Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 3, 2009 PZ MinsMeridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 5 of 33 Marshall: Sonya, the design review committee, what's the constituency? I mean is it people from industry, architectural firms? Where are they from? How many members? I'm not looking for names and names of firms, but do they all come from one firm or what? Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Marshall, they are not the same group every time. They are members that have volunteered from different architectural firms, you know, around the valley. There were three different members present at this meeting. Marshall: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? And state your name and address for the record, please. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of -- or Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm representing the applicant Ten Mile Development on this particular application. Bear with me. This is kind of a complex situation. I was not the original planner, nor were we the engineer on this project. This project was done back in October of 2005. We kind of have been retained to pick up the pieces, basically, in short words. In 2005 this project was annexed. They had a preliminary plat approval, a conditional use approval, and a planned unit development. At that time the Meridian zoning ordinance was in effect and the Ten Mile specific plan did not exist, nor did the design review guidelines exist. They entered into a development agreement with the city in January of 2006 and that development agreement, I have reviewed it closely, still links the original elevations to this particular project. I can't find any evidence the development agreement modification was submitted after that time extension and as you well know, a development agreement is a binding contract between the city, between applicant, and I guess that's something for Mr. Nary to look into, but -- but that did come to light as I was doing my review of this application. In June of 2006 they obtained construction plan approval, final plat approval, from the city and commenced construction, installation of their infrastructure. While construction was going on they had to submit, back in March of 2007, an administrative time extension and when that time extension came in, the very first administrative time extension, the UDC had been adopted. So, in staff's review and the director's review, four new conditions were added to the project, which now brought it into compliance with the UDC. The original developer was Charter Builders and back in 2007 the project was not progressing well and it went into foreclosure and it went back to Banner Bank. My clients Ten Mile Development, Joe Stafford, Graye Wolfe, were the original property owners, who had sold the property to Charter Builders. So, since they were in second position on this particular project, they stepped up with Banner Bank to assume that loan to, obviously, protect their position. Construction of the site, obviously, stopped when this became a distressed project. Approximately 80 percent of the infrastructure was installed. Sewer. Water. Joint trench. They have storm drain ponds. They have concrete vertical curb. Extruded curb. Sidewalks. Base. And I have reviewed the proposals and bids from the contractors. There is in excess of one million dollars in the ground today and I did bring Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 6 of 33 some photographs to demonstrate that to the Commission. So, once it went back to Ten Mile Development, they started a discussion with Milt Erhart and Mr. Erhart was contemplating purchasing this project and doing a condominium, some row houses. He had -- kind of had a concept and was contemplating trying to go in and retrofit this and at the same time they were running out of time on their plat and their approval. So, a second time extension was filed that had to go before the Council and at that time it went to the Council -- I have read through the minutes and the Council said, well, we want to see what you're doing. So, he had his architect draw up some condominium buildings, they came in with three architect styles, Prairie, Mediterranean, Cape Cod. The Council liked those elevations. They liked the variety. And if you compare that to the original four-plex that was approved with the application, it was definitely an improvement. The Council, with the time extension, tied these elevations, but, yet, like I said before, no development agreement modification was ever done, at least that I can find. Mr. Erhart, then, attempted to find some financial backing for his project and was unable to do so and every bank that he went to or investor kind of shied away and so the project, as presented to the Council with those types of buildings -- obviously, the site plan remained the same, other than they had different areas of different architectural styles, was not economically viable. So, Ten Mile Development right now is trying to salvage this project and complete the infrastructure. They have had Idaho Survey Group doing as builts out there. We have been meeting with Ada County Highway District, Meridian public works inspectors, Nampa-Meridian, every entity that had involvement to, basically, try to identify what remains to be completed. The contractor that did infrastructure originally filed for bankruptcy. So, we will be dealing with a whole new contractor. The estimated cost of completing the infrastructure out there is around 600,000 dollars and it is my client's desire to go in and finish this project. So, then, the question arises what type of product can we build in this marketplace. So, we kind of put a team together with some architects from the Architects Group, Elizabeth Cooper and Mark Sanders, and we, basically, are trying to figure out how to come up with a viable project in this marketplace and what I told them -- obviously, by reading through the minutes the Council liked the different architectural styles, so my recommendation to them was I want you to stick with the Prairie, the Cape Cod, the Mediterranean styles, and -- and make sure that even though the buildings deviate you take those necessary components of that architecture and incorporate it. We met with the city on multiple occasions. We worked with Will Thornton at the time, who was our design review liaison, and after many meetings -- and other staff members attended some of the meetings and some they didn't, we went away with -- believing that we had a product that kind of met in the middle and so we were recommended to submit our CU and told that we had to submit a design review application at the same time. So, we submitted that and, obviously, now we ran into a snag. I have looked at the staff report. The Ten Mile specific plan is the applicable plan. In looking at it, this particular area is designated as medium high density residential. On the Comprehensive Plan at the time the original project was approved it was high density residential. So, as far as the designation, nothing has changed. Staff cites the fact that there are no usable porches in the provision at 30 percent of the exterior -- front exterior have porches. The original condominium designs didn't have front porches either. The architects looked through those and said they don't -- the ones that the staff says are tied to the project don't meet Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 7 of 33 that. The staff talks about residential diversity in the Ten Mile specific plan, incorporating single family attached, detached, row houses, apartment buildings, different things like that. Well, it's kind of hard at this juncture for us to switch gears. I mean when I have got vertical curb and parking and to go and try to retrofit single family, I mean it just -- it just doesn't work and it doesn't make any economic sense in times like these to abandon over a million dollars of infrastructure that we have in the ground. One of the comments was the criticism that there is no public art. There was no public art in the original application, nor in the subsequent time extension. If the staff would like public art to be part of the amenities in this, obviously, we are open to that. The staff talks about that they prefer the different architectural styles be concentrated in different areas, so you may drive into one area, it's Mediterranean, the other is Cape Cod, the other is Prairie. We don't object to that. We -- the architect and the -- the developer kind of interspersed them, they thought at the time that that would look better, but we are, obviously, open to creating these little pockets with their own specific architecture. I guess from my perspective we are not asking for the moon, we are asking the city, the staff, just to try to meet us in the middle. Help us come up with a solution for this distressed project. This unfinished development is a detriment to the city. It's a detriment to my client. Some of the infrastructure that's out there right now has already been damaged. We have manhole lids that are missing that are a hazard. I mean as -- the longer they lay unfinished in the ground the more work we are going to have to do to bring this -- or to complete this project. I mean things degrade. The problem, you know, that we have in our industry right now is many of these projects were planned three and five years ago and if they were not fortunate to get finished quickly, then, they are faced with a different market and that's kind of where we are. Some developments, obviously, have the ability to be reinvented. We go in, come up with new ideas, and try to make them work in today's marketplace. I guess what I'm asking the Commission is to keep an open mind, provide us that opportunity to reinvent this project, because in this current unfinished condition it doesn't benefit anyone and the final plat on this has been recorded. They even went as far as getting certificates of zoning for I think a few buildings, but they never acted upon them. I brought some pictures that I wanted to submit to the Council, basically -- sorry I didn't put these on a disk, but I ran out of time. Basically, to demonstrate what's out there in the field and, like I said, we've spent an immense amount of time trying to identify what needs to be done to get this completed. Could you put that disk in? In closing I just wanted to kind of show you the elevations. What I did here is -- this is the original condominium building that was submitted with the time extension and, then, what I tried to do is, then, show you the corresponding building that we have that captures the same architectural features. So, that -- that is the Prairie design and as you can see brick exterior, certain features, and, then, we tried to emulate that. And can you go to the next one, Sonya. Oops. This is the Cape Cod. As you can see, that was the original condominium type building. We captured similar features to it. We have some exterior patio doors there on that single level. You can see the Cape Cod features. You can switch to the next one. And, then, this is -- this is the last one, the Mediterranean. As you can see, that was with the time extension. And, then, there is -- this is the four-plex one. I also have in there -- if you could flip to it, Sonya, another four-plex. Can you turn it? Okay. This is the elevation of the original four-plex. There were kind of three -- three versions of Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 8 of 33 the building. They are pretty much identical. I mean I can see a few different features, but they are pretty close. They had -- one of them they had some type of brick or stone on this feature here and, then, another one that they had kind of a little half wall, but, technically, the building was very similar. So, I guess, you know, in closing, this project was approved for four-plexes. This is the structure that was going to be built. We are trying to find someplace in the middle and I guess I'd ask the Commission to think about it. We are open to suggestions. We are not trying to force product down the throat of the city at all. We -- we want to work with the city and that has been our attitude from the day we walked through the door and this has been an uphill battle and -- and I'd like to find middle ground. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Moe: Any questions of the applicant? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I do. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: So, really, there is --just clarifying here, from what I'm reading, there is really just one floor plan here, right? And three variations of facade? McKay: Yes, sir. As far as the interior floor plan in the elevations that we have submitted, yes, sir. Yes, sir, they do have one floor plan. Marshall: And the last one that was actual -- the City Council -- this is back with the last time extension. You say were tied to the last time extension. There were three different variations of floor plan with three different variations of each floor plan with three types of building designs -- or four different floor plans, three types of building designs, three different variations of each of these designs for 36 different types? McKay: In reviewing them, no, there should have been -- what we found was they had A, B, C. They had three versions of the Mediterranean, three versions of the Prairie, and three versions of the Cape Cod. So, what I found of record were nine. Marshall: Nine. Got you. McKay: And the buildings were very similar. We saw a little deviation in roof line, a little modification in the -- you know, the front architectural features to take in the different architectural style, but the buildings were very very similar. I have those with me and I can give those to the Commission if they'd like. Marshall: Just curious as to why those were tossed out for something new. You're saying the market wouldn't support those. Why -- weren't those condominiums like this and -- McKay: The project was initially approved for 70 four-plexes. With that last time extension a different developer was looking at buying the project. So, he stepped up Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 9 of 33 and came up with this idea as far as what he envisioned for the project. He could not make it work. He could not obtain financing and as you well know even the condominium market in downtown Boise is struggling at this time and so he just walked away. He's no longer involved. Mr. Erhart. Marshall: Do you think that's -- that's because of multiple variations in the condominium? Is that -- is that what we are saying is that multiple variations of the building won't sell, but asingle -- single floor plan will? McKay: It was I think looking at the cost of those buildings, construction cost of the building, and, then, the type of multi-family. Condominium, townhome, are typically owner occupied, so they have go to obtain financing. With the four-plex design those are more rentals and so it's kind of a different marketplace. Each one of those multi- family has its own Hitch. But at this time the financing for condominiums -- I have another -- a townhome project that was really nice up by St. Luke's Hospital. Good location, awesome design. It is in foreclosure also. I mean it's just -- they can't -- they can't obtain financing and when the buyer can go out and buy a detached single family dwelling on a good size lot for either the same or less money than they can the townhome, or the condominium that's where we struggle. They became so popular, because of affordability issue, maintenance issue, but primarily affordability. When they are going head to head with the single family for price point, it's just not happening. And the banks I'm told do not want to loan on condominiums. But that's just kind of -- that lending dried up. Marshall: So, what we are saying is this is really going to turn into, essentially, an apartment complex. McKay: It would be rental units as originally approved. Yes, sir. Marshall: Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. We have no one that has signed up to speak, so if there is anyone that would like to speak to this issue, you're more than welcome to come up. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any thoughts from any of you at the present time? O'Brien: I guess a thought I have, Mr. Chair -- Moe: Mr. O'Brien. O'Brien: -- is it sounds like the design review board is looking -- has a wish list about what these things should really look like, but it's not compatible with the current economic conditions. Is that what I'm hearing here or seeing here? I don't know if you agree or disagree, but I think that's what I'm seeing is that we are trying to set a foot into -- a size 12 foot into a nine size shoe and it's not going to fit. It's just economically not feasible. From what I'm hearing from the applicant, anyway, they are trying to come up Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 10 of 33 with a solution for this area that is not a compelling reason for somebody to use or to -- to rent, whether it be a condominium or an apartment. So, I don't know, it seems to me like there is -- it sounds to me like there is -- it's not awin-win situation here. We either allow the developer to do the best they can to develop this property into something that's salable -- salable and -- or come up with a compromise of what's on the sheet, which they -- the design review has issues with. Now, I think that's what they are really looking for. So, I don't know. We would have to go back and see which one of these things here we can maybe do without or think that things that are must haves versus the wants being approached, but we are not going to settle that here tonight. I think there is a lot more work to be done to -- to make this thing work. Either another design review with the issues at hand the developer has or what you're after. Moe: Well, no, based upon what you have said, I mean before us tonight, you know, they have brought this product and we have comments from staff and whatnot requesting a denial based upon what was brought to us this evening to do. It's -- in reality, it's not our job to turn around and try and redesign a project for this to fit, if, in fact, this Commission doesn't feel that it -- that it doesn't meet the requirements and whatnot. The biggest problem, you know, that I have in my comments are, you know, unfortunately, times are tough right now and financing is very tough, if there is any out there, quite frankly. The thought of being able to able put people to work building something is -- would be great. But at the same time there has been a lot of long hard work done to take care of requirements in what we have done with the Ten Mile plan and everything else and just because they have a site that, unfortunately, went into bankruptcy and whatnot, it's been purchased again or taken back and whatnot, it's not our responsibility to try and make something happen, even though they can't meet the design guidelines that we have tried to set forward. I'm a little confused, basically, we are going from what was, quote, originally approved to, then, when they went to the extensions and Council at the second extension made comments that they really wanted to -- they like those elevations that were shown and it sounds like to me it was fairly well known that that's kind of what they expected to see and now we are seeing another thing totally different and I realize that it may not have been documented in a -- in a DR or anything else, a revised DR or whatever, to make those elevation changes from the original approval process. But with the review of this project, you know, by professionals and whatnot, you know, what's before us tonight I don't see that they -- they have met the requirements. O'Brien: I agree with you on that. I think also I should have mentioned that I think too much emphasis has been put on the original design back in 2005 and I think that's a mute point. That's gone. I think you're right there. We need to look at what's here before us today. Moe: However, depending upon the documentation, I guess, to make sure -- I guess that's where I -- I guess the question to staff is, can you bring us up to speed from day one to now in regards to what modifications were made in the city documents? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 11 of 33 Watters: Are you -- Chairman Moe, are you asking to see the original elevations and the site plan? Moe: No. I'm just trying to -- what I'm trying to figure out is why aren't we still at the original elevations and whatnot, if that was what was approved in a DR? Watters: Because the applicant needed to extend their Conditional Use Permit. It was expiring. They did obtain one time extension from the director, they needed a subsequent time extension. As a condition of that time extension -- well, let me back up. The applicant at that time Milt Erhart presented that time extension to Council and with that request he showed an updated -- Moe: Right. Watters: -- concept plan and building elevations. The Council liked that. So, they decided to go ahead and grant that time extension contingent upon the site developing per that plan and building elevations. Moe: And documentation stating -- was that, basically, then, the modification to the original DR? Watters: There was no original DR, because design review was not required at that time. Moe: Okay. Watters: Those revised site plans -- there was an extension on the Conditional Use Permit, so those revised plans replaced those plans that were originally submitted with the Conditional Use Permit. So, it just replaced those. Moe: Okay. That's what I -- Watters: Okay. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Do you have something to say? Newton-Huckabay: I think I have a couple of questions. Moe: Great. Newton-Huckabay: I didn't see or -- how did the adoption of the Ten Mile area plan impact decisions to make -- make or allow or require changes on this current change? Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, Commissioners, the Ten Mile specific area plan was not in effect when this originally went though in 2005. Since Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 12 of 33 that time it's been adopted and all new applications are reviewed under that plan, if the land falls within that area. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I guess the question I'm trying to ask is what different aspects of the Ten Mile area plan that weren't -- obviously wasn't in effect at the time, it's in effect now, because this is subject to the Ten Mile area plan. What element of that plan had the biggest impact on the changes requested by the city for this plan, the one we see before us today? Watters: Let me go to that section in my staff report. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Watters: There is a little more than just the Ten Mile plan. The design manual was adopted since that time also, so there are requirements in the design manual, as well at the Ten Mile specific area plan that it has to comply with. If you look at page seven of the staff report, it talks about the standards in the Ten Mile plan, front porches on the proposed structures, those are desired in the plan. Variety of housing types is also a big thing in the plan. Access to the railway corridor. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Watters: Detached sidewalks. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, what is this last section -- so, what, those were the -- the changes that would be made to those grounds, so to speak, those aren't really issues with the elevations tied to these various agreements. Am I -- so -- Moe: And I'm anticipating that the applicant -- because a lot of this infrastructure is already in place, then, you would be either tearing it out and having to redo it. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. So, those elements -- the elements of the Ten Mile area plan would have required infrastructure redesign on the property, is that a fair statement? Watters: Some of the items -- Newton-Huckabay: For the porches. Watters: I believe that the variety in housing types could still be provided. There just isn't financing is the problem they had with the condo units. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. The other question I have that I thought was interesting is this has been continued multiple times and been in and out of staffs office and how is it that we get all the way to a Commission meeting and you guys are at logger heads at what -- we thought we were fine and, then, all of a sudden staff says, no, this doesn't Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 13 of 33 work? I mean how did we get to that point? Who -- did somebody recommend something? Somebody just ignored it or -- I mean how do we get to that point to where -- did you draw a line in the sand and say it's these elevations and these condos or nothing or -- I mean it seems like it just -- to me it seems odd that we would be in denying this -- wanting to deny this application based solely on an opinion of the elevations. Is it because we want to try out the new design guidelines and -- I just -- it seems odd to me. Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, staff did meet with the applicant on several occasions. I was not present personally at all of those meetings. As Becky said, she met with Will Thornton, our design review guy on these. He made several suggestions I know to them. They were told from the very beginning that they -- this application is subject to the design standards in the design manual, the Ten Mile specific area plan, they aren't simply guidelines we can waive at a staff level. As a body, you know, the Commission and Council has adopted these plans and our job as staff is to make sure these projects are consistent with those plans. You know, it -- Newton-Huckabay: I guess what I'm kind of struggling is this area is zoned high density residential. A four-plex is high density residential. Condominiums are high density residential. So, as far as -- if I understand it correctly, it's meeting the spirit of the zoning of the property to have multi-family units and -- but we are just -- the city is saying we prefer the condos there. Or we prefer -- is it -- I'm, basically, interpreting everything written that we want those -- we want those condos. Watters: In response, Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, I think the main probably issue is that the design manual and the Ten Mile plan both call for a mix and variety in housing types and there is none as proposed. Newton-Huckabay: So, if it were -- so, are you saying that there should be single family houses in here, condos, and four-plexes? Watters: Not necessarily saying single family, but there should be a mix. Newton-Huckabay: So, like duplexes and four-plexes or -- Watters: Possibly. Probably some -- possibly owned units, possibly some rental units, possibly some two bedroom units, three bedroom units, that accommodate a variety of, you know, folks to live there. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Moe: Mr. Marshall. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 14 of 33 Marshall: May I ask a question of clarification, then? Making a guess here and, please, correct me if I'm wrong, then. The variety and mix of housing is speaking to more of a change of elevations for esthetic reasons that it's okay if they are all apartments, but as you drive in you want things to change, you want some things to look different and every building to look different than the last building, so that it doesn't look -- shall we say institutional. Is that the intent here? Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Marshall, that is the intent and also not only for them to look different, for them to be different, to offer a variety in housing types to residents. Marshall: Right. Some that could be purchased. Some that could be rented, et cetera? Watters: Possibly. Those are just examples, but Marshall: Uh-huh. Watters: -- yeah, different opportunities, you know. Possibly studio apartments. Possibly, you know, three bedroom units that are available to families. It's not just staff's desire to see this, this is -- this is what's in the Ten Mile plan and the design manual. Moe: Anyone else? Mr. Rohm, any comments? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, what I think that what we have going on here is, basically, as a four-plex and I -- I don't know dollar per square foot what it is, but I'm just going to use a four-plex may be 100 dollars a square foot for construction and the original concept of the condominium development would probably be 100 plus, let's say 150 dollars a square foot. Well, now you're going to develop it as rental units, rather than condominiums, because the economy doesn't service condominium development, you can't put a 200 dollar a square foot four-plex out there to compete against afour-plex that's right around the corner off of Ten Mile and what the issue really boils down to is the Ten Mile plan wants to have more variation than what afour-plex rental complex can afford and in my mind if, in fact, our Ten Mile area plan says that we want additional amenities on the buildings, whether they are called condominiums or four-plexes for rent or whatever, we got to go with what the Ten Mile plan and the design review committee submitted and go with that and if the applicant wants to come back and say we have got a million dollars in the ground, we are going to meet you in the middle and come up with a design that meets that Ten Mile area plan expectations, and still is economically feasible to develop as rental units, then, we got a fit, but until we can get to that we don't have anything. That's the way I see it. Moe: Thank you, sir. McKay: Could I make just one comment? Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 15 of 33 Moe: One comment. McKay: I do apologize with burdening the Commission with this. I just want you to understand the design review procedure that we have. We don't have any opportunity to be heard or interact with your design review committee. It is closed door. And unlike city of Boise where we are an active participant in that design review with the design review commission, which they can make suggestions, we can offer up solutions and kind of solve problems, I don't have that opportunity the way it's structured. Now, according to Pete they are still working through their process, but I don't believe that there is any due process in that. I mean how can I work out the kinks? I'm asking the Commission to provide us the opportunity. I don't know. Maybe -- maybe you send us back -- defer us, send us back, say why don't you guys all get together and, you know, let's try to solve this. That's all I'm asking. I mean -- Moe: I don't want to get into great discussion here, but the one point I do want to make and that is -- is you had your architects go to the city. McKay: We did. Moe: They did meet with the design review representative here at the city and work through some of the issues to where you had the information necessary to bring back and you failed as far as what the city is saying. So, now you're saying now you want to go back and try again. McKay: No. We thought we had hit the mark. Moe: Okay. McKay: That's where we came away from the last meeting with Mr. Thornton, thinking that this -- what we had come up with was in the middle. Obviously, other staff members are not of that same opinion. And Will Thornton's no longer with the city, so that's where we have the disconnect, sir. Moe: So, I guess -- well, thank you. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move we close the public hearing on this application. O'Brien: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on MCU 09-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 16 of 33 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Comments? Rohm: Yes. I have comment. Mr. Chairman, you know, I believe the applicant has a very compelling argument that they have got a million dollars in the ground already out there and nobody wants to see that lost -- or let's -- it makes no sense to lose it if, in fact, it can be salvaged. This design review process that we now have in place is in its infancy and I believe that there are kinks that are yet to be worked out and from my perspective I don't want to deny this, but I'm certainly not in favor of moving it forward and if, in fact, we want to continue it and let them get back and further alter their plans to accommodate the design review committee's responses, then, I think that the -- this project can still be viable. But the fact of the matter is as it currently exists I would recommend denial. So, that's -- my recommendation is to continue it and let them come up with some alternative planning. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Moe: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I have a question to the Commission at large. I guess the only one floor plan thing -- but I didn't think that the architectural changes that they made to go from a condo to a duplex or a four-plex were so grossly drastic that it made it an unappealing elevation for amulti-family home. I'm curious if that -- I mean I understand the design review and, you know, and -- and, yes, I voted in favor of it and all that, but I think that, again, it's a new process and I want to know your opinion. I mean do you guys think they are so far of a deviation from what the City Council -- I mean beyond the front porch issue, because the front porch issue comes out of the Ten Mile plan. Moe: Well, I want to answer first. Newton-Huckabay: Go. Marshall: Go ahead. Moe: I'm going to be very -- very brief and to the point. The point was well taken that we are looking for different views of these buildings, not just the three -- you know, it's too simple. The Ten Mile plan is looking for a lot of difference out there. What's on Ten Mile just right off Ten Mile Road right now -- this is exactly what we'd see a second time, in my opinion, is the same look and when we are trying to -- the Ten Mile and Pine right there. Newton-Huckabay: There is noway that looks like that. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 17 of 33 Moe: When you've only got three different elevations to work from, it's all going to look the same, you don't have different entries and everything else. I realize you don't want to talk about the porches and whatnot -- Newton-Huckabay: No, but -- Moe: -- but it's all going to look like a bunch of boxes. There is -- there is no big change to me. That's my point. You asked for an opinion. Newton-Huckabay: And I wanted to know it. Moe: Mr. Marshall. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I fall on the side that I don't think there is a lot of variation architecturally at all. I really don't. More than anything else -- and that's mostly based on the floor plan. You look at one floor plan -- and, I'm sorry, when you start saying mixed use, either you want that -- that mixed stuff or starting to say we wanted -- we want each building to look different in that area. The mixed use is also referring to being able to mix in a little higher end with a little lower end, rather than everything the same, as in -- again, as Sonya mentioned, the place where the single family can -- can live, as well as the single person with -- with a studio apartment and mixes and change in the design. I'm sorry if I saw these drawings -- driving in with the same floor plan, even though there is a mix of facades, I still see the same floor plan. You know, to me that gives an institutional feel and I think that's what we are trying to get away from. And I would like to see different floor prints and I believe that was why the City Council was so interested and approved the last time extension, because, to be honest, if it had stayed the same as it had been originally, I don't believe the time extension would have been approved. That's my thought. Moe: Just another comment I would like to make, Mr. Rohm. I would -- I happen to agree with you, I do believe that, you know, a lot of money has been spent, you know, and I would like to see them go back and see if they can't work with staff to make some changes and make this project work and so I also would hope that we could set something up to go back again. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I wanted to ask Sonya -- she had that same picture of the three old elevations previously approved all in one, like she did in the three new ones. Watters: Chairman Moe, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, the previously approved one is here on your right. I don't have them all on one slide, but -- Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 18 of 33 Newton-Huckabay: But -- I guess maybe I'm not getting this, but I understand there were nine different buildings, but there were only three different elevations all along. Am I -- on the second -- Watters: There were three types of building designs with three different variations within each of those designs. You're only seeing one of them here in each of those three. Newton-Huckabay: So, how much different was the other Prairie style? Watters: I don't believe we ever got elevations of those. I believe it was just a -- I may be wrong, but I believe it was just averbal -- there will be three different variations within each of these styles or types, if you will. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I have nothing else to say. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yeah, Mr. Rohm. Rohm: Do we need to reopen to get input from the applicant as to how long they feel that it would take to meet with the design committee and come up with alternatives to what's currently -- or can we just say January 21st would be a good date and I move to continue -- Moe: I would recommend that right there, just go to the 21st of January. Rohm: Fair enough. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we continue public hearing of MCU 09-002 to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 21st, 2010, and give the applicant an opportunity to redo modifications from the design review process. Marshall: Second. Nary: Mr. Chairman? I don't recall in the motion that you said to reopen the public hearing. Did you say that? Rohm: No. No. We didn't. Nary: Well, you can't take anymore information on the 21st of January unless you reopen the public hearing. But, secondarily, Mr. Chairman -- and maybe this is a clarification. I don't know if this will be helpful. Commissioner Rohm, you stated that this was an opportunity for the applicant to meet with the design review committee. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 19 of 33 That is not part of the process. They don't meet with the committee, the committee merely advises the director. Rohm: With staff I should say. Nary: Yeah. The committee advises the director. The director is the one that makes the determination. So, we don't have a review process, like Mrs. McKay was talking about. That isn't what the City Council wanted and I think you all know that, but I wanted to make it clear for the record is they would be meeting with the staff further, which is just fine, but you need to open the public hearing, too. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Yes, Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we reopen the public hearing to establish a date certain for a continuation of MCU 09-002. Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to reopen MCU 09-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: At this time I'd like to ask the applicant if they would have plenty of time by January 21, the regular scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning, to meet with staff? McKay: Yes, sir. Moe: From the audience she says yes. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Moe: Mr. Rohm. Rohm: I move that we again close the public hearing -- Nary: No. No. No. Leave it open. Moe: We are not closing, we are continuing. Rohm: Oh. Oh. That's right. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue MCU 09-002 to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 21st, 2010. Meridian Planning & Zoning December 3, 2009 Page 20 of 33 Marshall: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to continue MCU 09-002 to the regularly scheduled meeting of Planning and Zoning of January 21st. All those in favor say aye? Opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from November 19, 2009: RZ 09-004 Request for Rezone of 5.41 acres from R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) to an R-8 (Medium Density Residential) zone for Cabella Creek by Coleman Homes, LLC -north side of E. Victory Road, west of S. Mesa Way and east of S. Bailey Way: Moe: At this time I'd like to open the continued public hearing on RZ 09-004 for Cabella Creek and start with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Before you this evening is an application to rezone approximately 5.41 acres of land from R-4 zoning designation to an R-8 zoning designation. The aerial before you you can see that it's part -- this portion that's proposed for rezoning is part of a subdivision that was approved in 2006 known as Cabella Creek Subdivision. The area in red is the area that is proposed to be rezoned from the R-4 to the R-8 zone. Surrounding the property -- or the property is located on the north side of East Victory Road, approximately a quarter mile from Locust Grove. Surrounding the property is single family lots in Cabella Creek and Salmon Rapids Subdivision. The property is zoned R-4. To the west and the east are five acre lots in Ada County, zoned RUT and they are part of the Kachina Subdivision. And, then, also, if you notice to the west there is also a couple lots that are preliminary platted -- or been final platted, but have not received city engineer's signature and that's known as Shays Cove and that's this portion here that is zoned R-4 at this time. To the south are R-8 zoned lots platted with the city and, then, again, you can see surrounding the property there is some other pockets of R-8 zoned property as well. Here is an aerial and right now there are approximately seven to nine homes constructed on this site, so the site's a little further along than what you see here. One thing I did want to point out is that this property is -- again, was in foreclosure, so when it came before the city it was titled under a different owner and now because of it being -- going into foreclosure the new owner is here tonight seeking the rezone and primarily the reason for the rezone is to construct a smaller home than what is allowed in the R-4 zoning district. What I have shown to you -- demonstrated for you on this slide is on the left side is the zoning map, which shows what the property surrounding this subdivision is zoned currently and how it relates to the land use, which is the exhibit on the right. This -- again, this area was -- is designated low density residential, so when it came through in 2006 staff analyzed the site appropriate to the designation and it was found to conform to that site in 2006 and it still does today under its current approval. If you look at the other lots adjacent to it you can see that they are also designated low density