Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 4, 2007 P&Z Minutes• Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 8 of 43 when we directed staff to make adjustments to their staff report and so we are going to listen to what the staff has to say tonight on that project and there may be some questions that come up in that presentation and anything that's brought up in our discussion will be open to the public to respond to as well. But only those items. We are not going to revisit the entire project from two weeks ago. Rohm: So, with that being said, at this time I'd like to open -- or reopen the continued Public Hearing from September 20th, 2007, of CUP 07-016 for the Selway Multi-family Development and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. On September 20th, 2007, the Selway Multi-family Development CUP was presented to the Commission regarding the site design of the proposed development. At that time the Commission continued the Public Hearing for the sole purpose of reviewing the revised building elevations. The applicant has submitted new elevations to staff for your review tonight. The revised elevations show the proposed buildings to be constructed with three different hardy plank siding materials, varying between wide plank, narrow plank, and board and batten siding. Incorporated into the design are stone accents on the front facades and pillars. The applicant chose the colors of the buildings to be tan and sage, which has not changed from the previous review. The applicant has also provided staff with additional elevations for building F as was directed by the Commission. So, if you remember from the 20th hearing, they were proposing 19 buildings and they are labeled -- the multi-family buildings are labeled A through H and A, B and C are to be the three story buildings and D, E and F are two story buildings. So, as I go through these slides so you're looking at these elevations, it's in order from A through H, so you can kind of visualize in your mind where this is within the development. Here is building A and B and, again, those will be three story structures. You can see some of the -- get my packet out here. I have also included with your packet tonight some of the elevations for you to look at as we go through the presentation. If you look at your A and B you can see there are some stone accents along the lower level of the building and along with the pillars and, then, again, there is the wide planking and the narrow planking. And that theme is pretty much continued throughout the development. E and F. This~is what they came with at the last hearing and this is the second elevation that staff had requested from them. Staff has received written comments from the applicant regarding condition 1.1.10 and 1.1.20 of the revised staff report and should be included in your packet. It was staffs understanding that tonight's proceedings were only for the review of the revised elevations. This concludes my presentation. I would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have regarding the project. Rohm: Any questions of staff? • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 9 of 43 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Bill? So, when you say it was your understanding -- I guess I don't know what you meant in relation to the response from the applicant. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I -- when we closed - - or continued the item to this hearing I thought you had gave staff direction to -- or the applicant to come back with revised elevations, because we weren't in favor of the vinyl siding. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Parsons: So, I just wanted to throw that in there to make sure that you are aware that the applicant wants to speak to modification -- modifying some of the conditions of approval. Also wanted to make note that we -- staff has prepared facts and findings of conclusion of law tonight based on what we had discussed at the previous meeting. Newton-Huckabay: So, if we allow discussion on 1.1.10 and 1.1.20, we have to reopen the Public Hearing to public testimony and continue again for new Findings. Parsons: I would defer that to Mr. Baird. Baird: Mr. Chair and Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, you have correctly summarized the situation. And I have reviewed the minutes from the prior meeting and it was continued specifically to discuss the siding and the exterior treatments. So, it's in your discretion whether you want to reopen that, but that's exactly what will happen is that you will have to hear a lot of testimony on any new issues that are brought up tonight. And most likely the Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law that are in your packet would need to be redrafted and continued for another week -- or another meeting. Rohm: The problem I have with any of this is if, in fact, we open it for additional items beyond the exterior, that there are people that were here at the last hearing that didn't come tonight from the -- with the understanding that we were only going to be talking about the elevations. So, I'm a little bit concerned that -- that we would talk about something that the public wouldn't have an opportunity to provide input. And so it's possible if we expand the discussion to items beyond the elevations themselves, that it would be in our best interest and the public's to continue it once we have heard those -- that discussion as well, just to give the public an opportunity for additional input, too. But that's -- that's just from my perspective. So, Mr. Baird, do you -- how do you feel about that? • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 10 of 43 Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just continuing it again wouldn't actually give the public any additional notice. The applicant would have to renotice these issues that the public thought were resolved at the September 20th hearing are going to be heard again. You had a full hearing, you resolved all the issues except for the exterior. If there -- if the applicant has any quarrel with anything in your decision, they have the opportunity take it up at the City Council and I suggest that you let that process follow its course. Rohm: Thank you. That's good advice. Appreciate your input. And that's why you're here. Thank you very much. Okay. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, did you have anything else of staff or -- Newton-Huckabay: No. I just wanted to make sure that I understood clearly where -- where this would all fall out, because I'm in complete agreement that I don't want to discuss anything that the public at large, who was here before, didn't have a chance to hear, mainly -- I mean there has been a lot of contentious -- contention around this development anyway. I don't think that we need to take a chance of muddying the waters further, so -- Rohm: And with that being said -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh. Wait. So, that being said, do we decline accepting discussing this letter with the applicant and -- or -- I mean how do we address that in the record that we are not going to -- just by way of the conversation we have had? Rohm: I think that the applicant has an opportunity to respond to the elevations and that's the -- that's what's on the table tonight. And not the letter from the applicant. That would be my opinion. But Mr. Baird can weigh in on that as well. But that appears to be outside of what the continuance was for. Baird: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there is a couple of ways that you could handle that. You could just make a motion to reject the letter. You could ignore the letter. You could -- the discussion you have already had has already put the applicant on notice that you're not going to entertain any testimony with regard to that tonight. So, it's really up to you on how you want to handle that. Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to, then, make a motion that we are going to reject the letter and not discuss it and if the applicant would like to appeal to City Council, that would be a direction they need to go. Moe: I'd second that. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 11 of 43 Newton-Huckabay: End of motion. Rohm: Okay. ~I -- we have never had that before, but there has been a motion to reject the applicant's letter and it's been seconded. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. O'Brien: Aye. Rohm: Okay. It's -- the motion has been approved. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from September 20, 2007: CUP 07- 016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 171 multi-family dwelling units in an R-4 zone on a ten acre site located within the Lochsa Falls Planned Development for Selway Multi-Family Development by J-U-B Engineers -west side of N. Goddard Creek Road, approximately 500 feet north of McMillan Road and '/4 mile east of Ten Mile Road: Hood: Mr. Chair, before you ask the applicant to come forward to discuss the elevations, I just want to be clear for the record -- even though you have rejected the letter, it's still going to be part of the record. I mean the letter doesn't just go away. I mean we will put it in the file and it's here for public record for ever and ever, but I just wanted that to be clear on the record that we did receive a letter from the applicant, so -- Rohm: It's just not going to be part of our -- we are not going to change the staff report based upon the letter. The letter has been received and certainly will go in your -- in your file. At this time I'd like to have the applicant come forward for discussion of what this continuance was for. Thowless: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Wayne Thowless, project architect for the Selway Apartment project and Rudeen Development. Business address 1735 Federal Way, Boise. As requested at the last Public Hearing, we have come back tonight. We submitted revised exterior elevations to staff. You have seen those. They are in your packet. We have also brought tonight a revised material sample board, which is over here for your review. It reflects several things that were discussed at the last Public Hearing and requested by the Commission. First being the shingles have been changed to black to match the predominate shingle color in the adjacent subdivision. And if you would. excuse me for just a moment, I will bring the previous sample board • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 12 of 43 over a little closer, so you can compare the two as I continue my comments. As we had indicated at the last hearing, there didn't seem to be a great deal of concern regarding the general architecture, massing, color scheme of the buildings, it was primarily an issue of choice of material when it comes to the siding, not the roof. And so what we have shown here, as requested and was part of the motion, was to utilize hardy plank siding, which would be painted, and in lieu of the vinyl siding that had been previously proposed. On the board Daren just brought over that was what was shown last time. The light sage green and the tan were standard vinyl siding colors and on our new material board the darker sage green and the darker tan are currently proposed colors on a wide plank profile and a narrow plank profile of the hardy plank material. We have also included this time there between the green and the shingles, the color of the trim on the buildings. That trim color would be around windows, doors, the facia, and some belly bands between floors. The strip of material on the left-hand side of the board is a sample of a standard vinyl window and patio door color. It's a standard almond or tan, which would be utilized on the project. The color on the elevations on the PowerPoint presentation, unfortunately, does not show up, but I think in your packets you have perhaps a better rendition and I just want to reiterate, as we had mentioned at the last Public Hearing, that the -- the arrangement of the colors on the buildings, the wide and narrow plank siding, et cetera, varies from building to building, as well as the stone veneer. So, there are a few buildings that will be identical, but they are not next to one another. And so there is some buildings that have more stone than others, there is some buildings that have green up high and tan below and others that have tan down -- vice-versa, et cetera. It should also be noted that some of the buildings we have incorporated, particularly on the front elevations, some vertical board and batten siding, using the same hardy plank material, but introducing a little bit more variety in that fashion as well. Daren, can you grab that board that's just behind there. I did not bring large revised elevations of each building tonight, but this here gives some idea of the variations that are involved. Here is an example here on a smaller two story building of some of that vertical board and batten treatment that we have incorporated, along with the two horizontal plank patterns and the accent stone veneer. If you'd like to take a closer look you're welcome, go up and touch the materials, et cetera. And I'd certainly stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you very much. Questions of the applicant? Moe: Sure. Probably not so much a question as just a statement, because you spoke earlier about what we had talked about. I just -- for the record, I just want to make sure everybody understood that -- that I was looking for the wood siding, the stone accents, and I was also looking for stucco. So, I'm assuming at least you reintroduced in some board and batten to make it that way and so I don't • • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 13 of 43 have a real problem with it any longer. I just wanted to make sure there was some differences and accents on these buildings. The stucco would have matched a little bit more of your neighborhood behind you, but Ican -- I'm fine with what you have done there. That was it. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman? I had one question. What type of material will you be using around the enclosures for the trash receptacles? Thowless: It has -- Mr. Chairman and Commissioner O'Brien, as was stipulated by a condition of approval, that will be a split face concrete block with metal gates. O'Brien: Okay. Rohm: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you, sir. There is nobody that has signed up to speak to this application, but at this time we will take testimony specific to these elevations that have been discussed by the applicant. So, if there is anyone that would like to come forward and speak, now is that time. And there is nobody that had signed up, so there is no public testimony on this application. So, thank you for coming in. Discussion? Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I really have nothing of substance to add. It's what I expected to see. I think it will fit better in the neighborhood and the surrounding area, and so -- I had also hoped to see some stucco, but I do like what -- as Commissioner Moe said, I did like what you have done with the vertical bat and boards -- is that what they are called? Moe: Batten board. Newton-Huckabay: Batten board. I thought -- I think that looks nice, so -- Rohm: Commissioner O'Brien, do you have any -- O'Brien: I just want to add, too, that I think it's a great change. I think it's going to really make the area look a lot nicer, more compatible with the surrounding development of the area. So, I'm pleased with what they have done. That's all I have. Rohm: Commissioner Moe. You're fine? Moe: Nothing further. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 14 of 43 Rohm: I'd like to say that I appreciate what the applicant has done in response to Commission's request and I think you have done an excellent job coming forward with a much improved project. So, thank you very much. At this time I'd like to get a motion to either approve or deny this application for a CUP. Newton-Huckabay: Do we need to close the Public Hearing? Rohm: Yeah. Better close the Public Hearing first. Newton-Huckabay: I move to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07-016. Moe: I'll second that. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 07- 016. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question related to the motion that we make for approval of this CUP. Do we have to go back and reiterate all those points that we made at the last meeting or -- I mean -- Rohm: I actually think -- Newton-Huckabay: I don't know what the spirit of the wording of the motion needs to be to make sure that it captures the -- Rohm: I believe staff has incorporated everything that we had discussed and made a point of in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and changes to the staff report from last time to this time; is that correct? Parsons: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, that is correct. Moe: So, it's as per the staff report. O'Brien: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure if that trash enclosure stated concrete block -- Moe: Yes, it did. • Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 15 of 43 O'Brien: I thought it still had the slats on it. Moe: No. No. The -- O'Brien: I thought I read that. Moe: It is in there. O'Brien: Okay. Then, I don't have any questions. Moe: At least that's what I read. • Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, that being said, then, I can just make a motion and reference -- Moe: You need to reference the continuation of the staff -- of the hearing to tonight and that staff report is good. It's as per the staff report for tonight. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Why don't you make the motion, Commissioner Moe. Moe: No. You're fine. You're there. You asked the question. I'm just answering your question. Newton-Huckabay: And I'm not really sure -- I just want to make sure I follow your -- so -- Moe: Caleb, all we need to do is just reference the continuation of the hearing to tonight and it's the staff report for tonight's hearing; correct? Hood: That's correct. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Bill has already assumed that you wouldn't have any changes to make, so the Findings that you're going to act on next already assume these elevations, color schemes, material, so unless you want to change the Findings somehow, you do not need to make any changes to the staff report as written and the Findings that you will look at next. Newton-Huckabay: Uh-huh. Okay. Continued Public Hearing -- so, the staff report dated -- Moe: Do you want me to do this? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Would you mind. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 16 of 43 Moe: Okay. Mr. Chair? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file numbers CUP 07-016 presented in the staff report for the continued hearing date of October the 4th, as stated. Of 2007. As stated. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve project CUP 07-016 to include the staff report as presented for the continued Public Hearing of October 4th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 07-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for 171 multi-family dwelling units in an R-4 zone on a ten acre site located within the Lochsa Falls Planned Development for Selway Multi-Family Development by J-U-B Engineers -west side of N. Goddard Creek Road, approximately 500 feet north of McMillan Road and '/4 mile east of Ten Mile Road: Rohm: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move to consider -- can't even talk now. I move to accept the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 07-016 for the hearing date of October 4, 2007. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 07-016. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. ~ i Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 4, 2007 Page 17 of 43 Rohm: There are people leaving, but I did have one final comment that I wanted to make that any of the decisions that are made by this body can be appealed by the -- either the public or the applicant, so if the applicant didn't like the fact that we excluded their request for revision, they can appeal. If the public didn't like our conclusions, they can appeal as well. So, with that being said we are done with that project. Thanks for coming in. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from August 2, 2007: AZ 06-063 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 38.68 acres from RUT and R-1 zones to C-G zones for Waltman Property by Waltman, LLC - 505, 521, 615 and 675 Waltman Lane: Rohm: All right. Okay. At this time I'd like to open Public Hearing -- continued Public Hearing from August 2nd, 2007, of AZ 06-063 for the sole purpose of continuing to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 20th, 2007. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. O'Brien: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing of AZ 06- 063 to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 20th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 07-015 Request for a Rezone of .28 of an acre from an R-8 residential zone to an O-T zone for 6th and Broadway Property by Linda Loehr - 532 E. Broadway Avenue: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on RZ 06-015 related to 6th and Broadway property and begin with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a request to rezone .28 acres from R-8 medium density residential to OT, Old Town, for the existing residence at 532 East Broadway Avenue. The subject site is located in the northwest corner of East Broadway Avenue and 6th Street. Indicated on the map here. There is Broadway and 6th Street. To the north and east. of the property are single family homes zoned R-8 and RUT Ada County. To the west are existing four-plexes zoned R-8 in Old Town. The parcel to the south is vacant and zoned I-L. So, these are existing single family residences, Ada County. Some duplexes here. And, then, that's vacant industrial -- zoned industrial. The applicant is requesting the subject property