Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutScottsdale Villas Sub PP Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 110 of 132 Borup: I don't think he stated -- well, you're saying that if you want to do that. I don't think the applicant stated that it would be, He-- Zaremba: The discussion centered around not having food businesses there, but I don't think the reason it was -- Borup: I think he said he anticipated it would be office. Centers: Well -- and I think -- again, we can certainly discuss it further. There is no second but that's the reasons for the limited 15-foot buffer, the applicant indicated, you know, office space, no retail, and I can't see retail being there anyway, but -- dentist office, builders, realtors, people like that. I think we -- I think we should put -- you know, I would be willing to give them some leeway, you know, with other uses, but -- Rohm: Well, office definition could be varied also, so -- Centers: Oh, yes. Zaremba: Would you want to say any use that does not conform to L-O requires another -- Centers: That's a good -- that would be good verbiage. In fact, I noted the L-O on my notes. If it doesn't conform to L-O, they would have to come back for -- Zaremba: A CUP. Centers: Yes that would be my motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second any other discussions? All in favor? Anyopposed? Sorry. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 02-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and 2 other lots on 3.66 acres in an L-O zone for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - West Alden Drive, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and Southwest 7th Avenue: Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 02-045 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 19 single-family attached units in an L-O zone for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - West Alden Drive, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and Southwest ih Avenue: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 111 of 132 Borup: That does conclude that. Item Numbers 10 and 11, Public -- or 11 and 12, Public Hearing PP 02-029, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and two other lots on 3.66 acres in an L-O zone for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle, Inc. The CUP 02-045, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with 19 single-family attached units in an L -0 zone f or Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers. I'd like to open both Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. If you will allow me to come up front, I'm getting a little tired of sitting and it would be helpful for me to come up front. On the overhead that you have in front of you is a brief overview of the project and I will give you some background on the site. The smaller Site Plan that you can see -- I don't have my laser. Let me grab my laser. The project is located just off of Franklin Boulevard, off of 8th Street. This project is another project -- it's amazing tonight, every single application that we have seen tonight has been a retread of another project and this is what we are dealing with again tonight. This property, when annexed into the city -- or when originally approved within the city for the first project, this property came in as R-15 zoned and, then, the applicant decided -- or the owner of the property decided it would be a better use for it to go to an office use and they changed the zoning to an L-O use. Then, just recently, you received an application and there was a denial given by the City Council to allow some four plexes on the western side of the property. That should give you some idea -- jog your memory just a little bit. The reason why the City Council recommended denial of that application was because the adjacent property owners are all single-family, one story houses, and they felt that the two story apartments adjacent to single-story, single-family, was an incompatible land use. There was a lot of discussion with people from the neighborhood saying that they didn't want people to look down into their back yards and that application, I believe, was actually heard three times in front of you as a body to work out different arrangements. However, it was finally denied by the Council based 0 n incompatible land uses. The application has come forward now stating that they would - the owner has come forward now saying they would not like to do the L-O uses and they would like to revert now back to the R-15 zone. A couple things have happened to create a little bit of stir and I will explain to you why the application tonight and the staff report includes three proposals, rather than just the two that are on the agenda tonight. The project is a Planned Development -- let me just get this out from the outset. This is a single-story, single-family attached dwelling type of project. They are not proposing any two-story buildings, In fact, the plat has a note on it that restricts them all to single- story. The issue is two-story buildings adjacent to the single-story along the western boundary. Those issues are all but eliminated. The Planned Development project required that they provide open space and some amenities. The applicant has done that and you would not have seen that with the other types of applications that have come through with a different use. The use that they are suggesting would be a use that would be attached single-family housing, with some townhouse uses up in this area right here. All of the homes are attached. There is some possibility, if the application would like, to take the town homes , the lots in this area and come off the common drive, these six lots, rather than attach all three of them together, attach two of them and have Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mealing January 16. 2003 Page 11201132 one detached on either side and staff doesn't have any objection to them doing that. The big problem that comes in is staff has no problem with allowing this type of use and everything, because it is an appropriate use, it's a transition from four plexes to a medium density, to a single-family density. It provides an appropriate transition between land uses. The issue that comes into play is this property is currently zoned L- O. In the L-O zone, the proposed uses that you have in front of you tonight are not permitted uses, they are not Conditional Uses they are prohibited uses. The Planned Development Ordinance states that all uses -- in a Planned Development all types of housing is allowed in a Planned Development. Unfortunately, a residential Planned Development is prohibited in the L-O zone so there is some confusion between the language. After this -- the application for the Planned Development and for the Preliminary Plat came to us, we, as a staff, got together and we determined that it should be rezoned back to R-15 in order to comply with this and that's the reason why there is a requirement for them to apply for the R-15 zoning, which they have done, We received the application for that after the notice had been sent out for the hearing tonight and so the hearing tonight is not on the rezone, but, rather, just the Conditional Use Permit. The Preliminary Plat and this should not go on to Council, unless the rezone is recommended for approval by you in two weeks at your next hearing so, we can discuss the Conditional Use Permit. Right now it's currently prohibited. You can add a recommendation on tonight's meeting if you would like to close the Public Hearing and recommend approval or denial. If you recommend approval, you can recommend that this not go on to Council, unless you make a recommendation for the R-15 zoning. There is one other thing that comes into play with the L-O zone and what makes this tricky is in the time that this was originally zoned R-15, changed to L-O, the Comprehensive Plan changed and the Comprehensive Plan now shows this property has L-O. With the L-O, we, as staff, don't believe that this -- so to pose the question, thus, the staff is what would be the most appropriate way to handle this, to say that this does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. There are arguments that would say this complies with the Comprehensive Plan, because it's a Planned Development, we are providing a transition of land uses. However, it's not a specific L-O use. The Zoning Ordinance states that these uses are prohibited. However, we could have required that the applicant submit an application for a Zoning Ordinance amendment. We have had an awful lot of Zoning Ordinance amendments that we have brought in front of you and in front of Council. We have got a book -- you have seen me with that big notebook over there that was just the revisions that we have done in the last year. Since we have done a lot of them, we decided it would be most appropriate, rather than to do one more revision and create an additional amount of paperwork to support the L-O zone, that's not what we are going to talk about tonight, that's two weeks in the future. What needs to be discussed tonight is whether or not this use that is being proposed at this location is appropriate and whether the Preliminary Plat for this project is done appropriately. There is just basically one real issue that we need to work through with that and it has more to do with Bruce than it does with me, but it goes - it all ties back to this L-O zoning. The sewer connections and the water connections that were installed in this roadway are commercial connections and now they are proposing the residential connections off of the commercial connections. There is going to have to be some cutting of the roadway and some patching or possibly some relaying of the road, but Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 113 of 132 Bruce can address those issues concerning the commercial connections and the differences between commercial connections and residential connections. Those are the major issues that we have. We don't have an issue with the setbacks. We don't have an issue with them requesting reduced street frontages. In the R-15 zone, if they are allowed to have the R-15 zone, there is a street frontage requirement of 50 feet per lot. We are okay with the lots that they have suggested so we don't have a problem with it. The commercial connections would be one issue and before I turn the time back over to you, I will tell you that there is one other thing that may be brought up tonight that you may all remember, was that when this was approved as a Final Plat initially __ and, of course, this is a re-plat of that Final Plat. When the Final Plat was approved for this project, when it was rezoned L-O, the applicant at that time was required to install partial I andscaping 0 n the buffer 0 n the western edge of the property. There was a requirement that he put in all the pine trees and, then, in the future, as those lots develop, the developer of each individual lot would have to complete that 20-foot buffer. These lots will now be people's rear yards and their homes, the city does not want to come in and say you're going to require a 20-foot landscape easement in people's back yards and tell them what they have to plant in their back yards. The use will be different, it will be a less intense use, it will be single-family use, rather than office use, and so there won't need to be the buffer between the different types of land uses. We have eliminated that requirement from this, so in case there is any confusion, if you remember that, we have, essentially, ignored that and said because this is a re-plat and people's back yards, we are not going to deal with that tonight. Staff feels that this is appropriate and feel it's appropriate enough to rezone it in some conflict with our Comprehensive Plan. We feel that this is a strong enough project that we can support this and we feel strongly that this is an appropriate use at this location, based on the uses that are in the surrounding area. In addition to the fact that this is an in-fill development and all the properties around it are developed and so we are going to get some density where we have nothing right now. With that, I would ask if you have any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, when was the Comprehensive Plan changed? Was it after it was rezoned to the L-O? McKinnon: The L-O was -- they were given the L-O zoning before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and the Comprehensive Plan was adopted just to mirror w hat the existing zoning was. Rohm: There you go. Okay. Thank you. Centers: Surrounded by residential, too, mostly other than across the street. McKinnon: Other than there is a commercial office, it's a -- I think it's Farmers Insurance Office, it's right here, and, then, you have the Castle Day Care -- Dreamland Day-Care. Meridian Planning and Zoning CommissIon Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 11401 132 Centers: Yes that-- McKinnon: Yes. Borup: And to the east is multi-family. McKinnon: To the east you have four-plexes, two story four-plexes, and to the west you have single-story, single-family detached housing. That was a big issue for Council. That was the reason for denial. It's in the staff report. I'm sure you have seen the staff report that references that. Like I said, I have talked with the applicant. There may be some desire to change this from being the triplex style town home to being attached single-family with a detached single-family and staff would not object to that -- that change. The only other item I think that may be brought up and might be a concern and the applicant can address tonight is on the plat they have said that we don't want -- they only want to do single-story. I don't see any reason why staff would jump in the middle of saying not to a lIow a ny two-story adjacent to the two-story four-plexes. I t's not a requirement of the plat .- of the staff to restrict that to one-story over there. I believe it was very prudent of the applicant to require that over here that they are all one-story, but if they wanted to go two-story over here, staff wouldn't have any objections to that, should that be brought up tonight. Borup: Anything else? Rohm: I'm just curious. If we can't move forward without the rezone, it's seem like why don't we act on all three issues at the same time? I mean there is nothing wrong with taking public testimony, but you can't make a recommendation to Council. Borup: We can go through the testimony, reach a conclusion, and table it. McKinnon: And the reason - Rohm: And maybe -- Borup: Well, we wouldn't have to continue it. We can close the Public Hearing and table it, can't we? McKinnon: Sure could. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Rohm, I will address that question specifically. The reason why we decided to do this tonight, rather than hold a II three of them together and continue itis because it was noticed and there would be people here to testify tonight. You can see that there have been a number of people that have stayed through the night to testify for this, and your schedule is very heavy for the first meeting of each month. The next one is going to be really heavy, so that would dump all three of these on you at once. You can determine whether or not you think it's appropriate tonight and, then, the next meeting you guys aren't going to need to spend as much time, because if you have already determined it is appropriate, then, you have the rezone issue and that's the only one you deal with. Meridian PlannIng and Zoning Commission MeetIng January 16, 2003 Page 115of132 Centers: Right but I'm with Commissioner Rohm that we table to -- and we are going to have one new Public Hearing, a rezone. McKinnon: Yes. Centers: And we would have everything done. McKinnon: Move all three at the same time. Centers: Yes. Zaremba: And I agree with keeping them and forwarding them to the City Council, all three of them together. Borup: Right. Zaremba: So I think your suggestion of hearing these tonight and, then, holding it until the zoning catches up with it. Centers: Yes. That's good. McKinnon: Thanks, guys. If you guys want Bruce to address the issue of commercial connections or-- Borup: Yes. Zaremba: There is a five-year moratorium on digging up streets, isn't there something like that? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I will touch on that issue, too. What we have got, we had -- the utilities when they were installed were installed for commercial -- the commercial lots. The City of Meridian Public Works has a requirement for commercial services that we stub in larger diameter mains or services to commercial lots than we would residential lots. These lots, I believe, have eight-inch diameter water mains stubbed into them, far more than you would ever need for a house. So -- and there were fewer lots when it was a commercial subdivision than there is now, so the location of those services isn't hitting the right locations for the residential lots. Some of them do hit and they will be okay, we can work with the applicant on more or less converting them to residential type services to and try and minimize the amount that are going to have to be abandoned and replaced. I guess thaI's a point I just wanted to make, is that we will work with them on trying to preserve as many of them as we can, but there are going to have to be some that are going to have to be new. I do have some suggested modifications for the staff report and I can either go over those now or later into the hearing. The item with the no-cut moratorium that is an ACHD moratorium from their policies I simply put that note in there as more informational. I do have some additional language that I would add to that that might help the applicant feel Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeUng January 16. 2003 Page 116 of 132 a little more comfortable with that comment, too, so I will stand for any questions you have or I can give you the wording or however you would like to do it. Borup: Questions from the Commission question on the stubs, both sewer and water? Those connect -- well, maybe the sewer. Do the water connections need to be made out of the main line in the street or can they come out of the right of way and T off within the utility easement on the front of the lots? Freckleton: That's what we are trying to get away from is-- Borup: I kind of assumed -- Freckleton: -- coming outside of the right of way, T'ing and more or less having parallel mains behind the sidewalk that's going to serve several houses. There is locations where -- I can't really see them on this map, but - Borup: They are on our plat. Freckleton: There are locations where a main will hit in the right location. I think that's one right there. In that instance, you know, you can, -- we will just adapt residential service to that existing larger commercial service and make it work. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to come forward? Boyle: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive. I want to start off by saying good morning this morning. I'm glad that we are still all here for this hearing. I apologize I don't have a list of comments. I tried to work everything out with staff in advance to minimize the amount of time that you would spend here tonight. Unfortunately, we are going to get home in the morning. This development proposal is an in-fill project. We have worked closely with the staff and the staff has done a very good job of summarizing items. The development proposes 1 9 homes 0 n the site. They a re a II p reposed as single-story residences and, the staff has explained some of the history and the reason that we are back in front of you with single-story, has had application denied that were two-story in the past for some multi-family units by City Council. You guys -- many of you have been involved in the discussions. The office development that the developer was originally proposing here, he has decided to go with a residential development. A lot of that is due to market conditions and the market conditions that he sees as far as the marketing for offices and not being a very strong market right now. However, he does feel that this community that he's proposing here has a strong market at this point in time. This is proposed as a -- what I will call a seasoned citizen development. Essentially, they are going to market this to older folks, so they are proposing what would be a nice close-knit community here that would be a quiet area that would benefit those type of residents. Now, just to explain the development a little bit, as far as the landscaping - - and t he landscaping was discussed a little b it. This particular project Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 111 of 132 already has some evergreen trees that are planted around the entire perimeter boundary on the west side and also the east side that are already installed that were required when they came through with the office development. Now, that was in anticipation that there would be offices there and they would need to buffer these single- family homes and possibly the multi-family. Now he's coming in with single-family residential. Those trees will remain, they will just become part of the property owner's back yards, essentially, and they will have a nice evergreen tree in their back yard when they purchase the lot. Now, in addition to that, there are two common areas proposed, one on the east side of the project and one on the west side. Those common areas actually qualify as being larger than 10 percent of the overall sight, so even though this is an in-fill, the applicant is complying with the PUD requirements and providing 10 percent in open space. They will also have a pathway system that loops around the open areas 0 n both s ides and those pathways a re proposed to have some benches along them and, then, also some fairly heavy tree plantings around those pathways as well. That will provide a nice walking area for those seasoned citizens if they want to get out and exercise, it gives them a nice path. A lot of them like to walk. This will give them a nice area that's somewhat secluded to walk in so, we think that this is a -- going to be a really nice project with regards to that and I'm going to try to make my comments very brief here. The rezoning request, I would like to touch on that just briefly. Originally, when we submitted, it was a Planned Development request with the Preliminary Plat proposal. We have had quite a bit of discussion with the staff and that discussion has focused on the Planned Development Ordinance provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that were adopted recently. The conflict that Dave was talking about is the fact that in the L-O zone, single-family residential is not permitted as either a permitted use or a Conditional Use. We kind of went back and forth on this requirement, because there is another section in the PUD that says a variety of housing types may be included within a Single-family -- within a single Planned Development, including attached units, single-family attached homes, townhomes. duplexes, et cetera, regardless of the underlying zoning classification of the site. That's where the confusion has come in, is because that specific provision says you can present a residential PUD, regardless of the underlying zoning classification, thus the proposal, even though it's an L-O zone that we originally submitted, however, there is the conflict in the ordinance with the L-O saying you can't do single-family residential. To clarify that whole issue, we agreed with the staff that we would present a rezone request and take it back to the R.15 zone. Borup: Was it decided that that -- that that probably meant regardless of the residential zoning on the -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman and Clint - Borup: I mean that was the assumption I would have, because we have had various residentials on these -- McKinnon: Clint got that so close to my understanding of it as well, but let me explain understanding. In the PD Ordinance and schedule of use control, they said in all the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 118 of 132 residential zones you could do a residential Planned Development. Then, the L-O, the C-C, and CoG, I-L, all the rest of them, they said Planned Development was a Conditional Use in all of those zones, but a residential Conditional Use is prohibited in all 0 f those commercial zoning designations. Therein lies the - - it's not the fact that single-family homes themselves are prohibited it's a Planned Development for residential use is prohibited in those zones, including the L-O zone. Clint points out correctly that the Planned Development Ordinance does state that regardless of the underlying zone, so therein lies the conflict. Borup: Well, that was what I was thinking, when it says regardless of the underlying zone, do you think it intended to mean -- assumed it was a residential underlying zone? McKinnon: Yes and that's a flaw in the ordinance that we are going to have to correct, but rather than correct them point by point, we are going to hit a whole bunch of them at once and try to get a bunch done at one time, rather than nickel and diming our ordinance to death. Zaremba: Including the I-L zone? McKinnon: The industrial zone. Not the I-L zone. We have got one of those. Borup: But I assume you're okay with the rezone? Centers: Yes. Borup: Which is what we are -- Boyle: Right and part of the reason that we are here tonight is when we discussed it with staff, realizing that your agenda was very full for the next meeting, hopefully, we could discuss most of the issues tonight, have everything worked out, maybe even have the Public Hearing closed on these two items. Then, at the next meeting, the discussion has taken place and we can move through it fairly quickly. That's the intent, that's the reason we are here with you this early Friday morning. With that said, as far as the staff comments, we are in agreement with the staff conditions and they are pretty straight forward on this project. Bruce did explain some things related to the sewer and water services and he is correct, there are commercial services stubbed out to the properties right now. We would love it if the city would allow us to extend what they consider to be parallel water lines adjacent to their mains, because we wouldn't have to cut the road. In other words, if we can tap into these commercial services, extend them either direction, and put residential service connects off those that would be great. The developer, I'm sure, would be much happier doing that, because it would eliminate some of this cost with cutting into the street. Unfortunately, our understanding -- and I'm sure Bruce would agree with this, is the city policy is that they do not like to have and do not allow those parallel line extensions. There will be some of the services that we will have to actually cut into the street and tie into the mainline to bring into those homes. Some of them fall where they need to currently and we can use those, because they are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 1190f132 falling right near the lot line or on the lot lines in accordance with city policy. Site- Specific Condition Number 1, under - this is a Page 5 of the report -- talked about the applicant being responsible to abandoned the existing commercial and water services in accordance with city standards. I guess, you know, we just wanted that clarified, that we would abandon any unused services, but that we would still be allowed to work with staff, just as Bruce indicated, to utilize whatever commercial services we could. That was just a clarification there. Then Item Number 2, which was brought up by one of the Commissioners, is related to ACHD, it talks about their no cut moratorium, Bruce has some language, and maybe we would like to hear that. The discussion that I had with Bruce on that is ACHD -- their policy is to restrict cuts into roads that are less than five years old. However, they do -- they have allowed it, they do allow it in certain instances and a lot of it is based on the type of patch back asphalt that you do. Sometimes you have to do a 20-foot wide patch back if you're cutting into a new road, rather than just a -- maybe your standard trench width 0 f five feet or whatever, so they required wider patch back on that. Again, Site-Specific Number 2 of the staff comments, I was trying to get Bruce to just strike it - or just put in the language that we will comply with ACHD requirements. I mean it's an ACHD provision on the street cuts, not a Meridian City provision, and we will comply with ACHD. Centers: It says that. Boyle: So, yes, and that's all we are asking for there, so -- Centers: It says that. Boyle: Okay. Outside of that, I think everything else was in order as far as the requirements. They are requesting some reduced setbacks within the subdivisions. Some of those apply to the rear yards that are adjacent to the common areas. The way -- do we have one that actually shows the buildings, the Site Plan with the building footprints on it? Okay. Here we go. With the building footprints, the way that those lay out, to accommodate a micro pathway connection back into these lots, I believe it was in this particular area the setback will be roughly 12 feet from that common area. All the others actually meet the required 15-foot setback, but we do have that request to -- only along the common lot areas, reduce that rear yard to 12 feet. Again, to explain the way the project is going to function, this particular project is proposed with no fencing, no interior fencing. The lawns, the landscaping on the individual lots, will be totally maintained by the homeowner's association. There is a similar retirement -- I guess I shouldn't say retirement community. Maybe that's what you call them. Okay seasoned citizen community that is called La Playa that many of you are probably familiar with. It's going to be a similar concept here, where it's an open yard, open look, and the homeowner's association is maintaining those yards, so if one of these seasoned citizens, if they decide they want to go on vacation for a month and head south to Arizona. They can come back to a well-manicured lawn, pruned trees, and everything is in order on their lot. It is going to be somewhat open and we are trying to create that openness to provide a sense of community among the residents there and so with that, I know there was a lot of discussion about fencing along pathways. This is proposed to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 120 of 132 be open, so there will be eyes and ears and whatever else out onto those pathways and try to make this as pleasant of an experience as -- for the residents as we can. Outside of that, the only other -- actually, two points I want to bring up briefly and that was the staff -- Dave discussed the three-plexes, I guess, I will call them. There are three single-family dwelling units attached here, three here, and three here. The applicant -. or the developer would like to have the option of splitting those out to where there are two units attached and, then, a detached unit -- two units attached. Then, a detached and it really isn't an issue, I don't believe, for staff. It's a pretty insignificant change, but they would like to have the flexibility to go either way with those units. The only final point that I wanted to make is the developer is looking to get some units in the ground as soon as he can on this, because he feels there is a strong market. Presently, there are seven platted lots within this area that were platted when it was originally going to be commercial. He would like to have the opportunity to be able to pull up to seven Building Permits before the plat was recorded, which is the situation that the city has done in the past. Where after the Conditional Use Permit, the Final Plat is approved by the City Council, in certain instances such as that where there are existing platted lots, they have allowed for permits to be pulled on what would be those existing lots. Basically, what that means is if, for some reason -- if they started a Building Permit on one of those lots and the market went south on the rest of the project, you would still just have a single -- you know, they could start out with some of the detached and maybe the attached on those lot lines. The point would be that they would still be entitled tot hose seven Building Permits, because t he lots are platted right now. H e wants to keep the option open if he can to be allowed to pull those seven Building Permits. I don't know if Dave has thought about that more, but we discussed that pretty extensively on that and that is an option that the developer would like to keep open. Borup: So you're saying it would be on house designs that would fit on the existing lot? Boyle: Right. Borup: I mean we don't know what the existing lot is. I don't know if any of those houses split the existing lot lines. I'm assuming that they don't. Or at least the ones that did you would not be able to get a permit on that. Boyle: Right and part of that could also apply, like I said, he would like to keep the option open to detach some of these units and, obviously, with a single detached unit in each of these areas, let's say, then, those would potentially fall on their own individual lots within what was previously platted for the commercial project. Borup: David, have you thought about that? It sounds like they are saying a Building Permit would be taken out on the existing lot design. McKinnon: Well, the issue that we run into is we could allow a Building Permit to be pulled on a lot, but if we allowed a Building Permit to be pulled on a lot for a project with a Conditional Use Permit that hasn't been approved yet by Council -- at what point were you wanting to pull those -- Meridian Planning and Zoning CommIssion Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 121 of 132 Boyle: Well, let me back up. McKinnon: Prior to the plat being recorded? Boyle: Prior to the plat recording. We will be through all the approvals with City Council, the Conditional Use Permit, the rezone, and the Final Plat, it's just a matter of allowing those permits to be pulled prior to the plat being recorded, which -- McKinnon: And we have allowed that in the past. The only thing that we would require is the same thing that we would require on the Final Plat, that you have bonded for the improvements that are required, just all the standard things that you need for a signature on that plat. Boyle: Right. Centers: How much time does that save you two weeks? Boyle: Actually, in this instance it will save quite a bit of time, just because it's not -- it's not like your typical subdivision. Most of the improvements are already in, so the developer is going to have some -- well, I won't say minimal cost, because it's a substantial cost tome, but in the development world his costs are going to be fairly minimal as far as him improvements. He's not going to be running new sewer and water mains in the street, so he's going to be able to bond for everything, move that plat through fairly quick and start his improvements. Basically, with all the agency time that's required to get that plat through and to recording after we get approval from the City Council, there is a very good chance that due to the minimal amount of construction that he has h ere, that he will be waiting for that plat to catch up, when he could be moving dirt and getting foundations going. Borup: As soon as the rezone is done, you can take out a permit on houses that fit on the existing lot is that -- McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: Right. Boyle: And this is something that isn't new to the city. I don't -- McKinnon: We have done this in the past. Boyle: They have done it in the past, so it's not -- we are not treading new ground here. It's the same old tires on that situation. McKinnon: The only thing that we have to work out is the public works and the utility issues. Just a comment real quick on the whole, parallel water lines that Clint was talking about. My understanding -- and Bruce can correct me if I'm wrong or Clint, but Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 122 of 132 the parallel water lines running onto the property and, then, out across, if the person on the front end of that line has to turn off the water, that tums off the water to everybody else that's on part of that parallel line. That's typically why you don't allow them to -- to each have their own or they are all off of -- I guess you would call it a cone, you got the spine and everybody else comes off of that. If you have to shut off the spine, then, nobody gets any water. Borup: Doesn't that depend on where you put the valves? McKinnon: Yes it would. Boyle: I mean, essentially, it would be like running another mainline, you know, that would serve -- you know, we can take a situation -- there is a service here and we are proposing to extend it over there. It may be -- you know, maybe we came off of the service here and ran it -- ran it up to these lots as well, you know, and, then, just like Commissioner Borup stated, it would depend on your valve. I don't know. I mean if the city policy -- McKinnon: One of the issues as well is you have to provide an easement across those private properties to run that across, is you have a bunch of easements strewn about. Borup: Well, there is already an easement there. Boyle: Right ad, like we mentioned, if the city would allow that parallel line, we would be happy to have that option. Borup: Well, that you're going to have to work out with Public Works, I'm assuming. I would -- I mean I haven't studied this, but I would think that maybe some of them you could do that where it was minimal and others where you would need to do the street cuts. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, we will work with them on the ones that work and the ones that don't we will have to -- we will work something out. Parallel lines -- we have jurisdictional limits. You know, right now our jurisdiction is at the meters, that's where our jurisdiction stops and the homeowner's responsibility takes off. If we have parallel mains, that means we are going to have to be -. we are responsible for that main down the sidewalk, all the way across the front of those properties. It's just not a good situation. So -- but, like I said, we will work with them on trying to make the ones that fit work. Some of them just flat don't work. I mean they fall right on the property line -- on the proposed property lines, utilities are getting stacked on top of each other. We have to maintain certain sanitary separation distances from sewer and water and any DEQ standards and it's getting kind of tight in there. I don't see this is a -- something that can't be worked out. We will just have to get together with Pinnacle and work out the details. Borup: That sounds - Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 123 of 132 Boyle: Yes I'm wrapped up here. I appreciate you staying very late or very early thank you. Zaremba: Let's see. While you're there, did I see that you have some of the elevations on the slides also? Would you go to what we have in our packet as the left elevation? That one. Is there any architectural detail or windows or anything that can be put on that one big blank side? Boyle: In fact -- well -- and, hopefully, the developer can correct me if I'm wrong. This particular -- the elevations are probably more representative -- or the pictures -- this particular elevation with this blank wall, the way that we have it proposed, the majority of these, if not all of them, are going to have windows out on the sides to accommodate the bedrooms and things that they have got proposed in there. Zaremba: So nothing like that would face the street? Boyle: No. Centers: That is a garage. Boyle: That is. That's correct. I didn't notice that. That is a garage side there but yes, I don't know that we have any problem with providing architectural features adjacent to the street or on all sides. I don't think that's - Borup: You can get one window in there. Zaremba: Or even a fake window. Boyle: Right. Zaremba: Something to break it up a little. That was my only question. Borup: On the layout we have don't have -- all the garages are on the common line, too so that picture is not jiving with our plat layout. Boyle: Not exactly. I mean it was just more representative, just showing the kinds of building styles, but -- Borup: Yes. We need to get any testimony on the microphone. Zaremba: Let me ask one other question. You're mentioning that these may be retired people who can take off to Arizona every once in awhile. Are your CC&Rs going to have any restrictions about parking RVs on the property? Since that would not be -- Boyle: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 124 of 132 Zaremba: It doesn't look like there is space for it and -- Boyle: Right. Zaremba: -- it wouldn't be very attractive. Boyle: Yes. They don't -- I don't believe the developer intends to have any RV parking and in talking with him, the covenants are going to be fairly restrictive. You know, obviously, they are looking for a particular market and a particular look with the fencing and everything else. He's shaking his head, no, that there wouldn't be any RV parking allowed within the subdivision. Borup: Thank you. Most of those that signed up were signed up for. Mrs. Epperson, did you still have some questions? Epperson: My name is Dorothy Epperson. I live at 214 South Outfield Way and my house is directly behind that first parked area on the west side. Yes, right behind there. My only question was regarding -- originally, when we got the notice was, great, we are going back to the two stories again. After the break, I had a chance to speak with the developers and I feel very comfortable with what they are trying to do. It wouldn't be any different if it was residential lots and they built houses there. I like the park setting that they are providing. I don't have any other questions, other than I was afraid it was another two-story building that we were going to go back to originally so I feel very comfortable with what they have proposed. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Thank you. Commissioners? Zaremba: I agree, this seems like a big improvement over what we saw the other time. Borup: It definitely answered all the concerns the neighbors had. Zaremba: Yes several of us, even when we did approve it, were holding our noses. This one appears to be a good solution. Borup: Okay. It sounds like our earlier discussion, talking about maybe going ahead and - well, let's discuss any proposed motions. Would it be proper to not make the motion tonight -- can we make a motion and, then, table it? Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would recommend against making a formal motion on anything tonight. Borup: That's what I was thinking. Wollen: Because you're still dealing with hypotheticals and something that's not approved in the zone. I would - it's up to you if you want to continue the Public Hearing on this or if you want to close the Public Hearing and, then, table the issues. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16. 2003 Page 125 of 132 Borup: That would be my preference, to close the hearing and table it. I think we can maybe discuss what the motion may be. Centers: Well, I think it's straightforward and clean. Borup: We didn't have any - do we have any changes from the staff comments? Zaremba: Yes. I don't have any issue with the applicant choosing whether they are three-plexes or two-plexes, with a single -- I think that's fine. What was the other question? Borup: Well, the applicant had one comment on a couple of site-specific comments, about abandoning the sewer and water and he's saying he hadn't abandoned any unused. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I have got some suggested language I would like to give you. Borup: On the street cut? Freckleton: On the sewer and water and the street cut. Borup: Okay. That's-- Freckleton: If you'd like that now. Borup: Wouldn't we rather get the information down tonight and not worry about that next time? Zaremba: It would just be a slam-dunk next time. Freckleton: Okay Page 5, staff report, under Preliminary Plat findings and requirements. Item B, under the availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development. I would recommend that we just strike everything after the first sentence. Start there where it says existing and strike all the way through to lots and then down - Zaremba: And what if we take the first sentence and say staff finds public services are available to accommodate the proposed subdivision with some modifications? Probably be more appropriate. Freckleton: That's fine. Okay Site-Specific Number 1, same page. Strike after where it says Scottsdale Subdivision. Strike a commercial subdivision, applicant will be responsibility to abandon existing commercial water and sewer services in accordance with city standards and install new residential services to each lot. Strike all of that so, the comment will simply read, sanitary sewer and water services to this site shall be via Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 126 of 132 existing main lines installed as part of the development of Scottsdale Subdivision. Period. Subdivision designer to coordinate sizing and routing with Public Works Department. Zaremba: So, the final sentence remains? Freckleton: Yes. Okay and, then, Item 2 under Site-Specific Page 6, in regards to the street cut moratorium. I would just simply suggest adding another sentence to the end of that that says any cuts will need to be specifically approved by ACHD. Staff would also like to make a recommendation that with the timing of the applications that we have discussed tonight, that we work with the Clerk's Office to try and put these applications at the first of the agenda for the next meeting. Zaremba: I agree with that. Back on your Page 6, Item 2 any cuts will need to be approved by ACHD. Specifically approved any reason to -- for staff to see that in writing from ACHD? Borup: You got to get a permit to do a street cut - to do anything in the right of way, I think. Freckleton: Yes and before we got into any construction, the City of Meridian Works with ACHD on pre-construction meetings and that sort of thing and -- Zaremba: It would all come out then. Freckleton: Yes it all comes out then. I wouldn't hold the meeting if I didn't have their approval. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: That's all. Borup: Okay. Remember, we need to keep this to next time to make that motion. Center: And, then, under the CUP was where we would -- you know, the Zoning Department to cooperate, if possible, to issue seven Building Permits as soon as possible. Borup: So, that would be Item Number 7? Centers: Yes on the CUP yes. I don't think you're wasting your time coming back in two weeks or whatever it is. Do we have a different owner this time? Unidentified Speaker: Same one. It's been the same one for along time. Borup: Okay. Did we close these hearings? I don't think we did, did we? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 127 of 132 Zaremba: We did not. Centers: No, we didn't. Wollen: The Pubic Hearings are still open. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 11 and 12. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearings on Items 11 and 12. Be open for a motion to table both items. Zaremba: We need to vote. Borup: I'm sorry. I'm trying to go home. All in favor? Any opposed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we table PP 02-029 and CUP 02-045, both actions requiring to -- relating to Scottsdale Villas Subdivision, until our first meeting in February, which I believe is February 6th, to be the first items on the agenda. Coupled with that, the anticipated rezone to be handled first also. Actually, these two should follow the anticipated rezone. That should be Number 1 and this should be 2 and 3. Centers: Second. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: And, then, Dave, when these come back, the wording of the agenda items will be more appropriate. I mean because of -- okay. You know what I mean. McKinnon: I'll work with the Clerk's Office on that. I think we also need to change the address from Southwest 7th to Southwest 8th, but we can get all that worked out. Centers: Yes he picked up on that one. Meridian Plannina and Zonlna Meetina February 6. 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, February 6,2003, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, Leslie Mathes, and Members Absent: Michael Rohm. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Jill Holinka, Wendy Kirkpatrick, Jessica Johnson, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance: X David Zaremba X Jerry Centers X Leslie Mathes X Michael Rohm X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. I appreciate your indulgence while we had -- we had a few items to get taken care of before we started. We'd like to start with roll call attendance of the Commissioners. Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of January 16, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: The first item is a Tabled Public Hearing -- well - Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes, Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we table approval of the minutes of January 16th until our next meeting, which would be February 20th. Mathes: Second. Zaremba: Motion and second all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 4. Tabled Public Hearing from January 16, 2003: PP 02-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and 2 other lots on 3.66 acres in an L-O zone for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - West Alden Drive, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and Southwest 7th Avenue: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeUng February 6, 2003 Page 2 of 106 Item 5. Tabled Public Hearing from January 16, 2003: CUP 02-045 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 19 single-family attached units in an L-O zone for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - West Alden Drive, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and Southwest 7th Avenue: Item 6. Public Hearing: RZ 03-002 Request for a Rezone of 3.66 acres from L- o to R-15 zones for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. for Wolfe Commercial Enterprises, LLC. - West Alden Drive, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and SW 7th Avenue: Borup: Okay Items 4 and 5 have been tabled from the previous meeting. We've had public and all the other testimony on those two items. Did we close the Public Hearing? The hearing is still open. I guess we'd like to re-open those two, PP 02-029 and CUP 02-045 and we'd like to open Public Hearing RZ 03-002. This is a request for a rezone of 3.6 acres from L-O to R-15 zones for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision. That's on the same project as those previous two hearings. At this time we'd like to start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This application, as you mentioned, was before you at your last meeting. Both the Preliminary Plat and the Conditional Use Permit were heard at that time. The meeting was, then, tabled or continued to this one in order for the rezone application to catch up with it. Upon reviewing those two applications, the Preliminary Plat and the Conditional Use, it was determined by staff that a rezone application would have to accompany them in order for them to be permitted uses. That rezone application has been received and that's what is before you tonight. In as much as you have already discussed the plat and the Conditional Use Permit at length, I'll focus mainly on the rezone itself, but in summary of the others, the Preliminary Plat, it's made up of 19 new residential lots. Those lots are currently zoned Limit Office in the configuration that you can see outlined in black in the center of the screen. The proposal would be to rezone these from Limited Office to R- 15, instead of the lots as shown on the existing zoning map, it would have the configuration as shown on this plat, with additional smaller lots for the use as town homes and single-family attached dwelling units. Borup: Steve, you just might want to note that the color plat you had included one extra lot. Siddoway: Ah, yes. Borup: But the engineered one looked .. Siddoway: This lot up front on Franklin Road is already developed and would not be re- subdivided. This is an aerial photo. It was actually taken a couple years ago before that front lot was developed. As you can see, it's not being re-subdivided in the actual plat. Thank you. This was the site -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 3 of 106 Zaremba: correctly. rezoned? Just for clarification -- I'm sorry, Steve. That parcel is not being rezoned The one that's already built on with the commercial spaces is not being Siddoway: Correct. That's correct. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: This is the Site Plan showing the layout of the single-family attached homes and townhomes. These are the elevations of those proposed structures. You should have a staff report dated January 7th from Bruce Freckleton and David McKinnon, addressing all three applications in the same staff report. The staff does recommend approval of these applications with the conditions noted in that report. I will stand for any questions. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Shall we act -- shall we not act on the rezone first? Is that the -- Siddoway: That would probably be correct. Borup: Okay. Any -- was there any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Is the applicant -- Zaremba: I would ask a question of Bruce, I guess. Siddoway: I'll find him. Zaremba: But it can wait. Borup: Does the applicant have anything to add? Boyle: Good evening, Planning Commission. Again, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive in Boise, appreciated meeting with you a little earlier this time than the last time. As you recall, it went into the early morning hours, I think, as I recall. I just wanted to point out just a couple of items real briefly. I know that we have already been through all the testimony and you're fully aware of what's proposed here, so I don't want to take up a lot of time. I have just a quick handout, if I could present it to the Commission. Borup: First of all, did you have anything additional on the rezone? Then-- Boyle: I did not have any additional comments on the rezone. I'm in agreement with the staff and their recommendation to approve the rezone. Borup: All right. Boyle: The sheets that I passed out to you specifically address site-specific items and other items related to the Preliminary Plat and the Conditional Use Permit. Basically, all Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeeUng February 6, 2003 Page 4 of 106 I did was summarize comments that the Commission made -- you guys, if you recall, went through the staff report on the Preliminary Plat and the Conditional Use Permit. You didn't make a formal motion, but these were some of the items as you kind of went through the site-specific requirements that you wanted to add or delete from those and I'll just briefly run through these. I have got the page numbers listed here within the staff report. If you turn to Page 5, you requested that the second sentence be deleted. The only reason I'm bringing these up is because it was not reflected in the latest report that you have from the staff. On Page 5, the second sentence under Item B, indicating existing commercial sanitary services, water services, will need to be abandoned in accordance with city standards, et cetera. As you recall, that 0 ne was deleted and, basically, the discussion behind that was that we would work with the Public Works Department in determining what was appropriate for those service provisions. Item Number 2, again, on Page 1 down on site-specific, the request was to remove the phrase commercial subdivision under Site-Specific Item Number 1 from the end of the first sentence. Then, delete the entire following sentence and keep the last sentence that says that we will coordinate the sizing, routing, et cetera, of utilities with the Public Works Department. T hen, Number 3 is on Page 6 as well, Site-Specific Number 2, there you also discussed adding to the end of that paragraph that any cuts would be specifically approved by ACHD into the street. Finally, under the Conditional Use Permit, there were just some additions to the site-specific regarding this specific request in the street frontage. Again, we are proposing what would be eight feet street frontages for the flag lots, as I will call them that are along the common driveway. A 40- foot street frontage required on aU other lots within the subdivision. The setbacks for the dwelling -- dwellings themselves, and that would be not driveway locations, but, actually, livable areas. Finally, that the Building Department would cooperate on the potential of pulling some permits. I just wanted to bring those up. That was at least what I had in my notes from the discussion the Commissioners h ad last time. With those items, we are certainly in agreement with the modifications that I have submitted to and the staff conditions as presented otherwise. Since we had a lot of discussion, I'll stand for any questions. If you want me to go back into details on the project, I can. Borup: Any questions of the Commission? Did his notes jive with what you remembered? Zaremba: It's, actually, your first item I was going to ask Bruce about and I will ask you both, since you're both here and probably discuss it between you. Hasn't -- in the intervening two weeks has anything been worked out on changing the sewer system from commercial to -- sewer and water from commercial to residential? Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, no, we haven't had dialogue on that. Zaremba: 0 kay but as far as you're concerned, you're willing to work together with Public Works and cooperate and -- Boyle: We are comfortable working with Public Works, as long as Bruce takes it easy on us. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 5 of 106 Zaremba: And Bruce is comfortable with not being more specific in our requirements? Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, the discussion, as I remember it from the last time when we talked about the services, was the services that are out there, the commercial services that are out there. Some of them are -- can be converted easily enough, some of them just don't fall in the right place. Zaremba: The issue was they don't land on the lots. Freckleton: Right. Right and so in those cases, you know, these services are going to have to be extended. We are not going to - we are not going to approve parallel mains and, you know, running lines parallel to the sidewalk behind the sidewalk outside of the road just to accommodate not having to cut the road. We just can't do that so, in those cases where the services don't make sense where they are at, new services are going to have to be installed. Perhaps Clint could enlighten us on maybe some dialogue that he's had with ACHD as far as their permission to cut the road. Boyle: As far as the service provisions, we are confident that we will be able to work out the service provisions, whether we need to cut the street or not. ACHD, as far as cutting the road, again, the discussions we have had with ACHD, they typically do not like to see cuts within a road that's less than five years old. However, they will allow them. You have some wider patch back sections that you have to do with those roads, so you have got to actually cut a wider section than you typically would if you were just running a typical service out and tying into the middle of the street, but we are confident that we can work that out with your staff as far as the service provisions and the cuts in the road. Borup: Okay. Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba -- Clint, have you talked to the Highway District? Boyle: I haven't talked since last meeting. That was discussion we had previously. Freckleton: Okay. Boyle: Talking to John Carpenter and some of the engineers in our office that had discussions with ACHD. Freckleton: Okay in the past or specifically on this project and this issue? Boyle: Not specific to this particular project, as far as the cuts in the road, but on other similar projects, they have allowed those cuts. Freckleton: Okay. Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Bruce and Steve, you have received a copy of Clint's memo, obviously? I think it would be appropriate that you review it. You want to give them a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6. 2003 Page 6 of 106 copy? He covered the notes that I had made, but I would be a lot more comfortable if staff would sign off on it with us. Borup: Anything else, Clint? Boyle: That's all. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone here to testify on the rezone on this application? All right. Thank you. Let's wait for the comment from Steve. Centers: I didn't have any notes on the setbacks and that type of thing, Steve. Everything else was discussed at the last meeting. I had a note that we were okay with the setbacks and that was the only note I had made and, then, he put them in detail there. Borup: Which one are you wondering about, Steve? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I was just wanting to make sure that these frontages, setbacks, are, actually, the -- depict what's -- reflect what's depicted on the plan. Bruce is just working out some wording related to the utilities and sewer provisions. Zaremba: While the staff is thinking, I could ask another question of Mr. Boyle. I think we have discussed, in addition to this, a design feature on your left elevation looking a little bit blank, that would you do something -- Boyle: As far as adding some sort of architectural or pop out-- Zaremba: -- whatever to make it -- Boyle: No problem at all. Zaremba: Just wanted to reconfirm that that was the agreement. Boyle: Right. Yes. We are totally in agreement on that, so -- and the elevation -- like we discussed before, they want a little flexibility on the units that had three attached, because there is a good chance they will go with two attached and one separate unit. They don't have any -- they want this to be a first class development for seasoned citizens and certainly don't have any problem with adding the architectural features for windows and things like elevations and -- Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Boyle: Yes. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Mesting February 6. 2003 Page 7 of 106 Freckleton: Looking at the proposed modifications from Clint, I have got some suggestions on that. Page 5, Preliminary Plat findings, and requirements, Item B, I would like to leave the second sentence as written. Centers: Starting with -- Bruce, starting with existing? Freckleton: Clint's proposal was to delete the second sentence starting with existing, all the way through. My recommendation would be to leave it as is, but add to the end of it: As deemed appropriate by Public Works Department. We feel that that's going to give us the opportunity to go through and look at the ones that do warrant modification and conversion to residential services and those that don't, they will have to abandoned and install new residential services. Centers: So leave the whole paragraph? Freckleton: Leave the whole sentence, but add to the end of it, as deemed appropriate by Public Works Department. Centers: Right. Zaremba: How about -- Freckleton: And on Page 5, site-specific -- Zaremba: Bruce, before you go on. Freckleton: Yes. Zaremba: How about leaving the paragraph the way it is, but adding to the last sentence: Or modifications as deemed appropriate by the Public Works? Freckleton: Do you like that better? It's fine with me. Zaremba: It makes it a longer sentence, but the existing sentence, then, goes on to say, or modifications as deemed appropriate by Public Works. Department. Freckleton: Okay same page, Site-Specific Item Number 1. I would recommend just leaving that 0 ne as written, except the second sentence -- at t he end 0 f the second sentence adding in the same type wording, or modified as deemed appropriate by Public Works Department. It would read city standards and install new residential services to each a lot or modified as deemed appropriate. Centers: Are you crossing out the last sentence? Freckleton: No. Leave it in. Centers: So you're leaving in the whole paragraph? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 8 of 106 Freckleton: Leave in the whole paragraph, just insert after the word lot, or modifications as deemed appropriate by Public Works Department. I'm perfectly fine with Clint's suggested modification for Item Number 3 on his list, Page 6, Site-Specific Item Number 2. Zaremba: On the one you were just doing before that, the Site-Specific Item Number 1, deleting commercial subdivision is still appropriate, that parenthetical phrase, isn't it? Freckleton: I don't know if it's appropriate. It's fine to leave it if you want to. All I was trying to say there is that when Scottsdale Subdivision was originally developed, it was a commercial subdivision. I'm fine with the deletion, if you'd like to do thaI. Centers: Just leave it in. It doesn't matter. Zaremba: Yes. Okay. Freckleton: I'll let Steve address the Conditional Use comments. Siddoway: Well, this is a Planned Development, so if the Commission deems it appropriate, it is okay to modify the zoning standards to meet the specific elements of the project, like the eight-foot street frontages for the flag lots, 40 feet of frontage on the other lots, which that does match. Ten-foot street side setbacks are a reduction and, then, Item Number -- but probably okay, if -- unless there was issues raised with that last week -- or two weeks ago when I wasn't here. Item three. I'll probably just state that the Building Department may cooperate to allow seven Building Permits prior to the plat recording. There are seven legal lots out there today, if you count up what's there today. The reason for the word may be because we need to determine how many of those existing sewer stubs a re modifiable and we don't know for sure that there are seven. In as much as there is sewer ability through the modification of the existing stubs, then, they could be provided. That's alii have. Borup: Any other questions? Comments? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearings on Items 4, 5, and 6 of our agenda be closed. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close all three public hearings. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. Go for a motion on Item 7, then, AUP 02-012 -- Wait. I'm sorry, Item 6, RZ 03-002, on the rezone. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Meridian Planning and Zoning CommissIon Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 9 of 106 Zaremba: I move we recommend approval to the City Council of Item 6 on our agenda, RZ 03-002, request for rezone of 3.66 acres from L-O to R-15 zones for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., for Wolfe Commercial Enterprises, LLC, West Alden Drive, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and Southwest 7th Avenue. Clarifying that this refers to the exact area for which we also have a Preliminary Plat before us, not including the northernmost lot, which was given to us on a display, but it's not part of the plat, to include all staff comments of the staff's memo of January 7, 2003. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Centers: I have a question. Borup: Any discussion? Centers: Well, was there any staff comments regarding the zoning in the memo of January 7th? I don't think there was. Borup: No. It was in the memo from -- Centers: Right so, you need to refer to the -- Borup: Oh, which date? Zaremba: Well, it recommended that it be rezoned. Centers: And we had nothing on zoning. Zaremba: Okay and, then, there are no staff comments. Siddoway: The findings for the rezone, Mr. Chairman, are in there. Centers: Are they? Borup: Yes, I thought there was. Siddoway: If you look on page -- Zaremba: The recommendation that it should be rezoned was in there. Siddoway: Page 2 starts with the standards for the zoning amendment -- Centers: And I skipped right by it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 6, 2003 Page 10 of 106 Siddoway: -- A through L, then, it goes on to the Preliminary Plat findings. There are no specific conditions of approval, however, tied to the rezone, so you're correct about that, but the findings are here that are required by ordinance. Centers: Very good. Zaremba: Then, I will leave my motion as previously stated. Borup: And we did have a second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Item Number 4. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we recommend approval to the City Council of Item 4 on our agenda, PP 02-029, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots, and two other lots on 3.66 acres in an L-O zone for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., West Alden Drive, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and Southwest ih Avenue. To include all staff comments of their memo of January 7th, with the following exceptions, on Page 6, which is a continuation of Site-Specific Comment Number 1, at the end of the sentence. Install new residential services to each lot, add: Or provide modifications in coordination as - or excuse me or provide modifications as approved by the Planning -- by the Public Works Department and, I'm sorry, delete that one. I missed one from before that. Centers: Well, you can go back. Zaremba: Yes. That one was true, but I'm going to go backwards. On Page 5, Item B, on under Preliminary Plat findings and requirements, at the end of the last sentence add a similar thing, or modified as approved by Meridian Public Works Department. Then, on Page 6, Site-Specific Comment Number 2. Centers: You just did that. Zaremba: Number 2 is any cuts shall be worked out in the agreement with ACHD. Borup: You already -- didn't you already cover this stuff on item one on -- Zaremba: I did -- I did them out of order, but I did say all three items. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: That would be the end of the motion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission MeetIng February 6, 2003 Page 11 of 106 Borup: Okay we have a motion. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Item Number 5. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 5 on our agenda, CUP 02-045, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 19 single-family attached units in an L-O zone for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. West Alden Drive, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and Southwest 7th Avenue, to include all staff comments of their memo of January 17, 2003, with the following changes. On Page 8 -- well, as modified by the Pinnacle Engineers' memo to the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 6, 2003, signed by Clint Boyle, with the exception that in Item 3 the word should will be changed to may. Centers: I think we really wanted at their discretion, the Building department may allow. I think that's the wording we want. Zaremba: I would accept that change so Item 3 reads at the discretion of the Building Department may allow seven Building Permits prior to the plat recording. Centers: I think that's good. They are not forced into it. Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 7. Public Hearing: AUP 02-012 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a Family Day Care for five or fewer children out of home in an R-4 zone for Carrie Herteux by Carrie Herteux - 2948 West Gemstone Drive: Borup: Item Number 7 is a Public Hearing on an Accessory Use Permit, AUP 02-012, permit for a family day care center for five or fewer children by Carrie Herteux at 2948 West Gemstone Drive. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request for an Accessory Use Permit for an in-home day care. It is for the smallest permit, if you will, that we have. It's for five or fewer children. It is located at the intersection of Gemstone -- and I'm missing the other street. It's on Gemstone Drive in Sunburst Subdivision at 2948 West Gemstone. You should have a staff report dated January 30th from Sonya Allen. In the summary of that, it does state that Planning and Zoning staff has received one objection to the proposed day care. We did today receive a second one, which you should have received a copy of in your boxes, from Clint and Debbie