Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 31, 2006 P&Z Minutes Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 06-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.06 acres to C-C (1.50 acres) and R-40 (10.56 acres) zones for Regency at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC - east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 42 of 59 Moe: At this time -- we usually take a break at 9:00 o'clock and we are going to go ahead and take a short one. We will come back in session at 9:15. (Recess. ) Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 06-022 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi-family development consisting of 204 multi- family dwelling units on 12.06 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Regency at River Valley by The Regency at River Valley, LLC - east of Eagle Road and north of Fairview Avenue: Moe: It's 9:20. I'm going to reopen the Planning and Zoning meeting for August 31 st and open the public hearings for AZ 06-035, request for annexation and zoning of 12.06 acres to C-C, 1.50 acres in R-40, 10.56 acres as zoned for Regency at River Valley, and CUP 06-022, request for Conditional Use Permit for Regency. And we will start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I jump into those applications you just listed, a little bit of housekeeping. I think everyone now has met Sonya Watters. She is not new to the city, but new to the position. She got a promotion and will be an associate and will be preparing staff reports. The 21 st I think she has an item or two on that, so become familiar with her. Just to kind of complete the story, Jenny, this is her last hearing presenting before you. She is, actually, going to be an assistant and do some of the front counter planning stuff in our office. So, that's kind of what's going on in the office and so get familiar with Sonya and Jenny did a great job the few months she was here and really filled the gap for us nicely and I wish I could have stated that earlier when she was here, but Sonya will do a great job for us as well I'm sure. So, with that being said, there are some other applications that are also running concurrently with this application. They are not on your agenda tonight. One of them is for a private street application. There are four or five different private streets actually shown within this property being proposed. Most notably there is one proposed out to Eagle Road. I will touch on that in just a second. That leads me to the next three applications. Three variances. The Council -- by ordinance only the Council has to act on a variance request. However, they are included as part of this staff report, because they play a pretty big role in what is being proposed. Without the variances the development as shown would not be able to happen. So, the private street is a staff level application. The annexation and zoning and CUP you make recommendation to the City Council on and the variances are just a City Council review application, so -- but feel free to comment. In the staff report it is talked about that they all are intertwined together and rely on each other quite heavily to get the finished product somewhere near, anyways, Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31,2006 Page 43 of 59 what the applicant is proposing. So, with some of that background information, the project is 12 acres. There is about 1.5 acres right on the edge of Eagle Road -- pointer is dying -- right in here that's going to be zoned for community business district. There is no use proposed at this time in the staff report. They talk about it being on Eagle Road, an entryway corridor and being subject to design review in the future. Also -- I'm kind of getting some of the easier items out of the way first and we will jump into the meat of this project. There is a requirement for some landscaping adjacent to that. It is part of the 12 acres and so that landscape buffer is required as part of the Conditional Use Permit and in the conditions of approval. Quickly, just to orient you, I guess, a little bit before I go too much further, the red surrounding this property is the commercial portion of Redfeather Subdivision, which is primarily a residential subdivision. This map is pretty accurate. I think phases five and six are going though our platting process now, but there are homes being construct in here. This is Duane Drive and some one and two acre parcels in the county. There are Kleiner property, the turf farms. This is Stokesberry, I believe, office park and, then, this is elementary -- River Valley Elementary is here. Carol Subdivision. Leslie Drive. And, then, some of the other recent applications that we have reviewed there with Sadie Creek and Bienville and whatnot. So, just to kind of orient you a little bit and you can see the zoning on that map. It's kind of a mixed bag of county and city zoning in the general vicinity. As was done in previous presentations, I'm just going to fly right passed the aerial. There is a fairly large lateral that runs along the north side of this property, it's called the Finch Lateral, the South Slough, I'm not quite sure when it changes from one to the other. It's, essentially, the same body of water. They call it different things and different people recognize it as different bodies of water. I guess I bring it up, because it is a big -- a large body of water. The UDC does allow any -- it says large body, actually, in the UDC. It does allow the City Council to waive the requirement to tile any water facilities if they take a -- generally it will be 48 inches or larger pipe to tile them. It just gets too costly and they allow them to leave it open. But we did want -- the applicant did not address that in their submittal letter. We can get behind that and support that if there is some engineering showing that, in fact, it would take a larger diameter pipe to tile that thing. So, just putting them on notice, basically, that unless you prove that up, basically, it would need to be need covered by ordinance, so -- now, to the meat of the project. The remainder -- the majority of this -- this project, about ten acres, is zoned R-40, high density residential. They are proposing to construct 204 multi-family units on nine -- in nine different buildings and this is a clubhouse here. There is a pretty good mix of one, two, and three bedroom units. I think -- let's see. The gross density is 17.86 dwelling units per acre. Most of these buildings are split up with two and three bedroom units, one and two bedroom units. I can't remember if this is just one or just two bedroom units, but there is a pretty good mix of, you know -- throughout the development of two and three and single bedroom units available. I'll let the applicant do a lot more of the -- more of the detail going through, you know, some this common area and pool and the hot tub they are proposing. There are quite a few amenities. They are detailed in the staff report. I'll let the applicant kind of touch on those a little bit. I guess I'd like to spend the rest of my time talking about some of the -- particularly the variances and some roadways that are proposed and going to be required by not the city, but ACHD. So, the first variance I'd like to talk about is parking. With the UDC we did require for multi-family developments that two or more bedroom units provide two covered parking stalls. One bedroom units need to provide one covered parking stall and one over air stall or it could be covered, I guess, if you wanted to, but that's the minimum that there needs to be one per one bedroom and two for a two plus bedroom. The parking -- covered parking proposed now -- there are some garage units, as well as some carport units. It's hard for me to make them out now. I know there is a few over here. I thought there was a few over here. The numbers are detailed in the staff report. Essentially, everything else is -- is open parking as submitted on the site plan. I did get an e-mail a little after 5:00 today. I think that the engineering company is working on making the changes. It was hard for me to tell, just based on where they are at with the changes, if they are truly intending to cover all of them, but for the ones that are encumbered by the irrigation easement that run along the northern boundary or not. I guess I'll let them touch on that point when it's their tUrn. Our requirement or my recommendation to you is that, except for the parking stalls that are in front of this building here and around the roundabout and in front of this building here, that everything else that's not within an easement should be either a carport or a garage and, then, that gets you pretty close to the requirement of the UDC to have two covered car parks. And, again, that is in a carport or a garage, so they have some options there. It leaves something like -- 93, I think, is the number that's up along this northern boundary that would still be left open. The reason, I guess, just to kind of follow that thought through, this will be, once River Valley Street -- and I'll come back to that in a second -- gets pushed out to Eagle Road, this will be a very focal point of the subdivision -- or, excuse me, not a subdivision of the development and I imagine this will be where a lot of guest parking will occur and it can be a very visual entrance into the site and being able to see the clubhouse and not cover that up with carports and parking and things, makes some good sense to us, anyways, and give it a little more open feel as well through the -- to the open space and the pool area behind. So, that's kind of what's behind that recommendation. I think I'll jump to the access variance next to Eagle Road. As you can see this parcel is configured a little bit differently than most. It does have some frontage out to Eagle Road. There is no other public street access to this property as of today. The applicant is -- there is a little bit of discrepancy, I guess I should say first. The site plan states -- there is a note on the site plan talking about a temporary access out to Eagle Road here that will be converted to right-in, right-out once River Valley Street gets extended. I did talk to the -- I think it was the president of the corporation here last week or the week before when I was preparing my staff report and they fully intend to have that actually closed when River Valley is a full access street and, hopefully, there is a signal here. The big picture idea is that there is a signal here. And, then, this will be the ingress- egress into the development. So, staff is supportive of this access -- a full access in this location to be abandoned when River Valley Street gets pushed through. Also, with that we'd like to see that this parcel also shares in that temporary access and that when River Valley -- the idea was when this public street comes through there will be cross- access agreements with all of these parcels, so they can use the drive aisles anyways to get to the signalized intersection, so you don't have, you know, three driveways here adjacent to a signalized intersection. So, that's what we are looking for as staff. And the final one has to do with private usable open space. That's the third variance that's being requested. In the applicant's letter I just wasn't convinced that there is a hardship Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 44 of 59 Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31,2006 Page 45 of 59 there. We do require 80 square feet of private usable open space per unit. At 240 units, that's quite a good chunk of private usable open space, but when you look at it for each unit and each family that lives in there, 80 square feet for a patio or a deck to call your own, something that's outside that you can say is yours, I think is -- when the UDC was put together something we thought made a quality of life amenity for people that were living -- that were living in any multi-family unit, that they should have at least 80 square feet of something that they can use. In the letter, I guess, just for -- real quickly, it talked about in the past these areas have been used to store barbecues and I can imagine bikes -- I have seen things like that stored out there. Those types of things can be addressed in CC&Rs and some type of, you know, control committee or property management that can cite people if there is -- you know, if there is excess storage or things hanging down or whatever. So, a lot of -- I think the concerns and the reasons that they asked for the variance could be addressed in a separate legal document that says, you know, their residents can't do X, Y, and Z or whatever some of the concerns may be about not having it be esthetically pleasing with the storage being within those patios or decks. I did want to note they do -- they do have it on the ground floor for the units, they do have a little patio for the ground units, and, essentially, that's what we are looking for for every single unit that's within the development. As I promised, River Valley Street -- let me -- and maybe I'll jump back to this. I won't tell the whole story, I'll try to kind of paint the picture. ACHD, you may remember, annexed this property not too long ago, earlier this year, anyways. This development is also going through the annexation process. Allys Way, which Lowe's is right here, there is that public street and they have got the -- the streetlight conduit run and I think even a couple of the arms are up, I don't think it's turned on yet, but, anyway, the idea is that there will be a collector road that will come through here, go through the Kleiners when they develop and come back out to the Records Avenue intersection. So, you will have, essentially, in this location you will have a major collector roadway that can alleviate, at least between Ustick and Fairview, the heavy traffic volumes that are experienced on Eagle Road and give residents and people in this area an alternative route that is a collector roadway, not just a local street that they can cut through on, but a route from a signal to a signal. And, again, coming back out to River Valley there will also be a signal at the half mile. Now, the offset with that it's just -- the way I understand it, it's just offset from the corner section right here and it's south a little bit of that. So, it will take a little bit of alignment work, there maybe a little tiny jog in it, so you get a true four leg intersection to line up there, but we are working with ACHD and I believe, from what I understand from ACHD staff, too, that the applicant's been very good to work with and very cooperative and is trying to work with that property owner as well to get River Valley Street and maybe even they are working with these folks to get River Valley Street to happen sooner than later and not piecemeal it in, but let's get it constructed and done. So, that's encouraging to hear from ACHD staff. We would sure like to see that happen. It's much needed in this area, although a lot of this hasn't developed yet, but when it does it would sure be nice to have infrastructure in place. The other collector roadway - - I talked about Alleys Way. They do have a small portion of Allys Way that they will be constructing as well. The biggest portion of -- the biggest cost -- out-of-pocket cost for this -- it is going to take probably a bridge, because, as I mentioned, this is a big lateral. If they can culvert it, that's fine, but it's probably going to be some type of a bridge. Borup: It looks like -- yeah, it looks like that's the same ones that are in our packet. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 46 of 59 They are going to need to road trust for one half of whatever that cost is to cross that and, then, when Redfeather comes through it will be put into that developer's pocket, basically, and, then, they construct it and if it's less than, you know, what they road trusted for, they would get back anything that wasn't used, essentially. But that would be -- what ACHD is looking at doing is having them do half of the road trusting, construct their portion -- I think it's all of Allys Way there, like a 70 foot right of way, but it's not a very big run. I guess while I'm talking about ACHD, I did get a phone message today from Andrew over there, he's a staff planner on this. Originally I thought in their staff report they were going to require a 40 foot right of way along the south property line for River Valley Street. I didn't talk to him, but he left me a voicemail today saying that they think they will be all right with a 35 foot wide right of way. that is, essentially, right at half of the right of way, which is a little bit odd. Usually you have them -- the first guy in construct a little bit more than half, but I'll let them work that out if that's what they agreed to and can have worked out, I guess, I should say. That's fine. So, I feel like I'm rambling on now, so I think I am probably going to let the staff report stand. We are recommending approval of this project, but for the one variance and, then, parcel approval of the other variances, but I will stand for any questions you may have. Moe: Any Commissioners have any questions? Borup: Just so I'm clear on -- even though we are -- we are not voting on the variances, but the objection was to -- the private area was the one variance objection; right? The 80 square feet; is that correct? Hood: Correct. Borup: And, then, the partial was on -- which was the partial one on? Hood: The parking. You need some variance, because you're still not going to have -- Borup: Right. Okay. Thank you. Hood: I do have -- just so you know and the applicant knows, I have also the elevations in here. I have -- I will briefly just go through those, not talking about them too much, but just showing them to you and they can -- we can go back or if they have some other ones they want to show as well, we can sure, you know, do that as well, but I did have Barb coming in, so I would hate for her to do all that work and, then, not show them to you, so -- Hood: Yeah. And this is the garage. You probably don't have that. These are six day- - actually, there is more -- is there six there? Yeah. Okay. There are six there. So, that's what the garage units are going to look like. I think there are five or six that were shown on the site plan, so that's what they would look like. But this is the clubhouse. So, that's it, so -- Moe: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 47 of 59 Rindlisbaker: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good evening. My name is Greg Rindlisbaker. I'm with Balk Corporation. The address is 11650 South State Street, Suite 300, in Draper, Utah. Just to give you a little bit of background about our company. Are we new to the Boise metropolitan area. We are a residential and commercial developer and we have been in business for about 30 years now and we primarily focus on residential communities. We build single family homes and multi- family apartment communities and townhome projects. We are excited to be here in Meridian and, hopefully, we can proceed with this project. We have built -- we have done some work in Idaho before. We have done some projects in Idaho Falls and Twin Falls and we feel like we do a really good job building projects and we try to build class A projects that the communities will be proud of. You can see from some of our pictures the examples of the projects that we do. We put in a lot of amenities for the residents, so that they can have a sense of pride and sense of ownership in their community, things such as a pool, hot tub, open areas for the kids to play, tot lots. Inside the clubhouse we have a 24 hour fitness center. Billiards room. A little cyber cafe where they can kind of meet with friends and surf the web, things like that. A few other things that we have. We have the garages available for residents to use and covered carports. The individual units themselves, we have different types. We try to reach different types of market. We do executive units on the high end, but we will put fireplaces, garden tubs, microwaves, washers and dryers, things like that. Extra amenities. They do cost a premium, but we have known there is a great demand for those as well. And we are trying to reach more the upper end market, the upper end renter. We want these -- this property to be nice for a long time and to be an asset to your community. We build -- we are the builder and developer of the project. We also are the owner. It's a single owner. We do have a couple of investors, but we are the majority owner and control the property and we are the property managers as well and we have a vested interest in maintaining and taking care of the property. So, you can know going forward that it will be well maintained and cared for. As far as the issues tonight, I wanted to just -- I don't know if I need to address the variances or not. Maybe I can just touch lightly on the 80 feet of private open space. We have been doing apartments now for over ten years and we have constructed quite a few apartments with this private open space and it's our experience that they are not the best thing to have from a management standpoint. It's easy to say to a resident don't store your barbecue, don't barbecue on your patio, it's a fire hazard, and -- but they will -- when you're gone or when you're not watching they will barbecue and it is a fire hazard and that's where most fires start in an apartment building. Also, they do store bicycles, boxes, it's a constant battle to try to get those from -- to keep them cleaned up and we do have rules and regulations against that, but it is a property management difficulty. But we do have those provided on the first floor, the patio, so if somebody is really requesting and wanting to have some private area, there is a patio available if they want to rent a first floor unit and use that. We have chosen to put the money in amenities and to put the money -- instead of putting them in those private areas, to put them inside the unit and make the units larger and also to put the money in common areas. There are common areas where they can barbecue and Moe: Okay. Any questions so far? Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 48 of 59 gather to do that type of activity. Anyway, I think we are going to have Scott, our engineer, he's with Mason Stanfield, talk about some of the other issues, but we feel like we have resolved quite a few of those and are excited to be part of the community and ask for your approval or a recommendation for approval of this. Thank you. Stanfield: Good evening. Scott Stanfield. Mason Stanfield Engineering. 314 Batiola, Caldwell, Idaho. It's good to be back in Meridian. It's been awhile and I want to thank Caleb. It took me awhile to figure out who Caleb was and I figured it's Craig, so I want to thank Caleb and Kristy both in the P&Z department and Andrew at ACHD. I do a lot of work in a lot of different jurisdictions and it's always nice to come home and work with normal people. That's all I'm going to say. So, thank you to your staff. Greg went over the amenities real quick. That was, I guess, not a question in the staff report, but it's left to the City of Meridian to approve the amenities, since we are over X number of units. As Greg indicated, we are going to have a clubhouse. There will be a billiard room in there. A 24 hour fitness. A cyber cafe. The office is going to be in there. Some storage will be in the office. There will be barbecue areas out on the lawns. There is a pool. A hot tub. A tot lot. He missed the putting green. There would be the putting green. Overall, the open space accounts to plus or minus 22 percent. So, that's just a quick rundown on the amenities and you will probably see some of them in the pictures we have here. And a water feature up front and a roundabout just to kind of set the theme. The staff report listed a question regarding storage of maintenance type material. One of the garage units will be used for storage and maintenance items and that is not included in the covered parking count, so we have excluded that. In addition, the clubhouse will have closets and whatnot for additional maintenance items. So, on- site storage of maintenance features and equipment can be taken care of. The staff report discusses fencing briefly. We understand we are going to have to put a six foot chain link along the north boundary, depending on at the Council level if that's tiled or closed and I won't get into that tonight, because the staff report kind of leaves that up to the Council. But if it's open, a six foot chain link fence is going to be required. And, then, we contemplated putting a fence along the westerly boundary of the multi-family between the office and the multi-family and a neighborhood parcel putting a six solid probably vinyl fence along that corridor there. Parking is pretty much probably the only issue, but I hope not to make it an issue real quick. We can and will provide at least 408 stalls. That's probably hard for Greg to read -- it's rather late today, but we did verify and we laid it out and we can get at least 408 total stalls. We have negotiated with Joe Silva and he's been a lot of help. There was a concern, a question about putting the covered parking in front of the units and we sat down with Joe Silva just the other day and he found a requirement in the code where, gee, we can exceed the maximum distance -- it gets real complicated, but there is a certain distance that we can and can't do with the covered parking for the units if these builders would upgrade the internal fire sprinkler system, then, that separation can be waived. So, we are willing to upgrade that, get all stalls covered that are in front of the units. We can comply with Caleb's condition 1.1.6 regarding parking, both total count and covered counts. Basically, in a nutshell we would cover all of them, except for, as he mentioned, these Moe: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 49 of 59 items on the north boundary, because we are in Nampa-Meridian Irrigation easement and they don't allow structures in there and, then, Greg wanted a corridor left open to the south, which makes logical sense and we can keep that open and basically cover everything else in a combination either carports or garages. So, that condition can be met Access -- Caleb touched quickly on the access points. Originally, before Greg got involved with the project with his company, the thought was to request a right-in, right- out. Ultimately, when River Valley was punched through Greg became active in the project and said, no, we don't want to do that. Once River Valley is punched through let's go ahead and block off that approach. So, there is the discrepancy that Caleb was referring to, the original drawing -- and probably the one, actually, now probably still stays that, but I'm here to tell you tonight that when River Valley punches through that access will go away and the developers are more than happy to create a -- start creating a north-south ingress-egress, as Caleb pointed out, to benefit all the parties and I'm assuming that as the two parties south of our proposed office area, as those applications come in, staff will more than likely require them to continue the ingress- egress, so that all parcels can benefit to that access as it occurs to River Valley. So, a lot of coordination going on. Things are moving forward. Accesses -- we have been working with ACHD to have verbally approved today the 35 foot right of way, that puts a meandering sidewalk along River Valley, a seven foot meandering sidewalk in an easement inside of our landscape buffer. So, with that I think I have tried to quickly answer any point of contentions that may exist, but we can meet all the conditions and we just agree to disagree on the 80 square foot variance. Borup: That's not bad. Moe: Okay. In regards to the tiling, are you going to be able to bring any documentation to City Council? Stanfield: We definitely will. I tried to look around and it's a rat hole mess down there, so I couldn't look at the size, but the concern I have, regardless of the size -- and that is that for the facilities is we generally are in and out of the center line as property ownership. We don't have a right to tile that, because it's not wholly on our property and I couldn't even get my surveyor out to topo the north side of that without a threat of bodily harm by that landowner to the north. So, I -- I don't think tiling it is going to be an option regarding this site. Stanfield: So, that's my honest answer. Borup: You're talking a small piece. The property owner there? Stanfield: No. I think he owns most of it. Borup: I thought they said Redfeather -- that's a -- you mean this small piece right -- this is what I meant by the small piece. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31,2006 Page 50 of 59 Stanfield: No. Borup: Oh. You're saying all this? Stanfield: All that. Correct. Borup: I thought the presentation said that was Redfeather? Hood: It is the commercially zoned part of Redfeather, which -- there is no development on it now and it's all just a field, but it is zoned C-G. They didn't have a concept plan, either, when they annexed that. It was kind of before we started the -- Borup: So, the property owners of Redfeather are now allowing you in there? Stanfield: Well, I know my crew called me and said -- and I told them don't go on that property, then. Borup: Well, that surprises me and, frankly, bothers me a little bit that someone else is -- that's talking about having a project approved -- and I suspect it may be a tenant or -- Stanfield: You might be right, Commissioner, it might not-- Borup: -- something like that, not the true owners of the property. Stanfield: And you may be correct. It could have been a lessee out there. But we can certainly work with that landowner. If I knew we were able to dig down there and find that pipe site, I would have that for you, get your answer tonight. Borup: Have you looked at what's going on on -- anywhere else where those laterals -- through any other subdivisions? Are they piped anywhere else? I don't believe so, but - Stanfield: I don't think that that one has been tiled. That one -- Bruce may know more, but I think that runs year around. Borup: It splits at -- actually, I know where it splits, it splits in Finch Creek and at the diversion it's tiled and, then, the rest is a drainage. Stanfield: And Nampa-Meridian calls it a lateral, because there are some water rights users, but I think it -- personally, I think it intercepts groundwater and that's why it's so deep. It's a drain to me. Borup: The only other question I had was you -- did you state that -- is it Regency that you're planning on abandoning when River Valley goes in? Borup: Just the one street -- the one street? Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 51 of 59 Stanfield: If that's -- I can't remember what we call that-- Stanfield: Yeah. That would be -- once River Valley Street -- the east-west southerly connection is made -- Borup: Right. Stanfield: -- and that was staff's, really, the requirement in a staff report and we can -- Borup: To abandon it to -- oh. Okay. Stanfield: And turn it into landscaping or combination landscaping parking. And, then, that -- as River Valley is punched through and the part that is to the south we will continue the ingress-egress to that parcel, plus the outparcel that we don't control to the north, will have a direct shot to River Valley and in the future signalization to Eagle Road. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Stanfield: So, we can conform to that. No problem. Newton-Huckabay: Can I possibly see that board a little closer, please? If you could hand it to me for a minute. Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair? Moe: Yes. Hood: While Commissioner Newton-Huckabay is looking at that board, can I ask Scott a question? Is that okay? Moe: Yes, sir. Hood: I was a little bit confused and I'm not -- this is the first 30, 40, 50 foot multi-family development that I have processed. In working with Joe Silva a little bit, he throws that NFPA 13 quicker than I understand what's going on, so can you help me with the roadway widths? Because I think I'm with him on -- you know, if you got a ladder truck and you had to go up over a carport to get to the back side of some of these, you're too far back to get up there. So, he's requiring you to fire sprinkler the attic, the whole building, and that's kind of how they can get around that requirement for having an extra wide roadway and the separation between the building and the street. You know, being parking in between them. My questions, I guess, is some of the roads are 24, 25, some of them are 26. Does that affect that at all? Do they still need to be 26 or can they go down to 25 and you can pick up that foot again? Newton-Huckabay: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 52 of 59 Stanfield: I would like to reduce them down to 25. Right now with the revision they are all 26, because in the staff report there is a requirement for 26 and we have made them all 26. The dilemma still is between the face of carport and the face of the -- what is the stairwell on this project. We could take -- we could reduce our front walk down to five foot and we can take the building and shove it closer to the carport, but, then, you're going to eliminate the green space that we have in front of them. So, there is other ways to fix it short of upgrading the fire suppression system. But the end product, in our opinion, is going to be carport, sidewalk, unit. So, it's kind of independent. Sure, if we -- if we were able to narrow our drive aisles we could pick up a couple feet, but I don't think it would be enough. Hood: Okay. And, again, I just didn't know -- it sounds like there is two separate issues. Stanfield: Correct. Hood: But usually requiring -- because you are 30 feet or taller, but there must also be another requirement that says, okay, if you're 30 feet or taller you still need to be within a certain distance from the road. Stanfield: Yeah. Horizontal distance. It's backwards to what I thought I would and it took me awhile to get my arms around it, but, yeah, two different requirements. Hood: Okay. Just throwing it out there and giving the Commissioners a chance to look at your pretty board there and just so I was clear, too, for future -- Stanfield: I had to draw it up several times just to get my arms around it. Hood: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I'm curious -- the pictures of the buildings on there has open space -- personal open space on each of the three levels. Stanfield: I'm going to guess that Greg, when he made the comment about they have done that before and they haven't had good luck with them, that's probably some that he's been referring to. Or it might have been a variance they requested in another city and they were told no. Newton-Huckabay: So, the ones on the upper left-hand corner, that's the front of the building? Stanfield: Correct. That's the front. There is some brick columns -- they look like brick columns jutting out, but there is no -- what you see is your stairwell -- Newton-Huckabay: I just don't like that building. It looks like a dorm. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 53 of 59 Stanfield: -- right in the middle. That's the brick. You have a question, I can tell. Stanfield: Well, we don't have to build that building. We can block it with carport. They have various product types. Borup: I think it depends on what you compare it with. I mean we -- the other apartment complexes we have in Meridian are a lot different than this in a negative way. I mean this is a big improvement over what we have seen so far. Though we haven't seen one this size for a lot of years. Newton-Huckabay: I was kind of comparing this one more to the Renaissance at Hobble Creek. It kind of strikes me as that type of development. Is that -- is that what it's called, Renaissance at Hobble Creek? Borup: Yeah. I think so. Stanfield: Yeah, the brick-- Newton-Huckabay: The three story -- desperately needs paint. Stanfield: Heavy landscaping. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Stanfield: That's -- I don't think my client has seen that one, but-- Newton-Huckabay: This is similar? Stanfield: Only better. Because it's in Meridian. And I'll add I think some of the city's experience are duplexes and townhomes and not one owner controlling it. This is not a condo plat, this is not a townhouse project, it's not a duplex, this is builder-owner -- Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Borup: Well, we have got the one over off Meridian Road, is it -- I want to say Aspen. Aspen Hills. That would probably be the closest thing as far as size. Stanfield: I can't picture Aspen Hills. Newton-Huckabay: Where is it? Borup: Meridian Road and -- James Court. Yeah. Off of James Court. That's the street. Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 54 of 59 Borup: It's, what, ten years old. Newton-Huckabay I'm thinking just drive by and just don't look at them anymore. Borup: I mean it's three stories also and that's why -- I mean it's got the carports in front of them and I believe -- has the fire code changed from ten years ago? Well, I had understood that one of the requirements -- there are three levels. Technically, they got around the regulations by calling that a two and a half story, because they bermed up dirt around it, but it -- it's the same building. Would that make some difference on fire code, didn't it? But it doesn't make any difference on how high the ladders have to reach. Moe: Well, Scott, did I understand you to say that in regards to the carports that, basically, what was presented by Caleb tonight you guy are -- have no opposition to? Stanfield: Correct. Moe: Okay. So, in regards to the variance you're going after, are you saying that you would -- you would adhere to that and the variance would go away? Stanfield: No. That was the partial variance I think Caleb was referring to, because we don't quite -- because we are leaving the visual corridor open to the south and the Nampa-Meridian drain area, we don't quite meet the ordinance. We could, but we don't -- we agree with staff, it's not in the best interest of the final product, so -- Moe: I agree with that. Stanfield: -- we would still need a variance. Borup: I agree with that. Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Borup: So, the issue is just the private space, then? Moe: That's the only issue we have. No one else has signed up to speak. There is other guys out here, but I assume you're all together, so anyone else that would like to speak, now is the time. Vallentine: Chairman Moe, Commissioners, Michael Vallentine, 250 South 10th. Just a couple quick questions, just to make sure I understand. The Kleiner family owns property to the south. We are asking about secondary fire access for -- during the interim before River Valley went in. When would the secondary fire access be required Meridian Plannin9 & Zoning Special Meeting August 31,2006 Page 55 of 59 and, if so, where would that be coming from? And I want to make sure I understood. Are they going to be required to build part of Records Road, Allys Avenue, even though they won't be able to take access off of it? Maybe that's their secondary fire access. And, then, just to ask Scott, I thought the tiling of the lateral was based on the flow as determined by the irrigation district, so they said if X amount of cubic feet or whatever, therefore, it requires a 48 inch pipe, therefore, you don't have to -- Borup: I think that may be a criteria they may have used, but I think the ordinance says all ditches be tiled and, then, I think City Council has taken that type of stuff in consideration. Is that a correct statement, staff? I think it is. Vallentine: Based on my limited role as a developer, which is very limited, it just -- I just thought that rather than having him to have to avoid shock and -- that the irrigation district just tells them what the capacity is or the flow and, then, they determine whether or not it requires 48 inches and, then, he comes back for a variance. Borup: That makes sense. Vallentine: So, those are my questions, basically, for staff. Moe: Thank you. Hood: Commissioner Moe, would you like me to answer those? Moe: Yes, I would. Hood: I think I have answers to all of them. I hope anyways. The secondary fire access, we did talk with the fire department at length and Rich Green was there and he reviews most of the commercial projects in the city, as well as Joe Silva, they came to a meeting here -- oh, boy, it's probably been three or four weeks now and their cutoff for multi-family units is 200, I think, without requiring secondary access. There are 204 here. They said you can have those four units, basically, if you fire sprinkle all the buildings and that's how we can kind of let you go under that requirement for only the one access point. Allys Avenue, Way, whatever it's going to be called, they are constructing that. ACHD is going to require, basically, a bunch of barricades at all ends saying, you know, to be extended in the future, but the public is not going to be able to get to this yet until the road gets pushed through. So, the idea there is each developer in this section, as they come and develop, they construct their portion and, eventually, they all tie together and you have a continuous roadway. And, then, finally, the Finch Lateral saying we left it up to the City Council, the applicant, basically, has to do some research. They don't have to go out there and survey it, but they need to come up with something that appeases the Council saying, yes, you have done enough research to show that this is a large facility and it doesn't -- it shouldn't be tiled. So, there are a few different documents and Nampa-Meridian would be one or Settler's, I can't remember whose lateral that is now, but -- you know, or even just, you know, showing that no one in this section had tiled it before, may be enough, but the impetus, really, is on them to Moe: Okay. Well, we are at the point now where -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 56 of 59 convince the Council that they shouldn't have to do it, so, hopefully, that answered the question. Moe: Okay. Anyone else want to speak? Okay. Thank you very much. Does the applicant have anymore they want to say? Any questions? Borup: Not right now, but we could. I don't have any questions right now. Borup: Do we want to express an opinion on any of the variances? Moe: I think that would be -- Borup: I know we are not voting on them, but -- Moe: Yeah. I do believe it would be a good idea, so that at least Council has an indication how we feel about those as well. Borup: Okay. So, are we down to, basically, two? We don't have all of the covered parking, but staff's in agreement with what they have said there and I certainly am, too. It would -- much less desirable project to do anymore than what's proposed. At least in that entrance area. That doesn't make sense. And then -- so, the other issue was the 80 square feet, I guess. Moe: Well, in regard to the 80 square feet, quite frankly, again, I'm going to go back to what I was speaking of earlier this evening and that is, basically, within the UDC that is a requirement. Quite frankly, we haven't had enough of these projects come through since the UDC has come through that -- that I, for one, am not wanting to start right out of the chute making changes to the UDC, so that projects coming forth later will have the same opportunity, number one. Number two, I'm of the opinion that I think that the residents do need to have some of their own private space per se and so I would like to see the 80 square foot be required. And I want to talk -- ask staff one more time. I'm getting a little bit confused in regards to the covered parking and what you are accepting or what you would approve in regards to us making any recommendation tonight on this application, less the variance. Hood: I don't think that any change to the staff report regarding parking needs to be made. The applicant stated they can propose -- or they can construct 408 parking stalls. I didn't put a number in there, but, essentially, anything that's in front of Building I, south of Building I, and south of Building -- I think that's A and I. Buildings A and I. And around the roundabout in front of the clubhouse, do not have to be covered or garages and anything that lies within the irrigation easement along the north doesn't have to be, but pretty much everything else -- in fact, everything else needs to be -- have a carport or a garage. That's how the staff report is written. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 57 of 59 Moe: And that's where I was getting confused, because I thought that's what it was. Thank you very much. And I would adhere to the staff report in that, so -- either one of you have anything more to say? Newton-Huckabay: I just don't like these kind of projects, because there is no win in my opinion. I think carports are ugly, but I know you need them, so I'll just go forward as is. Borup: Well, I'm -- go ahead. Moe: No. Go right ahead. Borup: I felt very strongly -- I like the idea of the private space and when it became a part of the UDC and I'm not so sure I feel the same on a project of this size, so I'm glad we don't have to vote on it. Newton-Huckabay: I would prefer to see the 80 square feet of personal space. Borup: But I have seen a lot of projects just like they described. I mean I -- in -- well, just in Boise things all kind junk on those balconies. You know, they can start looking like a slum if you -- if you get -- one spreads to the other, but -- Moe: Well, I think -- Borup: Maybe that's an exaggeration. Moe: I think the comment was made earlier that, you know, that a property management -- Borup: Yeah, they got to be on top of it. They got to be on top of it. Moe: -- the items on that -- I would -- the one last thing I'd like to say, I think it is a very nice project. The amenities and whatnot, I -- that's something we have not touched on. I do believe that they are well within, you know, what we are looking for in the amount of amenities for this project and whatnot. It's a very nice project and I look forward to seeing this, hopefully, go forward. Borup: The one statement they said that I was curious on is that most of the fires are started from barbecues. Did the fire department mention anything about that? Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Borup would like validation on that statistic. Borup: Well, no, I mention it, because that's what you see -- you see a lot of barbecues on those balconies. That's a real common thing and they are a small space. Newton-Huckabay: I do want to tell you, I don't think this is a bad project. I might have come across that way. I think it is a nice project. It's got great amenities. I like the Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 58 of 59 green space in the middle and the sense of community that I think you get. What I don't like in these kinds of developments is when you look at it you see rows and rows of carports and I think carports are ugly, but I know that we need them and I don't like the look of that building in the upper left-hand corner. But other than that, I like where you're going with this as far as an apartment community goes, just to clarify. Borup: And I agree with her statement. I think the one thing here is it's got good landscaping around it and the location. You know, if this was somewhere else it may be different, but Eagle Road is probably a good spot for it is on Eagle Road. Other than all the extra traffic. Moe: Having said that -- Borup: Are we done? Newton-Huckabay: Yep. Do you want me to do it? Borup: I can do it, I just got to get my-- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing -- you can do the motion. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: -- on AZ 06-035, CUP -- I close the Public Hearing on all of these; right? And, then, we -- Moe: On both of them. Newton-Huckabay: CUP 06-022. Borup: Yeah. Just the two. Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on 06-035 and CUP 06-022. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-035 and CUP 06-022 and PS 06-006, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 31 st. End of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Special Meeting August 31, 2006 Page 59 of 59 I I DATE APPROVED Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-035 and CUP 06-022, to include the staff report for the hearing date of August 31 st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Borup: Should I have also made recommendations on the variance? I was thinking that we weren't doing them, but -- Moe: We are not doing a recommendation on that. It's up to Council. We just were making comment. Hood: And, that's fine, if you guys want to make a statement to the Council, I can sure include that in the revised staff report. If not, we will go through this again at Council, so it's really up to you. Borup: We don't need to do a motion on that. Moe: Well, therefore, that motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Moe: There is only one more motion that needs to be made this evening. Newton-Huckabay: I move we adjourn. Borup: Second. Moe: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED. THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:15 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED DAVID MOE - VICE-CHAIRMAN ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK