Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 1, 2009 minsMeridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 3 of 32 seconds left before your three minutes are up. If you're here to testify for a larger group of people, say a homeowners association, we will give you ten minutes to give your presentation. It is our intent to hear everyone speak and we ask that only one person speak at a time. This isn't a large audience, so I don't anticipate any problems there. And when you do come up to testify, if you've not done so in the past, you need to state your name and address for the record prior to starting your testimony. And once we have gotten all staff and public testimony, as well as the applicant, we will offer the applicant one last time to come up and comment towards any questions or comments that were posed either by the Commission or the public during the hearing. At the conclusion of the public testimony we will close the hearing and make our recommendations to City Council. Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from September 17, 2009: RZ 08-005 Request for Rezone of 91.09 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Cavanaugh Ridge by Affinity Bank -located at 4275 S. Locust Grove Road, east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from September 17, 2009: PP 08-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 252 residential building lots and 29 common area lots on 91.09 acres in a proposed R-8 zoning district for Cavanaugh Ridge by Affinity Bank -located at 4275 S. Locust Grove Road, east of S. Meridian Road and south of E. Victory Road: Newton-Huckabay: With that said I will turn it over to staff. Wafters: Thank you, Chairman Newton-Huckabay, Members of the Commission. The first item before you is -- Newton-Huckabay: I guess I have to open it, don't I? Wafters: Ah, yes, you do. Newton-Huckabay: I don't usually do this, so I apologize if it's a little bit -- anyway. I'd like to open the public hearing for RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010 for Cavenaugh Ridge. Wafters: Thank you. Chairman Newton-Huckabay, Members of the Commission. The subject property is located at 4275 South Locust Grove Road, east of South Meridian Road, and south of East Victory Road. The property consists of 91.09 acres and is currently zoned R-4. You can see the zoning vicinity map. It's the property here on your left. And an aerial view of the property on your right. The applicant is requesting a rezone of 91.09 acres from R-4 to R-8. Preliminary plat consisting of 252 single family residential building lots and 29 common area lots and a modification to the existing development agreement approved with Reflection Ridge Subdivision to include updated project information. And the development modification does not require Commission action. History of previous actions on this site. This property received annexation and zoning approval with an R-4 zoning district in 2006. A preliminary plat was approved for Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 4 of 32 Reflection Ridge Subdivision, which consisted of 255 single family residential building lots and 29 common area lots. A Conditional Use Permit was approved for a planned development with reductions to lot size, lot frontage, building setbacks, and exceeding the maximum block length allowed in residential districts for two of the blocks. The preliminary plat and Conditional Use Permit planned development approvals have expired. Only the zoning of R-4 and development agreement remains in effect at this time. Approximately 80 to 90 percent of the first phase -- show you a phasing plan here. It's this portion on the east side of the property that abuts Locust Grove Road. Approximately 80 to 90 percent of the first phase improvements have been completed on this site. However, some vandalism has occurred that has reduced this percentage. This is a site layout. Shows the plat and landscape plan for the property. The applicant is proposing, essentially, the same preliminary plat as previously approved for Reflection Ridge in 2005. However, some conditions affecting development of the site have changed as follows: Since the property was annexed the dimensional standards for the R-4 zoning district have changed. The old project was reviewed under the old Meridian City Code and the Unified Development Code was adopted in 2005 right after this project came through. Thus the lots in the previously approved plat no longer meet the dimensional standards of the R-4 district. The applicant is requesting a rezone to R- 8 to comply with dimensional standards. A 40 foot wide access easement exists along the west boundary of the site that was not accounted for with the original preliminary plat. You can see here as noted on this plan. This easement benefits the land locked property to the southwest of this site that is currently a gravel pit. As such, gravel trucks and other large trucks frequent this road. Additionally, the land use designation of the adjacent property changed from medium density residential to mixed use nonresidential last year, which allows a mix of uses with up to 50 percent of retail uses, office, food service, restaurant, industry, flex buildings, storage facilities or warehouse uses. For these reasons staff recommends the building lots shown along the west boundary be relocated. It's these seven lots right here, if you can see there along the west boundary -- recommending those be relocated and common area be placed in this area instead. Further, staff recommends a ten foot wide street buffer be constructed within the recommended common area adjacent to the access road. The pathways plan in effect in 2005 did not require a pathway along the Farr Lateral. The Farr Lateral exists in this green area along the southwest boundary here and, then, I believe it's actually to the west of this green area shown here and this is an access road right there that's depicted. The master pathways plan adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan in 2007 now requires a pathway connection between the future Ridenbaugh pathway along Meridian Road and Mary McPhearson Elementary School to the south. I'll show you a copy of the vicinity map here. This green line here depicts the location of the pathway. We would like it, eventually, to come adjacent to Rumple Lane here and along the west and southwest boundary of this site. Because of the topography of the land in this area, staff recommends the pathway be located on this site along the Farr Lateral, as detailed in condition 1.2.10. Mary McPhearson School I guess you can see here is to the south on Amity Road there. Two of the blocks, Block 7 and 18, right here along the Ridenbaugh Canal and also along the southwest boundary here, exceed the maximum block length required by UDC. Previously these lots were allowed to exceed the maximum block length, along with other reductions to dimensional standards in the Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 5 of 32 R-4 district through the planned development under the old City Code. Now, the UDC requires a variance to exceed these block lengths. Additional requirements by staff. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway along the north boundary adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal you see here needs to be realigned to drop down through the common area in Lot 1. This is this area here. Block 3 to the intersection of Wrightwood and Locust Grove to connect to the existing pathway on the east side of Locust Grove. So, I don't know if you can see my pointer here. We'd like it to come down along the Ridenbaugh and drop through the common area and, then, just go along the road here onto the intersection. From the intersection the pathway would extend to the north along Locust Grove Road and cross the Ridenbaugh and connect to the future location of the sidewalk in Normandy -- planned Normandy Subdivision. This is a copy of the proposed phasing plan for the plat. I should mention here that the first phase has -- I don't have the exact numbers -- 70 some -- 78, I believe, building lots in this phase. The fire department has conditioned this application that the first 50 building lots will be allowed off the current access. Anything beyond 50 will require a secondary access to the site. And the applicant has agreed to the fire department's terms on that matter. These are the elevations that were approved with Reflection Ridge Subdivision. They are still in effect. No changes are proposed. The development agreement requires future development to substantially comply with these elevations. A letter in response to the staff report was submitted by the applicant Ashley Ford. And I just want to note that the original staff report that went out had an error in it. Staff has revised the error. It was a development agreement provision noted as 1.4.4, which required the land to be designated for future right of way along the west boundary of the site for construction of a public street. Staff is not requiring a public street along the west boundary and this development agreement provision has been deleted from the staff report, so, please, note that if you do have a copy of the old staff report on hand. Staff is recommending approval of the requested applications with the conditions and development agreement provisions stated in the staff report. That's all I have, unless Pete has anything to add to that. Friedman: Not at this time. Wafters: He's saying no. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have at this time. Newton-Huckabay: Any questions? O'Brien: I have a -- Sonya. Madam Chair. The homes that you suggested here that you have just shown, are those the ones that are being recommended for phase one? Wafters: Chairman Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, all of these elevations were proposed to be constructed within this entire property within this subdivision. O'Brien: Those will be mixed throughout, is that what you're saying? Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 6 of 32 Watters: Yes. If you will notice on two elevations -- actually, four elevations, the two sets on your right are the alley loaded units and the ones on your left are just the regular classic homes. O'Brien: Okay. Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward? Ford: Good evening, Commissioners. It's been a long time. For the record, my name is Ashley Ford, I'm the principal land use planner for Rose Law Group Borton. My office address is 6223 North Discovery Way in Boise, Suite 200. I'm here tonight on behalf of our client Affinity Bank. Sonya gave a really good site history. I'm going to fill it in just a little bit more. M&H Development is the developer who obtained the original approval for Reflection Ridge in 2006. Corinthian Homes, then, purchased the project after that and began construction of what was phase one, 78 lots. Unfortunately, Corinthian was unable to finish the construction of that and let the approvals lapse and so we are kind of here where we are today. We did estimate at one point that probably 80 to 90 percent of the project had been completed. There has been quite a bit of vandalism on the property, which is unfortunate in these times, but it is what it is and so we are not sure where that is at this point, but we do know there is a lot of rework that will need to happen with that phase one. The property ultimately went into foreclosure and Kastera Homes came back and optioned the property and in July 2008 submitted an application to the city for -- for review and, unfortunately, never got to the hearing process. Affinity Bank has taken the property back and is the applicant on this matter this evening and it is our client's intent to reinstate the approvals for the project. It is now known as Cavenaugh Ridge and we would really like to move forward. So, that's the overall intent. And the property was annexed as R-4 in 2006 and since we are trying to keep the same flavor and the same layout as much as possibly, unfortunately, the R-4 standards in 2006 are very different from the 2009 version, so staff made the recommendation that in order to try to keep the integrity of the work that's been done, that we submit an application for a rezone to R-8, basically, to allow, essentially, the same preliminary plat and final plat to be approved and generally we are in agreement with the conditions of approval. There are just a couple that we need to talk about, unfortunately. First item of concern has to do with conditions 1.2.3 and 1.2.13. These conditions in question require our client to, one, revise the preliminary plat to include common area along the northwest boundary of the subdivision immediately -- directly adjacent to the 40 foot wide access easement in place of the seven residential lots and we have the choice of either just completely doing away with them or relocating them elsewhere in the plat. And, number two, construct a street buffer within the common area adjacent to the 40 foot wide access easement along this western boundary. Over the last few months, Commissioners, we have had three pre-application meetings with staff and, generally, we felt we were in agreement with the current layout and that this was, indeed, accessible given the fact that we were going to do this rezone to R-8 to make everything compatible again. The one thing that they did mention again that we needed to do was to go back and add the 40 foot wide access easement that had been missed with Reflection Ridge. Our concern is that up until receiving the staff report on Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 7 of 32 Tuesday, at no time were there any discussions regarding the truck traffic that they had concerns with going by these residential lots. The requirements for the additional ten foot landscape buffer, the needed mixed use pathway at this location, and the desire to relocate these lots. There was also not any communication in regards to the Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment that had just occurred to the west of us that was designated mixed use, nonresidential uses. So, while we can understand and we can appreciate the city's concerns and I'm certainly not trying to throw anyone under the bus tonight, there was a lack of communication, apparently, between us and city staff and so we were a bit taken aback a couple of days ago. So, while we can appreciate their concerns, we do have the following concerns and the first one is Cavenaugh Ridge was a fully approved preliminary plat that has always anticipated residential lots up and to the western boundary. This was even when there was the existing gravel pit. So, we always knew there was going to be that -- that potential conflict to some degree. And while we do understand that our approval has expired, with the almost completion of construction pertaining to phase one and the fact that the layout really is a carbon copy, including the 40 foot access easement, we don't understand why this issue is just being brought up now. So, that is a concern. And that's -- and, honestly, we could have accommodated this had we known prior to submitting in July, too, if we had just had these conversations. And we do recognize that there will be some truck traffic along this access easement to the existing gravel operation. But this operation will eventually cease as this property was part of what the new Comp Plan amendment land use designation took over. So, as proposed, these seven lots are in our fourth phase, which is at the very end of the project. So, most likely the gravel operations will have ceased prior to these lots being built out. Otherwise, we -- if the gravel operation is still in effect we will put forth full disclosure in our CC&Rs and ACCs and just make sure everybody knows exactly what's going on. And while the city recently approved the Comp Plan amendment for the property to the west, Cavenaugh Subdivision -- Cavenaugh Ridge is a mix of low density and medium density residential land uses per the Comp Plan. Cavenaugh Subdivision, which to the north of this property that was just redesignated, is medium density residential and each of these projects either has or has had residential lots approved up and to their boundaries, which is immediately adjacent to this new Comp Plan designation. And as the adjacent property has only had a Comprehensive Plan land use designation amendment and no preliminary plat approved, this recent amendment, in our opinion, should not create hardship for us, for those further along in the planning processes and it would make sense for when that property developed to the west that they would adequately transition to us and our land use designations have not changed. So, based on these reasons we would respectfully request that the Commission not require the removal of the seven lots and not require the additional pathway and landscaping. The second area of concern that we have is conditions 1.2.10 and 1.2.11 and this is regarding the pathway requirement that's along the Farr Lateral and the Ridenbaugh to the Farr Lateral. In our July 2009 pre-application meeting we were informed that the pathways were actually planned for the south side of the Farr lateral and this is also supported in the Meridian master plan for your pathways on page 4-18 and I can leave a copy of that for you if you do not have -- and this clearly shows that the pathway for the Farr Lateral along our frontage is to be on the south and the west side of the lateral. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 8 of 32 In order for our project to accommodate the lateral -- the pathway and the additional landscaping that's being requested, this is an additional 20 feet. These are of larger lots along this lateral and would certainly create some hardship for the lot sizes and the product that we anticipated for this portion of the project. So, we would, therefore, request that the pathway be placed on the south side of the lateral given the adopted master plan. The original approval of this project and the pathways and the fact that the property to the west and to the south has yet to develop and there is a great opportunity to make those connections at that time. The third item I wish to address -- and this really is not a concern anymore, but I just wanted to put on the record what our conversation was today -- was in regard to condition 3.9 in regards to the emergency access and this is actually what Sonya and Joe Silva -- we just wanted some clarification as to the wording of the condition and what we came to an agreement as to the intent of the condition is that Cavenaugh Ridge Subdivision may have one single point of access until building permit number 50 and between building permit number 50 -- 51 and 79, which is, essentially, what our phase one final plat incorporates, the Cavenaugh Ridge Subdivision will be required to have two points of access. However, one access may be an approved all weather surface, 20 feet wide, that meets all requirements of the Meridian Fire Department and at that point an access is locked or has bollards, it will be done so with the approval of the fire department. So, we will have to get all approvals prior to doing that. Sonya did mention that we do have to put in a request for a variance for the block length. We will be doing so prior to the City Council hearing. We do not have a problem doing that either. The Commissioners -- while it's unfortunate that we are before you this evening with an expired plat, fortunately, this is through no fault of our client Affinity Bank and, you know, the client is just attempting to make the project whole again and to get some good things happening, rather than having a quarter finished site with vandalism. We are trying to make things right out there. The project has the same amenities. We have ten amenities over the course of the 252 lots. It's the general layout that was approved before. We just ask that you consider our concerns regarding these conditions of approval as for their changes have significant costs, especially in these times, you know, that can make or break a project. So, with that respectfully request your recommendation of approval this evening to City Council and with the condition -- modifications to the conditions as I have discussed. If we -- if I need to answer any further questions, happy to do so. Newton-Huckabay: Any questions from the Commission? Rohm: I have none. Marshall: No. O'Brien: I will wait. Thanks. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Ford: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 9 of 32 Newton-Huckabay: Ms. Ford was the only one signed up to testify to this application. Is there anyone else who would like to come forward? Okay. Seeing none, we will have no need, then, for applicant rebuttal to public testimony. Would we like to have discussion? Close the public hearing? Rohm: Let's close the public hearing. Madam Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing on RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010. Newton-Huckabay: All in favor? Second. Where is the seconders this evening? Marshall: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Opposed? Marshall: I have a few questions for staff that I'd like to have -- Rohm: Well, we can have -- we can have that discussion. Marshall: Even with a closed public hearing? Rohm: Yes. Marshall: Okay. Nary: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if you close the public hearing and you want to hear back from the applicant, then, you have to reopen. So, you may want to have the discussion now before you close your hearing, because you won't be able to have the applicant come back and respond. Newton-Huckabay: Do you want to rescind your motion to close the public hearing or -- all those in favor of closing the public hearing? Opposed. The hearing will remain open. MOTION FAILED: FOUR NAYS. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Discussion? Rohm: Madam Chairman? Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: After having heard the testimony of both staff and the applicant, my personal opinion is that there is some unfinished business that needs to take place between the applicant and staff before we render a decision. I think that there is too much on the table here for us to try and wade through that this evening and come up with something that's both fair to the applicant and with respect to the city at this time and I don't think Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 10 of 32 that I'm -- I don't think I would like to render a decision this evening based upon what have heard from both applicants and the city. Newton-Huckabay: Are you saying you'd like to -- give a list of open items and continue the hearing? Rohm: Well, I think maybe if the balance of the Commission has questions that -- that are germane that they want to get out on the table tonight, that's fine, but I just think that there is -- there is some fundamental differences between the applicants request and staffs recommendation and quite honestly I want to give them an opportunity to work those out between the applicant and the staff, rather than have us come up with a solution tonight. I don't feel comfortable with that. O'Brien: Madam Chair, I agree. That's where I was going to go with that, too. It seems like the applicant wants to, basically, grandfather the things that were proposed originally with the original applicants and -- and now I really don't like surprises to come up between the applicant and the staff that we only heard about this a few days ago and it has truly took us aback. So, I agree with you, Commissioner Rohm, about that. think there needs to be some discussion between the applicant and staff to iron out these differences, whatever they might be, so there is no surprises when they come before us. End of statement. Marshall: Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I have a vast number of concerns with this. My first comment is that the preliminary plat that was approved expired. It's gone. This is like a new application. I'm sorry, but no idea when it was going to come back, no idea if it would develop, no idea who would own it when developed. Therefore, when we move forward with the property to the west it seemed appropriate at that time, not knowing what would go to this site. Therefore, this has to -- has to take into account that that property has moved on. I also am concerned about the access to the property to the south and I don't know what other options there are. I am concerned about access to the elementary school on a pedestrian pathway getting the children that are going to be using that school from this subdivision, how do we get them there away from a street, preferably. I understand that the pathway was originally planned for the south side, but who knows when it will develop. It has -- we have had a master plan change, but we don't know when that will develop. It could be in process right now, but, then, again, with the economy it may be ten years from now. So, in the meantime how do we get the children from this subdivision that is intended to be built out, if we approve it how do we get them to that -- that school? I think there needs to be a pathway in place, whether it was originally planned for the south side or not. You know, when we -- when we put that pathways plan in place we didn't know which side would develop first and we didn't know exactly how it would develop. We tried to lay some guidelines out. And that's exactly what they are is guidelines. They are not hard and fast rules, but attempts to try to guide this that Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 11 of 32 we knew we need some pathways through there. The fact that it was originally planned for the south is meaningless to me. I do think there is a vast chasm between staff and the applicant. I feel it's very unfortunate that the applicant feels there has been a lack of communication or communication failure, but, unfortunately I cannot correct that, nor do I have any -- I can't do anything about that. What I see is a large number of issues that need to be ironed out and, to be honest, I'm in agreement with everyone else here, in that I think it probably ought to be continued to work this out and I'm sorry it's been in the works so long -- I know it -- economically it's very difficult. I have sympathy for that. But with the thought that we need to make this the best we can for the city, meaning that we want it to develop and develop soon and properly, but, again, considering the fact that we have changed our guidelines, we have changed the UDC, we have changed our requirements since that was originally passed, because we are trying to make things better and we have made other decisions and recommendations based on the fact that those have expired and that times have changed and we didn't know what's going to go in here. Those are my comments. O'Brien: Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Yes, sir. O'Brien: Question for staff. Sonya, is it -- was it the intention of staff to build a pathway to Mary McPhearson School? Wafters: Chairman Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner Marshall -- or, excuse me, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioners, the master pathways plan that was adopted in 2007 as part of the Comprehensive Plan, does call out a pathway connection from the Ridenbaugh pathway, which is proposed to extend from the north from the Ridenbaugh along Meridian Road and provide a pathway connection between the school and that Ridenbaugh pathway. O'Brien: Well, I can see it having a pathway possibly to the school, but not for the reasons for having kids walk the pathway to the school, since we have buses to do that for them in designated areas. It's much safer in the wintertime. All my kids have gone to Mary McPhearson and in the wintertime it's very -- and it's rural, very very dark when they go to school in the -- in the mornings. They have kids walk along the pathway to get to school and it's a slope. Icy. I don't know who is going to maintain that. So, wouldn't recommend that be used to have children go to school along the pathway like that. It's just not a good idea. Wafters: This is a segment of the multi-use pathway system in the city. It's not just for the school children. I'm not sure what the school district's requirements are. I know in different areas of the city I believe if you live within one -- one and a half miles of the school kids are required to walk. I'm not sure if it is for this particular school or not, being a little more rural in nature probably may not be, but -- but this is just part of the city's multi-use pathway system. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 12 of 32 O'Brien: Okay. Yeah. I don't know about that designated perimeter, if you will. But all the children I know, including my own, were bused there even though we live within eye shot across the valley about a quarter mile, so -- and they were always bused. I just don't understand. Maybe there is not a really clear understanding about what the criteria is. So, that was just one of the concerns I had. Thank you. Marshall: Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I'd like to respond to Commissioner O'Brien here. It's my understanding that if there is not a safe pathway, that the school system does what's called safe busing and they bus the children because of safety reasons and they are not allowed to work -- walk. Preferably, children within a mile, plus or minus, prefer to walk, we prefer that they walk, the school district prefers that they walk, busing is expensive and you and I pay for it out of our tax dollars and it's -- it's intended that it's good physical -- that they get out and exercise, things like that, and that a pathway removed from the streets is typically safer than a sidewalk next to a street and that not only this pathway -- would provide access to the school, but it's also part of the interconnection of pathways that allows everybody to ride bikes and walk and traverse the entire city. So, I -- personally, see that pathway serving two purposes. One, vitally important to children to the school, especially those that live close by, as well as an interconnectivity pathway for the rest of the city. O'Brien: Commissioner Marshall, I agree with the latter part to what he's saying, but not the first part about having to obtain access for children -- Newton-Huckabay: Commissioners, I think this is probably a debate that would be better served at a pathways -- O'Brien: I think it's an important dialogue. Newton-Huckabay: It is important dialogue, Commissioner O'Brien. I don't want to discount that. I think what we need to keep focused on is whether or not it's appropriate for us to put the requirement on this development to put the pathway as proposed by staff. A pathway has been determined to be part of the plan in that area and whether or not we agree with that would -- certainly could impact -- impact how you choose to vote, I suppose, but whether or not the safety and who should or shouldn't be able to use it is think a different conversation. O'Brien: I agree with that. Newton-Huckabay: That doesn't impact this applicant. O'Brien: I'd love to be a part of that conversation whenever it comes up. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 13 of 32 Newton-Huckabay: Okay. There you go. I'd like to make a couple comments if I may in the spirit of moving this -- moving this forward. As I see it, we have the issue on the table of the applicant wants the seven -- seven lots on the west side of the property next to the 40 foot access that goes into the gravel pit, the city does not. Access easement needs to be recognized there, which it wasn't in the original Reflection Ridge and the city would like to see a common area and buffer there. The applicant would not. A pathway on the west, the city would like to see that come down -- down that western and southwestern property line, the applicant would not. A street variance, we have a couple blocks that are too long. The street variance needs to be applied for. The applicant seems to be okay with that, as does the city. And the city has also asked for a -- some changes to the pathway system on the east side of the property and according to the applicant's response 1.2.9, her response is we will comply. So, that issue -- of course the staff report would be acceptable to -- to the applicant. So, as I see it we have this one issue on the west and if the applicant is willing to -- would like to -- I'd like to know if the applicant wants to continue this public hearing or if she has an alternative or compromise to offer here or if they would prefer to continue the public hearing. So, if the applicant would like to come forward. Ford: For the record, Ashley Ford, Rose Law Group. I think what we would request is a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission this evening that we continue to work with staff prior to the City Council hearing. With all due respect we would like to continue moving forward. Newton-Huckabay: So, I want to clarify that that you would like arecommendation -- Ford: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: -- from the Commission and, then, you would like to present to City Council. Ford: Correct. That's the direction I have been given. Newton-Huckabay: I can appreciate that, but that -- if we did that on a regular basis that would negate the need for a Planning and Zoning Commission in the City of Meridian and so we would like to -- if we are making a recommendation tonight, we would be making recommendation for specific changes and nothing beyond that -- and/or an approval of denial. Ford: And I believe my client is -- recognizes that. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. All right. Ford: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Well, Commissioners, it will be up to you whether or not you want to accommodate that application. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 14 of 32 Marshall: Madam Chair, I suggest, then, we move forward on this. If we are going to, then, we need to address each one of these items one at a time as you list them. Rohm: Alternatively to that maybe we just go to the staff report as presented and let them -- and make our recommendation to move forward based on it and if they want to do battle at City Council, they can do it there. But I don't feel comfortable making those kind of changes and that's why I made the statement prior to this discussion is I think that the best way to do it is to have staff and the applicant sit down together and iron out their differences. But not taking that route, I think we are better off going with the recommendations of staff as written, because I don't feel comfortable making those changes to the staff report without any additional information. So, kind of where I'm at. Friedman: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, if I may, without trying to influence your direction one way or another, just a couple of items, I think, for consideration. Really -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Friedman, let me make my one last comment before -- Friedman: Yes, ma'am. Newton-Huckabay: -- you make yours, in case there is some influence that might come through. Friedman: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: We do have the option, as the Planning and Zoning Commission to continue it to another Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, if we so choose. So, just because the applicant would like to move it forward doesn't mean that we have to feel compelled to move it forward. So, we do have that -- that choice. Mr. Friedman. Friedman: There was just a couple points of clarification that want to point out about -- particularly as it affects the seven lots -- the western portion of the plat and it affects the pathway. The previous plat that no longer exists -- the access easement we keep talking about was actually located on the rear portion of some residential lots, so for whatever reason that kind of went through the process that way. We picked it up when we went back through this in our evaluation of that, so the intent was, you know, recognizing that there is this -- this vehicular access there. With regard to the pathway location on the Farr -- parts of the pathway plan that were adopted by the city in 2007 are reasonably specific in where that pathway goes and as we recognized that area, it's not very specific, because we don't know what's going to happen there and I think the pathway plan in this case says that -- indicates that the pathway will be developer driven as a private connection to the Ridenbaugh pathway and to Mary McPhearson Elementary School. That's about as specific as the pathway gets -- plan gets at this time with regard to -- to the location on this particular park piece of property. And other than that I think I'd be able to -- if you want to move forward with questions, we would be Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 15 of 32 happy to answer those. But I just wanted to get those couple points of clarification out for you. Newton-Huckabay: Thank you. Marshall: Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Any last comments? Yes. Marshall: I do have a quick question for Pete. Pete? Friedman: Yes. Marshall: Or was it Sonya. Sonya was presenting. Sonya, you were saying that the gravel pit to the south is land locked without that easement? Wafters: Chairman -- or, excuse me, Chairman Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner Marshall, Commissioners, it is land locked. If you see here on the map on the left-hand side, it's that triangular piece of property. It is land locked. It's just right in the middle there. Marshall: Thank you. O'Brien: Madam Chair, I recommend we close the public hearing RZ 08-005 and PP 08-010. Rohm: Second. Newton-Huckabay: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Newton-Huckabay: Do we have additional discussion or is someone ready to make a motion? As I see it, our options are continue this public hearing to another Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, recommend approval or denied to City Council, make -- and make or not make any suggested changes to the staff report. O'Brien: Well, Madam Chairman, I'm kind of torn between both. I'd like to see the difference worked out if that's possible within the current Comprehensive Plan as Commissioner Marshall had noted. And, then, in the same token I sure would like to see if there is a possibility of working out any particular issues that the applicant might have that would be detrimental to the success of the business. If it's going to be adding a whole lot of cost that's a consideration, but I don't know how much a consideration we have to really provide. With that, though, I could go either way. I could go with a continuation for whatever is recommended -- I don't know how long it takes to get with the -- with their -- with their applicant, their client, or -- again, I think I agree with -- with Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 16 of 32 Commissioner Rohm about letting the City Council kind of hash this around with the current positions that the staff has and let it go as it may. Rohm: Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I -- even though I made the statement, if we were to make a motion to forward this onto City Council without any changes to the staff report, I still don't think that's the right answer. I think the right answer is to remand it back to staff and the applicant to work out some of these differences and, then, move forward with a package that -- that has blessings of from both to the best of their ability of them to work out those differences and so with that being said -- Marshall: I would -- Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: I would agree with Commissioner Rohm in that I believe if we recommend approval as it is, as written in the staff report, that we are simply advocating our role in this and that I don't think any of this is going to be worked out. Personally, it's my preference to continue. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I want to make acomment -- I'm going to make a comment. I, myself, feel like the -- the issues are with one very small portion of this project that -- and we, really, only have two -- two issues to be resolved and by making a motion to City Council to accept the -- the staff report as is, with removal or relocation of the seven lots on the west, addressing the access and easement buffer on the west side and I certainly endorse pathways any opportunity that we can. I would feel comfortable that -- I would not make any changes or additional changes to this -- this plat myself, beyond what's recommended in the staff report. So, I would be in favor of moving it on to City Council as recommended by staff. But I will leave the motion making to you. O'Brien: Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Yes, sir. O'Brien: A question on this trucking issue relative to truck traffic and I -- I don't remember if there was a reflection on that, but with staff about changes that, but I know the applicant had some concerns about having to deal with truck or construction traffic and I don't think -- I don't think that should be an issue at all, if that did come up with staff about changing the route of where the truck traffic is going to be for further development, construction traffic is construction traffic and shouldn't be treated any different than what they -- we did on Overland Road near the freeway when they -- they worked out the issues with truck traffic and construction traffic with the residents in the Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 17 of 32 area with traffic control, dust, and noise, et cetera. So, I just wanted to make a point on that. That should be anon-issue. Newton-Huckabay: I think one thing I would like to point out that we probably want to consider -- or I would like us to consider as a Commission is you have an easement here, you don't actually have a public road and I encourage you to think of all the opportunities that we have had in the rest of the city to come up with private roads and an easement having not been properly handled at the time of a project developing and you end up with these strange little out streets or -- O'Brien: I hear you. Newton-Huckabay: -- that -- that type of thing and I think this is one of those opportunities that if we can avoid one of those infamous opportunities for another lane, as I would refer to them in the city, I would like us to do that. O'Brien: Good point. Marshall: Madam Chair? Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: Again, due to the nature of that -- and I hope the applicant fully understands that I think we are in support of staffs recommendations for the most part, that potentially they may want to make some adjustments to that preliminary plat before we recommend approval as per the staff report and I think continuing allows them that opportunity to do so, because removing seven lots, adding the additional pathway where it is and whatnot, they may choose to offer access to that gravel pit from another place, I don't know, but somehow we have got to get access to that. Personally I would not want to see it in somebody's backyard, even though there was full disclosure, because no matter what, somebody buys that property they are going to be very upset with the city for having allowed it, even though they knew it was there. And, personally, I don't want to see that happen and that's why we have changed our -- our recommendations for development over time, our codes, because even though people have full disclosure, do you really want to live next to Walmart in your backyard or have trucks driving through your backyard, even though you know it's going in there. Sometimes -- and let's say there is a lot of truck traffic there and what happens, those houses never sell, they just sit there, and we have an eye sore and we have more vandalism and things like that. I think we need to protect against that and the idea for the codes is just that. I think the city has it right, that if there is going to be an easement we are going to have a bunch of truck traffic there that we need to get rid of those seven lots. Are there other options? I think that needs to be explored and that's the reason I think that a continuance is in order. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm going to ask one more question and, of course, we can't -- I guess the applicant could nod yes or no, if a continuance to the 15th meeting would Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 18 of 32 be sufficient time. From the audience the applicant is nodding that the 15th would be sufficient time to work with staff. With that said, I think we are probably at a point we can wrap up our comments and one of you can -- Rohm: Madam Chairman? Newton-Huckabay: I'm sorry. Marshall: Sorry, Pete. I thought you were going to say something. Friedman: No. That's all right. I thought you were asking me a question, so -- Rohm: Madam Chairman? Newton-Huckabay: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue the public hearings on Items No. RZ 08-005 and PP 08- 010, to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of October 15th, 2009. Marshall: I'll second. Newton-Huckabay: All those in favor? Nary: Madam Chairman, before you vote on that, I think you have moved to close the public hearing, so you want to move to open it and continue it. Rohm: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: All those in favor? Marshall: Do we have to vote in separate motions? Do we have to -- Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Marshall: -- make a motion to open the public meeting? Nary: You can do them together. You can do them together. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Marshall: He moved and I'll second. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning October 1, 2009 Page 19 of 32 Newton-Huckabay: And that's all motions combined. We have reopened, rescheduled and close and continued. Rohm: October 15th. Oh, we do have to -- no, we'd have to close it, too. Nary: No. No. Newton-Huckabay: It's open, because we continued it. O'Brien: I'm sorry. Madam Chair, I just have aquestion -- it's probably too late for it. Should we be distinct on what we are going to be looking at the continuation of the hearings -- we are not going to be looking at the big pie, but maybe a couple little pieces that we had concerns with? Rohm: Oh, I think -- Marshall: We were pretty clear on it. O'Brien: Okay. Rohm: It's pretty clear. O'Brien: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Well, I think you have to consider, too, the nature of the development may change enough that you would think -- Rohm: I did like your comment, though, about wanting to see a revised plat move forward to the City Council. I really did appreciate those. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, we will hear the Cavenaugh Ridge development again on October 15th. Newton-Huckabay: I'd like to open the public hearing for AZ 09-006 for B1 and we will start with the staff report. Marshall: Madam Chair, were we going to continue that -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, shoot. Marshall: -- to November 5th? Item 6: Public Hearing: MCU 09-002 Request to modify the building elevations approved with the Conditional Use Permit for Avendale (fka Silver Oaks) by Engineering Solutions -north side of W. Franklin Road, approximately