commented on page five of the staff report, they believe that there is a strong argument for saying that the policy set forth in the Comprehensive Plan supports multi-family residential use on this site. Now, while the Comprehensive Plan supports multi-family for this area, it should be noted while this a multi-family development, this development we are going to have it as a condo. Therefore, it will not be rentals, it will be individual homeowners. By having this development be retained as condos it is also going to help allow the City of Meridian to offer its citizens a wider variety of housing options. Instead of having the traditional yard and garage, you're offering the citizens kind of a different lifestyle opportunity for Meridian. Our development not only offers many amenities, such as green space, meandering walking trails, community clubhouse, bike racks, playgrounds, and designated barbecue and patio areas, it is also going to allow the residents of Meridian a great quality of life. Now, I'd like to note the developer has taken great time and consideration with the layout, as well as the product and quality of the buildings themselves. Originally, the developer was planning on having two story four-plexes that would be placed around the perimeter of the subject site. We held a neighborhood meeting on January 5th of '96, this year, and the neighbors concerns were the following: One, having the houses so close to their own Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 22 of 34 homes. Two, privacy, wanting a six foot solid privacy fence. Karalee -- I'm going to mispronounce her last name -- Blau -- is that correct? Okay. Suggested nonwood, since it distorts, and she's wanting to see fencing that would be solid and secure for her dogs, as well as berming and landscape around the perimeter just to provide privacy to the residents. The developer took all these concerns into consideration and went back to the drawing board. He revised the layout to provide a landscape buffer, garages, and service drives, placing the homes separated from the residents a total of 62 feet, instead of the original 25. The developer also modified the four story condos that is adjacent to Stonehenge Subdivision to a three story building, instead of four story, helping to secure the privacy of the residents. And if we could maybe take a look at the layout, I can just point out those changes that we had made. As I noted, these are all going to be four stories and I believe this is where the -- the carport, car sales -- car sales place is. Over here we have all residents, as well as down here. This is where we have all the R-8. The developer decided to change this four stories into three stories with having the service drive garages and, then, a landscape buffer to help buffer and secure the residents privacy and I just measured this today and it's a total of 62 feet. As well as having a landscape strip buffering here with fencing to secure the privacy for these residents as well. On April 6 of '06 we held another neighborhood meeting with the revised layout and it had much more favorable responses in comparison to our other layout. The 48 unit layout will be offering two to three bedroom units, with each unit having a two car detached garage. This development is also offering diverse architectural characteristics by including features such as offsetting walls, recessed entrances, sloped roof, and a variety of building materials that allows this development to have a character and multi-dimension. Now, not only does this development offer options in architecture, it's offering a great variety in landscaping, with both entryways landscaped, including landscaping throughout the entire development for our open space. We are hoping that Touchstone will be a highly desirable place for residents for the City of Meridian and, just to summarize, we feel that this would be a great opportunity for another alternative housing option. We have reviewed the staff report. We agree with the recommendation and agree to meet all conditions and I will stand for any requests and I thank you for your time. Rohm: Thanks very much. My question is is it the intent of the developers to build all the units at one time or is this going to be one unit -- Whitehead: I'll have to defer that to the developer. I'm not sure on that. And he will speaking, so -- Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of this applicant at this time? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 23 of 34 Zaremba: Ms. Whitehead, just to get a scope of the boundary problem where you're discussing where the boundary line is, are you discussing feet or tens of feet or how big or small is that problem? Whitehead: It would just be -- and, again, I can't really delve into all the issues while the developer can. We have been in discussion with Gordon Anderson, he was the surveyor that was supposed to have remedied the problem and when we last checked with Ada County, the record of survey actually gives us more land than what we have. And so our attorneys are in contact with their attorneys. They promised me -- well, they promised me it would be fixed for my hearing tonight, but they promised me that it would be fixed by City Council for sure, so -- Zaremba: I guess my question was directed at -- it's not really enough land change -- Whitehead: No. Zaremba: -- that you would redesign the project? Whitehead: Oh, no. No. Zaremba: Thank you. Mach: My name is Jeff Mach. I live at 7129 Snohomish, Boise, Idaho. 83719. Just want to touch on the property line adjustments that took place. Approximately 16 feet would be on the west side of the property line on Jericho, which at this time will not affect us in any way on this project. Like Sabrina said, they -- at this point they gave us more land once again, but it was a fence line agreement from the '40s and when we were preparing to proceed on this project all of a sudden it came up, so we had to adjust the three parcels approximately 16 feet, because they encroached into the car lot, which at this point I believe it's -- all parties agree, we just need to get the legal description. Do you guys have any questions on the development I can answer? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: I think that's it. Thank you. Mach: Thank you. Rohm: Would Karalee Blau like to come forward, please? You signed up and this is your opportunity to speak. Blau: Oh. Okay. The first time I -- Rohm: You need to state your name and your address. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 24 of 34 Blau: Oh. Karalee Blau, 1595 North Penrith Place in Meridian. The first layout I saw these were two story condos. I didn't realize they were doing four stories. My house does border the entryway, but all the houses down my street will be subject to those four story buildings along that -- the east side of that strip there. I'm just concerned -- you know, they are going to put up fencing and screening and that, but, you know, it's not going to take the five years or ten years to build these buildings and in the meantime all the neighbors are still subjected to four stories. I mean that's two stories -- those are all one story houses bordering in Danbury Fair, those are all one story homes. There are no two story homes touching that property line. So, I'm just -- four stories seems a little extreme to me and I know that they are going to be here in droves to complain when they find out, so -- but that's my big concern is just -- I saw two at the beginning and now they are four and I'm -- they are getting bigger. Rohm: Thank you very much. Lorinda Williams. Williams: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Lorinda Williams, I reside at 1456 North Sandlin in Meridian, on the corner, just kitty corner from this development, in a home that my mother owns that I have rented from her for the last seven years. I have four children. My concerns are about congestion, traffic, and safety. We have a lot of people racing from Pine on Stonehenge through to Fairview already. The traffic control people, the animal control folks bring out their little portable trailer with the radar speed indications on it on a regular basis at our request. But there are lots of kids, lots of pets, people strolling in the neighborhood in the evenings and I see people going 60 or 70 miles per hour in the evening, early in the morning, when kids are walking to the buses. So, I'm concerned about traffic congestion and safety for our kids at bus stops. I'm also concerned about our property values. My mother did buy this home as an investment. We have a lot of student loans, so we can't buy right now, so, we have been in this home for seven years and we consider it our neighborhood. So, I'm concerned about the impact of development and I am glad it is not rental property. I'm glad that it will be condominium ownership. But I would like to see the affects on our neighborhood mitigated. There will be problems. I know there will be. The fence that aligns it now is an electric fence, a horse fence. It is not a solid fence. Most of those homes adjacent do not have back fences. They have been open to horse pasture for the last seven years that I have been there. So, those are my concerns. I would be willing to talk with the developer with some ideas. I'd like to see speed bumps in our subdivision, but we don't seem to have the priority that some of the newer developments do. We are single family starter homes and a lot of change going on right now. I believe in high density development. I don't think we should keep spreading out towards the Oregon border, but I'm very concerned about the implications from my neighborhood, our schools, and our kids. So, thank you for your time. Rohm: Thank you. Greg Vastobin. Vastaben: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Greg Vastaben. I live at 1101 North Shreveport Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. That is in the Danbury Fair Subdivision, this R-8 zoning that borders the project. I'm also speaking as the treasurer Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 25 of 34 of the homeowners association to voice some of the other concerns that have been raised to us by homeowners in the subdivision regarding this project. Our concerns are related to two main areas. One which is traffic and the other which is site and visibility of the project and its affects on the neighborhood. First of all, for traffic, we are concerned about the continuance of South Jericho into Sandlin, which would, then, connect the subdivision to the neighborhood. We have heard in the past that the city plan does encourage these kinds of neighboring developments to be attached to provide better egress and path for the cars. However, we have had projects that were built adjoining to our subdivision where they did not take advantage of the stub streets and that has provided a lot better containment of additional projects or different housing and this extra traffic, which could be a problem of people coming into the subdivision or using the subdivision to cut through to get to Pine or other locations south of our neighborhood. The one major concern is the fact that there will be 48 units in this project which will be -- could be an increase of 48 cars getting out and coming back during the rush hours. Currently the only egress for this section of the neighborhood is just slightly to the east of where this will be, which is the exit of Stonehenge onto Fairview where there is no traffic light, makes it very difficult for people to get out of the subdivision, especially if they are going west against the flow of traffic on that street. So, a concern would be that these would add an additional load to that street and more trouble for the neighbors -- or for the homeowners to get in and out of the subdivision. In addition to the fact that as has been previously mentioned that there are no speed bumps or any other types of speed deterrents in our subdivision and Stonehenge is the primary access from two points -- or two of the three entrances into our subdivision, so it tends to be a street that is frequently speeded on and we would like to limit any new problems on that road. Additional concerns has been -- has also been previously mentioned that these will be four story properties butting up against single story homes. I do appreciate that the developer has made an effort to move the home -- or move these buildings as far back as feasible from the existing single family homes, but I would like to mention that the businesses where they did mention that it was a nice transition from the commercial to residential and I would disagree with that in that most of the commercial properties along Fairview in this area of Meridian are all single story buildings. So, what you would see when this project would be complete would be single story buildings along Fairview, which would be -- which would have behind them four story apartment buildings and, then, a drop right back down to single family homes. So, I don't see that as a nice transition. I do understand that we need more high density in Meridian, but I do think four stories is an extreme amount and would not provide a good transition between the two other zoning areas. The positioning of the buildings does seem to be well suited to preventing balcony-type issues where you have people on the second or third floor looking down into neighbors' yards and we do appreciate that those -- that the larger buildings are going to be back towards the commercial areas as noted in this item. But, again, the one building that is close that is still three stories and it is perpendicular -- I mean it is lined up with the property where all of those units would be, then, looking down into the neighboring backyards. We do see that they have mentioned some landscaping, I believe, on -- here where we see on the lower -- on the south border between the garages, which is something we do appreciate that there will be some kind of a landscaping break. However, I do notice that on the east side of this Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 26 of 34 where we have the south Jericho entrance there is no visible landscaping for trees or anything else, other than the described fence that would be any kind of a break between the traffic and the noise of people coming in and out of this development along these people's backyards. Another concern I have is that as people are coming up and down this main corner, the south -- the corner here from Jericho onto Touchstone Way, that as they do that at night, all of their -- all the headlights will be swinging back and forth across this fence. If it is any kind of a flat fence or something that is not solid, there would be no break there for the homeowners. Another concern that I have with the -- another apartment complex that was built next to the subdivision, the Pen Station Apartments, that those buildings were bordered with mercury vapor lights, which are on every night all night, and there was no effort made by the developer to put in any kind of screening or any kind of light abatement on these to prevent those lights from shining into everyone's backyards and windows all night all the time. That has been a constant grievance for those homeowners along that border with this other apartment complex. So, we'd like to hear some commentary about how the parking lots or the buildings would be illuminated and if there would be any efforts made to prevent those from bothering the neighboring homes, if we do see -- if you look at how Wal-Mart was put in, all of their street lights along the R-8 development on the side are all screened to prevent any of that flood lighting from reaching into the neighboring properties. To conclude, I would also agree that there is very few homes that have any kind of an existing solid fence and it would probably be preferable for all homeowners if the entire project was encircled in a new consistent fence, rather than having a mismatched fence based on which homeowners have fences or not. I mean I'm sure there could be an agreement made with the existing homeowners as to how those fences could be replaced. And one final comment is that we have had problems in our neighborhood and our neighborhood parkS caused by nearby residents. For example, the Pen Station Apartment Complex, we have traced several vandalism and damage claims to people that do not live in our subdivision who have come in, because it's a nearby accessible park with amenities, slides, and swings. And we would love to hear if there would be any way to provide protection for our interests. We do believe that it would be wonderful if the Sandlin entrance is not connected where this subdivision -- or this entire complex would be its own little area with its access out to Fairview and not be joined to our neighborhood, if that would be possible. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. One comment to your testimony. We do have ordinances in the City of Meridian that addresses the light issue and just as the Wal-Mart development screened all that lighting, so that it doesn't spill over to the adjacent property, this development will be subject to that same lighting ordinance that you have seen on the Wal-Mart site. Vastaben: Could I ask, then, if that ordinance would -- or should have been applied to the Pen Station Apartments complex when it was put in? Rohm: I don't know when Pen Station -- Vastaben: It's been probably four years. Is it six? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 27 of 34 Rohm: Six years ago? I'd have to ask staff, but I know that our current ordinance addresses that issue very clearly. Vastaben: If the current ordinance was in effect at the time, would there be a means to readdress this issue with that development? Rohm: Absolutely. Vastaben: Okay. Rohm: And you can stop by Planning and Zoning and I'm sure they can give you that information. Might even be able to answer that tonight. I don't know. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that section of code regarding lighting and not spilling onto adjacent properties or the right of way is fairly new. It's newer than Pen Station is. I can't remember exactly when it was enacted. It was enacted under the previous Meridian City Code, not just with the UDC, but it was a text amendment done to the Meridian City Code. I just don't know that ordinance or when it was adopted. It's fairly new, though. But, yeah, if this gentleman wants to come in we can sure talk. Someone could even call the developer and if there is something they can do to hood those lights, shield them somehow, so they are directed more down. If you want to come in, though, we can talk to you some more. Vastaben: Great. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. With that being said, would the applicant like to come back -- come up? Okay. Mach: I was listening to their concerns here and -- Rohm: Could you restate your name, please. Mach: Oh, I'm sorry. Jeff Mach. And, for starters, you can see in our elevations here these are not starter condos. We are planning to put granite counter tops, hardwood floors. I have been building homes around here for the last four years and we build an Energy Star home, we are certified Energy Star builders, and we plan to carry those into this complex here. I also heard about the speeding and street issue. If you can put the plat up there. See, we have a crosswalk -- the other site plan. I'm sorry. A crosswalk right there in the center where -- at the S shape. We have already planned to raise that, which would create a speed bump. Now, the -- some of the garages -- the access onto the road we believe is going to eliminate -- Rohm: Right here? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 28 of 34 Mach: Yeah. Right there. By having the accesses come from the back of these units, we believe it's gOing to create -- eliminate some of the issues they have with the cars speeding around there. We have an access to the -- I'm not sure how this thing works. There it is. And we figure that people are going to go out Jericho that way. We also have people from the subdivision that will use this as an access to Fairview. Now, with the S-shaped road there, we definitely believe that people are not going to be doing 60 through there, if anything, it's going to slow people down. Now, the concerns with people looking into yards, we started this project as a four-plex project with a 20-foot setback from these -- the houses along this fence line here and here, which -- with the concerns of the people living in the subdivision and them being mainly rentals, we put together this project, spent a lot of time, and by having the garages here, which would be a buffer to these houses and being 63 feet -- and I think Sabrina mentioned 62 feet back, we exceed any setbacks that are required on this project. As you can see we have buffered all the way around here with the garages here, here, and with the three story units the line of sight into their backyards, which they showed at the neighborhood meeting, was less that the two story unit with a 20-foot setback and I explained -- that was the number one concern at the neighborhood meeting and I had it all drawn up and showed them the line of sight was less. And with 62 feet back versus 20 feet looking in the backyards, this is a much more desirable project. The required fence -- I believe we are required to put a fence in on this project and I'm sure it will be put in as a vinyl fence. The lighting -- there is no parking lots here and these units along here -- these units, the garages are approximately 34 feet deep, which also offers, you know, a place to -- for the sportsman to park their trailers and things like that, keep them off the roadways, which -- I mean in most cases most houses don't have a garage and storage like this. So, once again, this project becomes a more desirable project and that's why we went to a four story unit. I think that's about -- answers about all the questions. Mae: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: As far as lights -- I have read this a few times. Do you know your height on your three story and four story? Mach: The four story is 42 feet high and the three story -- sorry, I don't remember. Moe: You did not address the east side of Jericho as far as it just being a fence, no landscaping or anything; is that correct? Mach: Over here? Along here? Moe: Yes. Mach: Oh, that would be a fence there and landscaping all along there. You can see that's -- it shows it up there, it's a landscape buffer. There will be required trees there. And you can see that. Right now it's grass and we are going to use it for drainage. We Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 29 of 34 are going to have some drainage in there and, of course, we will put some -- whatever we can fit in the area at the time. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Any other questions for this applicant? Okay. Thank you. Mach: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question of staff, if I might. Rohm: Absolutely. Mae: Commercial buildings, what's our height limits on commercial buildings? Lucas: On commercial buildings? I believe the height is -- it's per the zone. Are you referring directly to the height limit in this development or the -- Moe: Yes, I am. Lucas: Okay. The height limit in this development is 40 feet. He said 42. That's a -- we need to clarify. The revised elevations he had submitted are 39.5. So, 39.5 is the correct height for the four story complexes in this -- in this development. Moe: But if it went commercial it could be 40-foot high? That's what I'm trying to get at is -- Lucas: If this was zoned C-G, they could go up to 65 feet high on this site. That's the answer. Mae: No more questions. Rohm: No more questions? Thank you. Discussion? Commissioner Zaremba, any comment? Zaremba: Yes. To begin with, let me comment on the fact that this is going to be condominiums. I realize that that's a fairly new thing in this area, that there aren't very many examples locally of condominiums. I have either lived or worked in many areas where it is a familiar product and they work out very well and I'm surprised there haven't been more of them here. I'm surprised this is one of the first. I think we have had one commercial condominium project or two, maybe. I think this is our first residential condominium project. Some people sometimes have heard that there are big problems with them. Almost exclusively the ones that have problems are existing apartment buildings that have been apartment buildings for a long time and somebody converts them to condos. Those are very difficult. But when they are built to begin with as a condo, as this project appears to be, I think it can be a fine addition to the city. I am Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 30 of 34 concerned about many of the things that the neighbor brought up, but I do feel that with the distance of the setbacks and the garages, that the applicant has addressed them to my satisfaction and I think this would be a fine addition to the city. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any comment? Newton-Huckabay: Actually, I forgot to ask the developer what their -- I was just curious what your target market is, who are you marketing this type of development to, if you could -- Mach: Excuse me. What was the question? Newton-Huckabay: What was your target market for this type of home? Mach: We have two bedroom units, which are flats, and we have two bedroom townhouse style, which -- with a loft. And, then, we also have three bedroom townhouse styles. So, we kind of spread it all over where it could be, you know, a family in there, the professional couple, want an office, and have a loft area upstairs or, you know, the single mother that's raising, you know, kids on a single -- our target price at this point we are looking at approximately 200,000 to about 239,000 for the townhouse style. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I was just curious is you're marketing families -- Mach: Family development. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mach: We have -- there is a clubhouse there. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Right. Okay. Great. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: Actually, I may have missed it in the staff report. Was there like -- is this a development where there is a homeowners association that takes care of all of the -- okay. Rohm: From the audience the applicant said yes. It appears as if the discussion's pretty much over. Could I get a motion to close the public hearings? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearings for AZ 06-028, PP 06-028, and CUP 06-021. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 31 of 34 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 06-028, PP 06-028, and CUP 06-021. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, discussion. I don't remember anything that would modify the staff report. Am I remembering correctly? Newton-Huckabay: I did have one, Mr. Chairman, if I may? Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: Item 1.1.7 was the six-foot high solid fencing shall be constructed along any portion of the perimeter property lines that are not currently fenced. I agree with Mr. Vastaben that a consistent perimeter fencing of one material would look better, even if you are replacing some of your exterior fencing. So, I would rather see a consistent fence around the entire thing, a new fence, myself. I would like the rest of your opinion on that. Zaremba: That's a good point and if I remember correctly, the applicant did mention that they intended to put a continuous fence. Newton-Huckabay: A continuous fence and replace -- okay. Zaremba: Yeah, we would change the sentence a little bit. I would just take any portion of out -- the words any portion of. Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners -- Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. Along the perimeter property lines period and take: That are not currently fenced out. Lucas: I also wanted to include that staff processed this application and wrote the staff report as a multi-family development and the fact that it will be -- is planned to be converted into condominiums is not mentioned in the staff report, so that -- or the development agreement as proposed. So, that may be something that, from the discussion, you may want to consider. Rohm: Boy, I -- personally, I kind of think that the structures kind of stand for themselves, as long as the lay of the development addresses the primary concerns of the neighborhood, whether it's an apartment or a condominium doesn't change it's reference to the adjacent property. Just leave the application as it is and if they condominiumize it, all the better. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 32 of 34 Zaremba: That would be my opinion. It's fine as a multi-family unit and if it's condominiums that's even better. Rohm: Right. That makes sense. Zaremba: I don't think that changed the form or function of it necessarily. I'm happy to hear that's what they are planning. Newton-Huckabay: I would just suggest that for the sake of the public that just gave testimony, we might address the four story question. I know, myself, personally, given that most of it's moved into the interior and the line of sight that the four stories -- I don't believe -- I don't believe that they would be an invasion, being able to look down into somebody's property, from my own experience, and these elevations are great, they are a lot better than a lot of four-plexes that we see. These are going to be a -- a nice home, I believe. Care to add anything? Rohm: I think that pretty well captures the discussion related to the height of the development. Thank you. Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if we are ready for a motion, I'm ready to propose one. Rohm: I think we are ready. Zaremba: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-028, PP 06-028, and CUP 06-021, as presented during the hearing of July 20, 2006, with all the conditions in the staff report for July 20, 2006, with one modification and that is Exhibit B, page one, paragraph 1.1.7, the first sentence shall be modified to read: Six foot high solid fencing shall be constructed along the perimeter property lines. Period. That's the only change. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-028, PP 06-028, and CUP 06-021. All those in favor says aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-032 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.31 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Trilogy Subdivision by Conger Management Group - south side of Chinden Boulevard and east of Black Cat Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 06-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 148 single-family lots and 14 common / other lots including 2 private street