Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 4, 2003 P & Z CommMeridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 3 of 86 No. 3 and I believe this is back before us with instructions, probably from this body and the City Council, so who has a report on that? Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, as you stated, this is an application for a vacation of a 29-foot right of way. The subject property is located at the northwest intersection of Meridian Road and Ustick Road and I will show you where that easement to be vacated is located. The easement is being vacated per the recommendation of staff, so that lots along the western edge, of the subdivision do not have double frontage. Staff recommends approval of this vacation. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? The only question I had was the comment from the Irrigation District and were they confused on -- okay. It looked to me like they may have been confused on where their easement actually was and -- Kirkpatrick: Well, actually, if you look through their packet, there is a second letter - clarifying -- see, there is the first letter where they showed concern. There is a second letter, dated August 26th, which states, after further clarification -- Borup: Oh. Okay. I'm sorry. They were in a different order. Right. I read the second one first. Thank you. Okay. Any other -- any other questions or comments from any of the Commission? We just need a -- just a recommendation to City Council. Again, this is not a Public Hearing, this is just for us to review and recommend. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our agenda VAC 03-005. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 5. Public Hearing: AZ 03-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 15.038 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Highgate Subdivision by Harris Homes, LLC - 2700 North Meridian Road: Item 6. Public Hearing: PP 03.023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 74 building lots and 10 other lots on 15.038 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Highgate Subdivision by Harris Homes, LLC - 2700 North Meridian Road: Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 03-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for single-family residential Planned Development with a mix of attached and detached housing in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Highgate Subdivision by Harris Homes, LLC - 2700 North Meridian Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 4 of 96 Borup: Okay. Our next item is -- okay. The next three items are pertaining to the same project. All three Public Hearings. I'd like to open the following Public Hearings at this time, AZ 03-019, request for annexation and zoning of 15.038 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Highgate Subdivision by Harris Homes, LLC. It's at 2700 North Meridian Road. Also PP 03-023, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 74 building lots and ten other lots on the same project, and CUP 03-039, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a single family residential Planned Development with a mix of attached and detached housing, again, on the same project. With these Public Hearings open at this time, I'd like to start with, the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject property is located on the west -- no. Sorry, the east side of Meridian Road, just south of Ustick, about a quarter mile south. The property is outlined on the vicinity map on the screen. It's directly adjacent to Lansbury Lane across the street to the west. Bedford Place and Fothergill Subdivision is to the east and, then, the property to the north and south are both undeveloped rural residential properties that currently remain in Ada County. You should have a staff report, dated September 2nd and today's hearing date. I'll go through it and give you the highlights. It is approximately 15 acres. There were some discrepancies on the acreages, which I'll hit in a moment as I go through the special considerations, but on that 15 acres they are proposing to annex it, zone it R-8, and they have proposed a plat. That plat -- the plat has 74 residential lots and ten other lots. Those other lots are open space street buffers, micropaths, and storm water. The density of it -- the gross density is 4.63 acres. The net density after subtracting out all roads and other nonbuildable areas is 8.08 dwelling units per acre. The lot sizes range from just over 4,000 to almost 9,000 square feet, but the project is basically divided in two. With the area closest to Meridian Road, being planned for single-family attached homes and the area in the rear planned for single-family detached homes. The lots for the attached units range, generally, from 4,000 to 4,500 and most of the lots in the detached area are around 5,000 square feet, though there is some variation in some of the -- some of the corner lots are larger and that's where the larger ones that are almost 9,000 square feet are. In addition to the plat, they were proposing a Conditional Use Permit and Planned Development. As a part of the Planned Development, they are requesting reduced standards for lot sizes, frontage, setbacks, house size, and the ability to exceed the block length requirement. As amenities for that Planned Development request, they are proposing a tot lot playground on Lot 15, Block 3, and, then, a pathway that runs along the north end of the property where the Onweiler Lateral is. The pathway and the tot lot are the two proposed amenities. They also stated in their application that they met the ten percent open space requirement -- well, it's not a requirement, but they had 10 percent open space also. After recalculating it and based on the revised plans, it's about eight and a half percent. The items that need resolution are highlighted in the two special considerations section. The first one is for the Preliminary Plat and it is located on Page 7. Item A is the nonbuild agreement. In the original application as submitted by the applicant they had requested a nonbuild agreement on a couple of the lots that -- they have since submitted a letter that that will go away and they are no longer requesting that, it's not an issue. We would just ask the applicant to verify that for the record. Item B is the future right of way. There is, along Medtlian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 ~ Page 5 of 96 ~!~ Meridian Road, a requirement for additional right of way. The applicant has provided for that, but in the plat as received it did not a have a lot and block in the subdivision, so we would just simply ask that it be revised to show a lot and block for those lots that contain the future right of way. Then, they can be dedicated to ACHD in the future when they are able to purchase that right of way from them. Item C islithe attached housing and I noted that Lots 2 through 14 of Block 3 are intended for! the single-family attached homes. That basically follows this line, cuts straight down; and is around here. As I counted around this area, there was an odd number and so!~, one of the lots would have to have a detached house. I have asked them to demonstrate tonight which -- how they would accomplish that and I believe they are prepared to do that tonight. Item D deals with the acreage. All of the applications, the annexation,'! the plat, and the CUP all mention the acreage as 15.038. As I went through and verified that, given the legal descriptions that were submitted, and also in talking with their surveyor, I believe that the correct acreages are noted at the bottom of that paragraph and the annexation should be 16 acres even and the plat and the CUP are, actually, 15.68. We would just like to receive verification of that also. Item E is the encroachment agreement. The lots on the south back up to the South Slough and the South Slough runs right along this edge. Those lots do encroach into the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District easement. I can't remember how many feet off the top of my head, but they do encroach. We have just asked that the application provide a signed encroachment agreement with Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District prior to the Final Plat application.l, I know the applicant has been in discussions with Nampa-Meridian and would ask that she represent -- whether they same to be favorable towards that. Item F is the phasing. There is no phasing shown. We just want to verify that they do intend to do it as a single phase and Item G - -there is a micropath lot shown right here. We had original;y been in discussions with the applicant about whether or not a stub street would be needed to connect to Hawk. We decided that one was not needed and asked for a pede'!strian access to get to the South Slough. The width of that as shown is 10 feet, which 'is too narrow. If it stays in that location, it would need to be widened to at least 15 feet. We have offered the option in the staff report of shifting that micropath down to be part of the open space lot where the storm drainage is designated and just add those 10 feet on. Then, they would be able to accommodate that without modifying the other lot frontages. That's all on the plat. If there is any -- I'll pause for any questions', before moving on to the Conditional Use Permit. i Borup: Questions from the Commission? Siddoway: Okay. Moving on, then. On Page 12, you have'~,the special considerations for the Conditional Use Permit. The first item is a ditch tiling'waiver and, for the record, the applicant is not requesting a waiver from the requirement to the the Onweiler. However, we -- staff does know that an application has beenl,submitted for a request to waive the requirement for the Silhouette Subdivision, which is just adjacent to it in this corner. They have requested to receive a waiver from City Council on the requirement to the the Onweiler in that location. They have a condition on Itheir subdivision to build a pathway along -- along it and landscape it. They are proposing to leave it open and make it an amenity for that pathway. In the proposed Silhouette Subdivision, they are Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 6 of 96 proposing to continue that pathway that Silhouette Subdivision will build and all we have noted is that we will -- we will address the issue of tiling this ditch with the Final Plat. I think that it is prudent, if tiling of the ditch for Silhouette, if,a wafer is granted, then, a waiver should also be granted here. I suppose it's not a pertinent issue right now. They are proposing to leave it, to the it per standard ordinances. The South Slough is a larger drain and has not been tiled elsewhere and they would be requesting a waiver from the requirement to the the South Slough. Item B is a public easement. I have been out on this site with Doug Strong, the parks director, and looking et the location of the future multi-use pathway. There is a pathway shown along the South Slough. However, in walking that area with him, we determined that it made the!most sense in this location for the pathway to be developed on the south side and not tte north. The South Slough pathway is not an issue for this subdivision, but will be for the property to the south. This pathway along Onweiler Lateral, since it is being built as a private pathway today by Silhouette and proposed here, is also an alternative rote that that pathway could take. We are asking that a public easement be granted over~~Ithis pathway. Residents in this subdivision that are trying to get to Settler's Park would, then, have a more direct route for pedestrians or bicycles that wanted to access theisidewalks to get up to the park that way. Item C is the reduced standards. We have delineated all of the reductions that they are requesting. The only real concern we had was with the street side setbacks to ten feet. The applicant did provide us with'Isome illustrations showing how those would work. I will -- but in a conversation I had with the applicant just before the meeting, they may be rescinding that request, so it may not be an issue. I will hold that thought. Item D is the amenities. As mentioned, they are proposing the eight and a half percent open space, a tot lot, and the pathway along thrT Onweiler. The ordinance requires that the Commission review the proposed amenities and determine if they are appropriate to the size and uses of the proposed development and would just ask that you consider that in your findings or your motion tonight. Item E deals with stormwater detention and this is one that we will need to have addressed on the record tonight. They are proposing a stormwater lot near the South Slough!~in this location. It doesn't actually show up on the Landscape Plan with landscaping 'and that's something I will address in just a second. We have concerns given the shallow groundwater out there. Just as you heard with the Clearbrook Subdivision a month or so ago, that it's likely to have a requirement for sealing the base -- the bottom of th'e basin and not allow the storm water to percolate, so the wet pond issue we need to have addressed. Their engineer is -- seems confident that they can address it, much like Clearbrook, did with being able to discharge the water to the South Slough. ICI believe in this area they detected groundwater at about 3.7 feet. The requirement !,for sealing the bottom of those basins is if there is less than three feet to ground water,; so that only gives them .7 feet for a Swale, which isn't much. We will ask that they address that tonight. Item F -- we got two more and, then, I'm done. The existing trees -- di~ go out on the site. There are several existing trees in the center of the site where the ixisting homes are. There are also several existing trees along the South Slough. The ;Landscape Plan that they show does depict the existing trees along the South Slough to be retained. We concur that they need to be retained per the Landscape Ordinance,. In order to remove the trees in the center of the site without mitigation, we will need to have written verification from the city arborist Elroy Huff that they are deemed hazard trees and can be removed Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 7 of 96 without mitigation. Otherwise, mitigation would be required.~l, I did speak with Elroy Huff. He went by the site and it appears that he will deem them i,as hazard trees that do not require mitigation. We will need to get in that writing, though, and have the applicant work with him to get that. Item G is the Landscape Plan. We have asked that this Landscape Plan be revised to depict the landscaping on the storm drainage lot, as well as showing the existing trees that are proposed to be removed and any that would be retained. With that, I think that I am done. I have a coupl~,e more slides to show you. One of our concerns was with the -- with the elevations that were provided with the Conditional Use Permit. We had some concerns as to whether they would really fit on the lots that they were proposing and the applicant has re',sponded to that as well by showing -- this is just one sample, they had about five elevations, I haven't put them all in the presentation, for the detached. Then, this was an elevation of what the attached units would look like. They, then -- I had them pick a series pf lots within the subdivision and -- that were typical of those within it and so I asked to 'see how the attached units would work on these two and they have shown with the lot lines and the setbacks they are proposing how it would fit on the lot. Then, a single 50-foot lot for a detached house and they have provided a Site Plan as to how that would wiork. Then, I picked one of the oddly shaped ones and asked them to show how that ,would work and they have done that as well. The rest of this deals with the site triangles and the side setbacks, which may not be an issue, so I will leave it at that and stand!,for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Yes. Steve, the footprints of the homes, that's requirements that they have requested correct? Siddoway: They have requested. Yes. Centers: This is probably not a big thing, but on Page 7, Iter to see site-specific comment -- you say Number 5. I think you? Siddoway: Which page was that? Centers: Pardon? on the reduced setback G at the bottom, you refer ou mean Number 8, don't Siddoway: Which page? 'i Centers: Page 7 Item G. Micropath. ~~ Siddoway: And their question is about the comment that it's referencing? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 6 of 96 Centers: Yes. At the end -- Siddoway: Oh, yes. It should say eight. Thank you. Centers: Okay. Then, similar to that, Page 12, Item Condition Number 6 and I think you mean 7. Siddoway: That is correct, too. I think I must have added Centers: And would it be true on Page 13, Item F that Number 5 and 6 orjust five? I see they are very similar. Siddoway: They are similar. Six is the one that's referE Landscape Plan to depict those trees that are missing. them both. It's -- the conditions themselves are all that motion, but -- Centers: Right. I understand. Right. you say see site-specific after typing this. see site-specific Condition in G, which is the revised certainly could reference matter in the end on the Siddoway: F was referring to five with the trees and G wasp, referring to six, which was the Landscape Plan, and it references the fact they needed to show those trees, so -- Centers: That's all I have. Borup: Okay: I have got a question maybe a little bit of a general nature, but it's something I was thinking about reading this, but it may be -~ it does pertain to this, but also a lot of others, and that's the amount of applications w~ are having come through with a great amount of reduced standards and I -- and I realize maybe it depends on where it is and the city and staff are trying to encourage denser development close to city core and this is certainly in the city core, but has there been any thought to whether we need a new zoning standard? I mean we have got reduced lot sizes, reduced frontage, reduced setbacks, reduced minimum lot sizes -- maybe this is not the zoning that it needs if we were encouraging this type of housing. It sounds like there has been some discussion on this, maybe. Powell: Yes, Chairman, there has been and I haven't had the opportunity, of course, to discuss it with you or City Council yet, but we have talked about it in staff. We are seeing an awful lot of applications coming through with basically requesting R-8 zoning for the sole purpose of having reduced frontage and -- mostly reduced frontage requirements. They are still doing larger lots for like R-4 lots, but with R-8 standards, just for more flexibility. Borup: Right. We have seen those and I like the variety that that gives, you know, basically, an R-4 subdivision with R-8 zoning, and we have got some real variety by doing that. This is different here, though. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 9 of 96 Powell: Right. I think it is a reflection that the -- the standard blueprints that folks are using are going to a longer, narrower house and that the dimensional standards that we have got for some of those zones probably do need to be reevaluated. I have asked the Council to help me prioritize what all needs to be done. We have got a list of about 25 Zoning Ordinance Amendments and I suspect that you may all start to see a new rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance. I think that's where we are going with the City Council at this point. We would certainly reevaluate those and want your input on appropriate standards or some idea of what an appropriate reduction is for a PUD, if -- you know, what's the tradeoff that you want to see as far as the PUD. Right now it's the two amenities, maybe -- that's certainly something to consider in the future. Borup: So, there has not been consideration of another zoning destination, then? Powell: No. I think we need to do both. I think we need to look closely at all the dimensional standards for the Zoning Ordinance and also the PUD process to see what's appropriate in both locations. Are you suggesting like an R-6 zoning or something like that, or an R-12 or -- Borup: Well, yes, maybe -- yes, an R-10 or 12. I don't know. I just -- it just seems like we are getting an awful lot of request for reductions and I -- I don't know if that's concerned any of the other Commissioners or not or -- Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman -- Borup: We have got the standards. I mean -- Centers: Yes. Borup: And they have known -- everyone knows what it is before they start their project. Centers: They are complying. I think the reason you're seeing more of them -- the bottom line is the land cost and I think the developers will tell you that. I think if you do changes, that you should involve the developmental community in a hearing process. Powell: Of course. Centers: Because that's what's -- I think the next applicant will get up here and tell you that. They have got to get more bang for their buck, because the cost is going up and that -- Borup: Well, it goes up if someone is willing to pay for it. Centers: Right. Borup: I mean if this ground had to be developed as an R-4 subdivision, they wouldn't be paying the same for an acre. I have no idea what they paid, but, you know, again, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4. 2003 Page 10 of 96 that's just -- that's a reality. All right. Well, as I said, that was maybe a general question, but I'm still wondering. Zaremba: Yes, but I sort of have gotten what I asked for. We had a discussion several months ago when there was the request to permanently change some of the side setbacks, I think, and I said why are we always chipping away at the R-4 zone, why not just ask for an R-8. Well, I have seen a lot more R-8's since, then, and sort of got what I wished for. Borup: Well, I like how a lot of -- Zaremba: But, now the R-8's are asking for reductions from that, so I certainly see your point. Borup: Okay. Anyone else have any questions or comments? Okay. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Ford: May I approach the Commission? Borup: Please. Yes. Ford: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. For the record, Ashley Ford, director of planning for Hubble Engineering at 701 South Allen Street in Meridian. I am here tonight representing Peter Harris and David Alcox of Harris Homes. Since staff has done such an excellent job of presenting the facts of the project this evening, I will just try to focus on the outstanding issues. One fact that I would like to add, however, is that this site in your Comprehensive Plan is medium density residential, which is that's why we went for the R-8 zone, just for that clarification. I will start with the special considerations for the Preliminary Plat on page seven of your staff report regarding item A, the nonbuild agreement that was originally requested by us. This is no longer an issue and, thus, we rescind this request and we will remove the note on the plat. Item B discusses the future right of way along Meridian Road and whether it is the intention of the applicant to donate the right of way to ACRD or not. At this time it is not the intention to donate and we will place the right of way into a separate lot for future dedication. Item C discusses the attached housing product, which we are showing in the light green as depicted on the handout that I have just given you. Because of the odd number of lots, we have decided to make Lot 6, Block 3, a detached residence due to the shape of the parcel. This residence will, however, resemble the other attached product, so it does'not appear out of place. We will correct the notes on the plat to reflect this as a detached lot. Item D discusses the discrepancy in the acreage amount. Staff is correct in the acreage for the annexation of 16 acres, due to having to annex a portion of Meridian Road, and 15.68 acres for the Planned Development and the plat. A licensed surveyor has verified these acreages. Item E discusses the forthcoming encroachment agreement with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. I have spoke to John Anderson of the district and he has verbally accepted the small encroachment of anywhere from two to five feet along the southern and the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 11 of 96 eastern boundaries. Nampa-Meridian will not enter into an agreement until a site has a preliminary entitlement. We will have this agreement prior to submitting the Final Plat. Item F discusses the phasing of the project. At this time the applicant does plan on phasing the project by focusing on the detached product first, then, moving to the attached housing. We will provide a phasing plan prior to our City Council Hearing. Item G is in regards to the micropath on Lot 22, Block 3. Originally, we had an open space lot in this location, which encompassed the pathway as well. Due to the evaluation of our drainage, we moved that open space lot to Lot 15, Black 3. We are certainly agreeable to moving the pathway to the open space lot and we will make these changes to the plat and to the notes. Regarding site-specific Condition Number 12 on Page 8, we have submitted an updated groundwater study, dated September 2, 2003. According to the report, groundwater levels are generally just under feet along the South Slough to seven to eight feet along the northern portion of the property. All of our drainage area will be designed to retain water only during the 100-year event, not to exceed 24 hours, and with athree-to-one slope or less. We will not have any wet ponds within this development. The engineer on this project has spoken with Mr. Freckleton and has assured Bruce that we will meet all city standards regarding drainage and there shall not be any wet ponds. We will continue to work with the engineering department on this issue, now, to the special considerations for the Conditional Use. Item A on Page 12 of your staff report addresses the adjoining property owner's desire to not the the Onweiler. The applicant is not in opposition to this. However, does not feel strongly enough to propose the same due to this being a violation of Nampa-Meridian's policies and your ordinance. However, if the Commission and the Council feel that it should be left open, we will comply. Item B discusses a need for a public easement along the Onweiler and the applicant has no objection. Item C discusses staffs concern regarding the proposed 10-foot side street setback. After an evaluation of our applicant, it has been determined that only a 15-side foot -- side street setback is needed and the request is rescinded. Item D discusses the proposed amenities. We feel that by extending Silhouette Subdivision pathway from the west, this is a great amenity for the walkers. We also envision that there will be young families within our development and, certainly, a tot lot will see quite a bit of use. Item E discusses storm water detention, which I have already addressed. Item F discusses the mature trees on the site. We will submit a revised Landscape Plan and we will continue to work with the Parks Department. Item G discusses the confusion over which lot had the tot lot. Since the initial application we have made some revisions and the tot lot will be on Lot 4, Block 5, as staff has presented to you. Staff is correct that Lot 15, Block 3, is to be utilized as a drainage lot and we will have a new Landscape Plan showing appropriate landscaping and I'm happy to address any other questions you may have. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes. It's Ford right? Ford: It is Ford. Centers: I think your last comment we will submit a new Landscape Plan that shows 10 percent open space correct? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 12 of 86 Ford: Actually -- Centers: Because -- do you agree with the staff that you're short or -- Ford: We are. We are required to provide two amenities. One of the amenities could be ten percent. We feel that we are providing the two other amenities with the pathway along the Onweiler, because that will be a private pathway, and with the tot lot. We are meeting that. If you feel we need to make up to the ten percent, I'm sure we could try to work that out, but we do feel like we are meeting the two amenities per the ordinance. Centers: Yes and, staff, you concur? Siddoway: Yes. The ordinance requires a minimum of five, plus two amenities. One of those amenities can be 10 percent open space, but the proposal that the applicant is making is between the five and 10 percent, plus the pathway and the tot lot. Centers: Okay, and we have that covered in the site-specific comments. Siddoway: It is. Centers: Good. Thank you. Zaremba: I would only ask about your willingness to the or not the the ditch along your north property line. Ford: We really -- Zaremba: Your plan is to the it and, then, put a pathway over it. If you leave it open, then, you would need more space to accomplish the pathway. Ford: Actually, there is plenty of space with leaving it open, yes. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Borup: And I'm assuming -- my understanding from staff comment is just that it would look better to have them both consistent. Ford: Absolutely and we are certainly not -- Borup: And I think you'd probably agree with that, too. Ford: -- in opposition to that. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Ford: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 13 of 96 Borup: Do we have anyone from the audience that would like to testify or ask any questions on this application? Come forward. Bothman: Hello. My name is Brian Bothman and we -- Borup: Could you state your address also? Bothman: 2877 Anston Avenue North. Borup: Okay. Bothman: Good evening, people. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak. Centers: Could you restate your name? Bothman: Brian Bothman. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Bothman. Bothman: Thank you. Can we back up on that line on the -- I guess it would be like the northwest -- northeast corner. We are about the third lot in straight back. Down two lots, that one right there and our concern is where the level of the ground is sitting now, it's probably a couple feet higher than where our yard sits at the present time. We are concerned with atwo-story house possibly going in on that lot. If there was atwo-story house -- I mean it would really be looking straight down into our backyard. We would like to see a little bit of privacy put in there, you know, maybe some trees or something that would accommodate the eight lots that are on our side of the South Slough. Borup: That was your only concern? Bothman: Well, it's -- Borup: Do you know what the width of that --the South Slough is with your -- Bothman: It's --down at the bottom of the slough it's probably -- Borup: No. I meant from property line to property line. Bothman: I don't know what their property line is. I'm going to take a guess at probably about 24 feet from where our back fence line is to -- I don't know if they are intending on building a fence across the back or -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 14 of 96 Borup: The plat looks like it's about 50. Is that -- so I think there is about 50 feet from property line to property line? Bothman: Okay. It is quite a bit farther, then. We just don't have any idea where it is in that -- Borup: Which would -- yes. That would be understandable, because there is no -- I assume there is fence there or anything. Bothman: No. It's open. Centers: So, your concern is a two-story house looking down into your backyard? Bothman: Correct. Borup: Does any --are there anytwo-story homes in your subdivision? Bothman: The only two-story home would be the one that's on the very north comer two houses in from us and that's that one right there. Borup: So, none of these homes along here or here have two stories looking into their neighbor's backyards? Bothman: Yes. There is -- three houses in from the other one that I just noted on the corner is atwo-story house as well. Borup: I understand your concern, but -- Bothman: Along that back fence line there is none now, except for the one on the very comer. Borup: I can understand your concern, but, you know, your own subdivision doesn't have the same restrictions within it, so -- and it doesn't -- and those homes don't have a 50-foot separation. We will get an answer from the applicant. From the plans that we saw, it looked like most of them were planning on single stories, but I don't know if that's the intention on all of them or -- or if that was just the examples that they turned in. Bothman: Okay. Borup: Anything else? Bothman: No. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? We had one other -- at least one other signed up. Jennifer, did you still want to testify? Okay. Seeing no one else, is there final comments from the applicant? Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 15 of 98 Ford: Again, for the record, Ashley Ford. You're correct, the slough is 50 feet from property line to property line. I have heard this Commission say before that developers or homebuilders should enjoy the benefits of the zone, especially when we ask for any residential zone. Therefore, we ask that we are allowed to have two-story homes. Whether or not there will be a two-story home on any of those lots, we don't know. That will be up to the individual homebuyers. We will have a mix of one and two-story homes. You have to also take into account within that, 50-foot from property line to property line on the slough there is also going to be a good size backyard as well. There is going to be quite a bit of separation. Other than that, I don't have anything to add and we just ask for your approval this evening. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? A lot of times one of the concerns is that there is more lots on one side than the other. I notice this particular one is they are equal. Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman. He mentioned the grade is like quite a bit higher in this parcel of land. Do you know anything about that, Ms. Ford? Are they going to lower the grade or do they have to or -- Ford: At this time it is not our intention to lower that, as far as I'm aware. We will team a little bit more about that when we get to the Final Plat stage and start doing our actual construction drawings. At this time I'm not aware of that. Centers: How long has the adjoining subdivision been there where Mr. Rothman lives? Ford: To be honest with you, I think the mid '90s, but I can't speak to that for 100 percent truth. Centers: Okay. Borup: It sounds about right. Centers: Yes. Thank you. Ford: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Commissioners? Are there any other comments from staff? Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the applicant, per my notes, has said they will comply with all of the staff requirements. They aren't asking staff to back up on anything, so I think it's a good partial in-fill after the parcel below it gets developed, if ever, but -- and I think it will supply a need for some -- possibly more -- or less expensive housing. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 16 of 96 Zaremba: And I think they have been creative with a very odd-shaped piece of property here and that took some major thinking to figure out a way to use it. I'm sensitive to the idea of the one neighbor who has testified that was worried about atwo-story home, but I do agree that they should have the opportunity to use the zone that they have asked for. It's just as likely that a single story house would be built there anyhow, so I'm not particularly inclined to add that as a requirement. Other than that, I think it's a good project. Centers: Well -- and I would concur and I think you could take the 50-foot width of the canal and, then, the -- Mr. Bothman's backyard and the backyard of a new resident, you're probably looking at closer to 90 feet. I think it's going to be quite a distance for someone to -- you know, I don't think it's physically possible, but I could be wrong. Borup: Question for staff. Are we straight on -- I'm looking at the table, the requested setback table. Are we clear on -- what are we talking about in this application 15 feet on the side now that is understood? Siddoway: That's the standard requirement. What I would do is address that in site- specific Comment Number 7 on Page 14 and just reduce --just modify that to say that the street side setbacks will not be reduced from the ordinance. Borup: Okay. Are we assuming anything else on the chart that they submitted, any other standards that they requested? I don't believe I really had any other specific questions, other than maybe clarification. I think there was a couple of typos, but -- Siddoway: Yes. There is really no other problems that -- Borup: Like it says the R-8 standard has a 30-foot -- which is not correct. Siddoway: Yes. The -- Borup: Well, I'm looking at their letter, not at the -- Siddoway: Okay. Borup: Is that on the plat? Siddoway: Yes. I'm looking on the face of the plat. Borup: I guess that would really be what would count, wouldn't it? Zaremba: Are you looking at the latest one? I have one received by the Clerk on August 21St Borup: I was looking at their submittal chart. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 17 of 98 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, there is one thing I would clarify -- Borup: On the side setbacks? Siddoway: Side setbacks are requested at five feet and that is the standard for the zone, so that's really not -- Borup: Well, then, it says under attached it says zero. I'm assuming that's on the attached side, not on the other side. Siddoway: Right. Borup: Is that just an automatic assumption that's made? Siddoway: Well, I think we -- you can clarify that, but I think that is fine. They will still have afive-foot setback on the -- to the side that's not attached. Borup: Right. Siddoway: For the front setbacks, they are requesting 15 feet and the ordinance requirement is for -- allows for 15-foot setbacks for living areas only. You may want to clarify that garages still have to meet the 20-foot setback. Living areas are allowed by ordinance to encroach within 15 feet. I don't see any other issues. Borup: Okay. Commissioners, are we ready for a motion? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Well, first of all, we still have got a Public Hearing open, but go ahead, Commissioner. Rohm: I have one question for staff. They had said that they didn't think it was going to be phased in and, then, the applicant spoke to phasing this project in. Does staff have any problem with the phasing suggested? Siddoway: No problem. We just need it to be depicted on the Preliminary Plat as approved. As long as they meet the requirement -- that is the last site-specific comment, Number 10 on Page 14, that they submit the revised plat and Landscape Plan at least 10 days prior to the next hearing. They show the phasing and take care of the notes other things as noted in the report, that wouldn't be a problem. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4. 20D3 Page 18 of 96 Centers: Yes. Would prepare to make a motion on -- Borup: Okay. We still have a hearing open. Centers: Yes. That's true. Well, let me move that we close it. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Zaremba: Covering all three items? Borup: I'm sorry. Was that in your motion, all three hearings? Centers: Five, six, and seven. Borup: Okay. Again, all in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Now, I'll make the motion. On Item Number 5, AZ 03-019, request for annexation and zoning of -- corrected to 16 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Highgate Sub by Harris Homes, LLC, at 2700 North Meridian Road, including all staff comments from their memo dated September 2nd. End of motion. Zaremba: Second Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: I would also like to make the motion to approve and recommend approval to the City Council on Item 6, PP 03-023, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 74 building lots and 10 other lots on a corrected 15.068 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Highgate Sub by Harris Homes, LLC, at 2700 North Meridian Road, including all staff comments as amended. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, it's 15.68, not .068. Centers: So noted. Borup: Does that conclude your motion? Centers: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 19 of 96 Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second -- Centers: Well, no, including all staff comments --and I'm not done. Borup: Okay. Centers: We have to amend a little bit here. Borup: That's what I -- that's what I was wondering Zaremba: No. He was just going on. Centers: Page 8, Item 8t, the applicant will shift the micropath to the area recommended by the staff near the drainage lot. Then, the 10 feet is acceptable. Those are the only notes I have on the site-specific comments and -- so end of motion, unless someone sees something else. Zaremba: I would only comment that I would reference that we are referring to their plat version received by the Clerk August 21, 2003. Centers: The what? Zaremba: We had several revised plats. The latest one is August 21St Centers: So noted. That's the one we are referring to. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? You know, I did have one notation and I don't know if this is redundant or not and that was Item 8 -- or Item 9 for the staff. It talks about that sidewalk shall be constructed with a detached sidewalk. Aren't the sidewalks already in? Siddoway: They are in, so I guess you could strike that requirement. If they are already in as attached, we won't make them be modified. Borup: Okay. I thought they were in the whole mile. Siddoway: Yes. Borup: Okay, and the applicant didn't mention that either. Zaremba: I do have a discussion question. About the setbacks, is this a Preliminary Plat issue or a CUP issue that the garage setback should remain at 20? Meddian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 20 of 96 Siddoway: That would be a CUP issue. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: That's where the setbacks are discussed. Borup: But that's also in -- it's already in the ordinance stating that, too, in the R-8 zone with a CUP. Centers: The CUP because it's a PUD. Borup: Right R-8 with a PUD. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: I think that would be good to clarify that, but yes. Centers: So, staff, you're saying strike Item 9? I mean it's redundant. If the sidewalks are in, they don't have to put in double, right? Siddoway: It could be stricken. Yes. Centers: Okay. We would strike Item 9 on Page 8 as part of the motion. Borup: Okay. Thank you. I kind of interrupted that motion, but are complete -- I mean did that get everything? Zaremba: The second accepts the amendment. Borup: All right. Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor. Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Okay. Continuing on. I would like to recommend approval on Item 7 on our agenda, CUP 03-039, request for Conditional Use Permit for single-family residential Planned Development with a mix of attached and detached housing in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Highgate Sub by Harris Homes, LLC, at 2700 North Meridian Road. Including all staff comments and as amended. Page 14, Item 7, it should be noted that - - or could be noted within that paragraph that the applicant will comply with the standards for the side street setbacks, which are 15 feet. The applicant -- in that same paragraph it could be noted that they will comply with the front setbacks for garages, which is 20 feet. Other than the open space -- and we have talked about that, they are doing the micropath, that's all I saw on the site-specific. Anyone else see anything else? End of motion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 21 of 96 Zaremba: I'll second it. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 8. Public Hearing CUP 03-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for shell and core for multi-floor medical office building in an L-O zone for Meadow Lake Village Medical Office by Hummel Architects, P.A. -east of North Eagle Road and south of East Franklin Road: Borup: Thank you. That does conclude the Public Hearing on that project. Item Number 8, Public Hearing CUP 03-040, request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for shell and core for multi-floor medical office building in an L-O zone for Meadow Lake Village medical office. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed project for the Meadow Lake Village Medical office is in the Meadow Lake Village Project, formerly known as Touchmark, south of Franklin, between there and the freeway, and just east of St. Luke's and -- north and east, I guess. The subject property for. the proposed medical office building is just northeast of the existing hospital facility on the St. Luke's property. It is surrounded by Montvue Subdivision on the north and -- sorry. On the west and to the north and east is surrounded by other properties within the Touchmark project. This is a site photo. It's, actually, a few years old now and St. Luke's complex has been expanded from this. We have the proposed Site Plan, which sits the medical office building down in the southwest corner of the site, surrounded by parking and landscaping. The Landscape Plan did not scan very well, but this is a copy of the revised Landscape Plan. We also have the building elevations. I would note that they are proposing a 98,000 square foot medical office building, shell and core. It does have five stories of habitable office space and, then, a -- up on the roof there is a small mechanical penthouse that would house mechanical equipment as well. The project sits on 5.96 acres, just under six acres, and the maximum height of this building, which is the -- probably the main item for discussion tonight, is 85 feet. The L-O zone maximum is 35 feet. They are requesting, through the Planned Development that they have submitted, to be allowed to exceed the building height. For comparison, I have stated what the adjacent St. Luke's Hospital is at 108.67 feet tall. It is one additional story tall. It has six stories of habitable space, plus a seventh for the mechanical equipment at St. Luke's. That gives you a feel for the scale in comparison. Basically, one floor smaller. You should have a recently revised Site Plan. I was able to incorporate it into the staff report. It was dated August 26th -- or stamped into the record on August 26th. The main difference -- there is three main differences between the revised Site Plan that they submitted and the original one that was provided with the application and I'll go over those. The first item is there is a pedestrian walkway in the