Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 5, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeddian Planning 8 Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 12 of 64 Borup: Oh. On the tree mitigation. Zaremba: Yes. Okay. In that case, I believe I'm ready. Mr. Chairman. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our agenda, PP 03-043, request for preliminary plat approval for 11 commercial building lots, one common lot, on 15.8 acres in a C-G zone for Sparrowhawk Subdivision by David Waldron, northeast corner of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of February 5, 2004, received by the city clerk February 2, 2004, with one minor amendment. On page seven, paragraph five, the second bullet, add a sentence on the end of that that says refer to Meridian Parks and Recreation letter of February 3, 2004, written by Elroy Huff, regarding mitigation of 62 inches of -- 62 caliper inches of trees. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: I'm sorry, did you do both of them? Zaremba: No. I only did one, but you didn't say whether it carried or not. Motion carries? Borup: Motion carries. Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 5 on our agenda, CUP 03-066, request for a Conditional Use Permit for modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit planned development for Sparrowhawk Subdivision by David Waldron, northeast corner of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of February 5, 2003, received by the city clerk February 2nd -- I'm sorry. 2004. Received by the city clerk February 2nd, 2004, with no changes. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? And motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 03-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18 building lots and 3 other lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for proposed Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 13 of 64 Roundtree Subdivision by Rennison Engineering -north of West Pine Avenue and east of North Linder Road: Item 7: Public Hearing: CUP 03-069 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 18 residential 4-plex buildings on one lot in a L- Ozone for proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Rennison Engineering - north of West Pine Avenue and east of North Linder Road: Borup: Okay. Thank you. Next item is Roundtree Subdivision, Public Hearing PP 03- 045, request for preliminary plat approval of 18 building lots and three other lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for the proposed Roundtree Subdivision. Accompanying that is CUP 03-069, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for 18 residential four-plex buildings on one lot in an L-O zone for the proposed Roundtree Subdivision. We'd like to open both public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat and CUP approval for a planned development on 5.7 acres of land located on the south side of Pine Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet east of Linder Road. The site -- the subject site is designated high density residential on the 2000 Comprehensive Future Land Use Map and is currently zoned L-O. The site is known as Lot 2, Block 1, Treymore Subdivision and is currently vacant. The subject site is in this location. On the north side of the site -- and, again, my aerial is a little bit out of date, the Treymore Senior Apartments are in this location here on Lot 1 of Treymore. To the south the railroad tracks run in this location on the southern boundary of this site. To the east there is a seven acre -- a little over seven acres vacant parcel at this time. The owner of that site has submitted -- recently submitted to the city a development application for that site, which you will probably be seeing here within the next couple of months anyways. To the west is the Sunbridge Living Center. The submitted preliminary plat proposes to subdivide the existing 5.7 acre lot into 18 multi-family residential lots and three common lots. The CUP proposal includes 18 multi-family buildings, each containing one four-plex structure, for a total of 72 units. The CUP includes a request for reduced side and rear setbacks for the buildings and reduced lot frontage in the L-O zone. As part of the Treymore development, a 50 foot wide access easement was approved and constructed to intersect Pine Avenue near the west property line and that's the flag portion of the subject site. This driveway is currently constructed to approximately there before crossing the lateral here. It's 25 feet wide, I believe, from the edge of pavement to the edge curb along the east side. As amenities for the subject PD, the applicant is proposing to construct a picnic area, complete with a barbecue pit, benches, and tables on Lot 20, Block 1, which is in this location here. And on Lot 10, Block 1, the applicant is proposing to construct a sand volleyball court and that is this location here. Okay. Just a couple of things to hit on. There are the elevations for the units. And I'm going to --just got a letter from the applicant, dated February 4th -- I don't know if you all have that as well. It was addressed to this board. I'm going to address the two issues that this applicant has brought up in this letter and the first one is condition five of the CUP on page seven -- or, excuse me, condition five of the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5. 2004 Page 14 of 64 preliminary plat on page seven and staff is okay with the applicant's proposed language there. It's at the bottom of page, one, but basically what he's added is prior to the application for the eighth four-plex building -- the building permit for the eighth four-plex and the fire department -- the International Fire Code requires that a secondary access be provided to 101st multi-family unit on a single access, so you can have up to 100 multi-family units on a single access point. With the 72 units in Treymore Senior and the 72 here, they would go over on the single access point. So, secondary access is required for the full build out of this site. They are just asking to pull those first seven building permits to go to that maximum 100 prior to being required to construct the secondary access. So, we are all right with that one. The other one is on page 14 of the staff report and it is condition five of the CUP and staff will leave that up to the Commission and, then, the City Council to determine if the proposed usable private open space meets the intent of the ordinance. It's actually -- excuse me. These multi- family developments it's often a tough time of interpretation of how -- what that really means, such as a patio or deck is how the code reads. The applicant is including that backyard, basically, as private usable open space, with a 48 square foot patio for each unit. So, I'm not willing to take a stand and say that's sufficient, I will leave that up to this board. That has been deviated from in the past, but I will let the applicant sell that to you a little bit more. And that picture -- I apologize, the picture -- maybe the applicant has a better one for you. The picture on the far bottom right there does show patios that I believe are to scale, so those would be approximately a 48 foot back patio on those -- those units and they are, you know, private per dwelling unit and the backyards, if you can call them a backyard, I guess are 200 square feet. So, within that you would have a 48 foot slab back there for the patio. Staff is recommending approval of this subject development, with the conditions included in the staff report and that concludes staffs report. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Would the -- Zaremba: I have one, actually. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: And this is something we have circled around on other applications that are asking for reduced setbacks on things. If I remember correctly, there was no fencing plan provided with this one, and my thought is that on page 14, paragraph two, where we are saying that we would agree with the setbacks that they are requesting, under paragraph two my inclination would be to add a third item, something like: No fencing shall be built closer to any building than five feet per story. In other words, where a two store building is setback only five feet from the property line and, therefore, the distance between the two buildings is ten feet, to have a fence down the middle of that would seriously restrict the fire department's access and I'm asking if staff would be comfortable with a requirement that we say there can't be a fence in the location and to define that, I'm saying it can't be closer to any building than five feet per story. So, on a two story building they couldn't have a fence between them, but they could -- if there Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 15 of 64 were not two buildings there, it could be ten feet away from the building. Is that a reasonable -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I don't have any problems with that. You might just want to clarify with the applicant, but I don't believe that they are proposing any internal fencing and the requirement we were talking about was perimeter fencing, that's usually where we considered -- you bring up a good point, the fencing there with the fire department access and pulling hoses around fences internally could pose a problem, so I don't have a problem with that. Zaremba: I'm just thinking sometime in the future somebody could decide, even if it's not the present plan to put a fence in there, somebody in the future could say, hey, I want a fence down here and I think we should protect ourselves. I'll ask the applicant if they can live with that. I just wanted to make sure staff could live with it. Borup: Okay. Is that your only question? Okay. Rohm: I had a question on the patios. Staff comment says you don't necessarily like the 48 square foot. Do you have a proposed square footage for a patio that you would like to see them -- the developer install or - it would be nice to have an idea of where we are going with this. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm, I don't necessarily have a preference. I don't know where a hundred square feet came from. I'm just - I don't have -- well, other than being in the ordinance, I don't know how a hundred feet got to be adopted as the standard. Rohm: Okay. That is the standard is a hundred square feet, not the 48 that they are proposing. Borup: Well, a hundred feet of open -- how is it worded? Hood: Private usable open space. Borup: Well, it doesn't say it has to be in concrete, it just needs to be that space. Is that a correct interpretation? Usable is the other part of that, so -- Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Well -- and where it has come up in other issues is where they had a second floor balcony that was small and they were trying to count the stair well and the landing as part of their open space, but that's not really usable and where we have made exceptions, the whole unit had a separate barbecue pit area, although that one, eventually, was not approved by the City Council either, so -- if we are saying the real usable open space is the 200 square feet, of which 28 feet -- or 48 feet is cement, that would seem to me to satisfy. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 16 of 64 Borup: And the designs that we are looking at now seem to be adequate. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Is the applicant here? Would they like to make their presentation? Rennison: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, John Rennison, 50 Broadway, Suite B, in Boise. And just to answer a couple of those questions -- I think I can field both of them -- or attempt to. Number one, on the fence -- the fence issue, just clarifying with my clients, who are also here in the audience tonight, we don't anticipate or don't plan to have any internal fences, just on the exterior, with one potential exception, and that is on the Nine Mile, we haven't completely resolved -- this, again, would be work in progress with Nampa-Meridian, of course, to figure out where we can put our fence and where we cannot put our fence, but on the south side of that drain, somewhere in between the drain itself and the building there, we do envision a fence along that portion there, whether it sits on the easement line or whether it sits somewhere further into the easement is yet to be determined. Borup: Is he working on possible encroachment agreement with them? Rennison: That's correct. That's what we envision. There is a lot of space there that, frankly, in our opinion, could be landscaped and put to better use, rather than weeds. Borup: Do you know which side they are using for maintenance? Rennison: I think the service road right now is, actually, on the north side. Borup: Okay. You should have -- I would think you would be able to get an encroachment agreement there. Rennison: We are optimistic. Zaremba: Yeah. Well, in that case, since you have no plans to put fencing there, you would not be hurt by the requirement that it can't be too close to the building and that should be okay with you, it would just protect us from some potential future owner who might have a different opinion. Rennison: I think I can represent my clients in that that they would be okay with that. Zaremba: Yeah. Since you don't have plans to put a fence anyhow, where would -- excuse me -- where we would require it if it were put in doesn't really affect you. Rennison: Yes. I think we are all in agreement. Zaremba: Just my lips aren't working today. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 17 of 64 Rennison: The other one I guess goes to the -- I already lost track; actually. Zaremba: The open area -- Rennison: The open area, yeah. I presume that everybody is looking at this illustration. I wouldn't -- obviously, we can't see what exactly what he's looking at, but there is a -- just asmall graphic in the back of the letter that we wrote in response to the staff report, just to add a little clarification of the dimensions in the scale of things -- by the way, this is little sketch is not to scale, but it's actual pretty darn close to being representative. But that's the concept of what we are trying to achieve. The property line in some locations can potentially be just ten feet from the building and in which case there is a -- one or two situations I think in the site where there is a building that's potentially ten feet, again, away from the property line and if the sidewalk -- or the -- excuse me, the patio was 10- by-10, they would be connected and that's one of the things, I guess, we are trying to steer away from, is just to have a little actual green -- or lawn in between the patios themselves. I might move -- if there is anymore questions on that, I might just move off of that topic. Borup: I think we are fine. Rennison: Well, I did want to thank staff for helping us put this thing together. They did a great job. We are in agreement with the staff report and the conditions contained therein. We did have just two clarifications or request for minor modifications to some of the language and that's what's contained in this letter dated February 4th from my office, which I think everybody has, and which Craig just talked about. So, I won't belabor that issue any further. With one exception and that is the fire department access here, that's kind of a -- somewhat of a hot topic, if you will, but we mostly have it resolved. The -- as Craig mentioned, the city has accepted -- and I need to clarify this, but the city has accepted an application for what's called Rock Creek development -- is that right? So, it has been submitted and accepted and that is for the property to the east of us, immediately east. That's to the right-hand side of that sheet there. And we have been talking with the developers there and the applicant Treasure Valley Development Company on the -- working to help each other out and they are going to be faced with the same issue of needing a secondary access. It pretty much makes sense that we connect the two projects and provide an access -- our secondary emergency access out through their parcel, their secondary emergency access out through our parcel -- pretty straight forward. We have -- I, actually, drew up a simple agreement between the other applicant for the Rock Creek development, just to kind of resolve the matter and develop the understanding that both parcels will work together to provide that emergency access and Ihave a -- several copies of the agreement itself, which, if you care to read, it's only one page, but it's -- you haven't seen it up until now. I can either hand it or I can read it if you can -- I'm an engineer, I read horrible, but -- Borup: And I don't know -- I think we are okay on that. You are okay -- I mean your wording was on the seven units; is that correct? That -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 18 of 64 Rennison: Yeah. Okay. Borup: Yeah. That would be a maximum seven units and so this -- that would have to be taken care of before we would be able to proceed. Rennison: That's correct. The building permit would be subject to this secondary emergency access. What I wanted to make -- Borup: Maybe since you did mention it, we ought to maybe have it in the file for the clerk. Rennison: Terrific. Yeah. What I did want to make clear is that secondary access has already been understood. We have talked back and forth and we have a written agreement, which I just got a copy of tonight, that has been executed by the applicant for the Rock Creek development project and just to summarize, it says we mutually agree on a secondary emergency access, end of point, and they have signed it and so we need to do the same, but we can enter that into the public record tonight, too. Borup: Right here Rennison: This is my only copy. Borup: Well, is that a photocopy, then? Rennison: Yeah. These are -- Borup: That's what you referred to, so that's fine. Rennison: Well, they are the same thing. Borup: This would be adequate. it's the same wording. Rennison: It's the same thing. Borup: Yeah. We don't need to take your -- Zaremba: Let's see. I guess I would want clarification from staff. It's a great deal of comfort to know that the secondary access is in the plan and that you're working cooperative with the neighbor, but I would still assume that the eighth building permit can't be withdrawn until that access is in place. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, that's correct. Even this agreement is there, the access itself hasn't been constructed, so that would need to be in place prior to that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 19 of 64 Zaremba: So, we are really not changing anything but the staff -- Hood: The condition should stay as the applicant has amended and the staff originally -- Zaremba: And I encourage you to pursue that and move it along. Rennison: Yeah. We are anxious for it, too. Zaremba: Okay. Rennison: Their application is -- again, like Craig mentioned, one month -- potentially one month or maybe two months behind us, so -- however, it is not our intention, necessarily, to lag so that those two applications ran together. I do also want to make that very clear. I would like to talk just briefly -- or a little bit later here about a few time critical issues, which we would certainly like to walk out of here with an acceptance from the Commission. Borup: And I don't think staff had any conditions, so -- I guess what I'm saying if time is an issue, we are probably ready to move along. Are we, Commissioners? Rennison: I can quit talking anytime here. I think we are done. Zaremba: I think we are done. Borup: And you will have an opportunity to come up and address any -- if there anything else comes up with any public testimony, you, of course, have the opportunity at the end also. Rennison: Thank you very much. Borup: All right. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify? Come on forward. Wali: Mr. Commissioner -- or Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I am Dave Wali, my residence is 939 Northwest 13th Avenue, which is in the Navaro Subdivision right across the street from this proposed plan. Our subdivision is approximately this area here. Right now we have some grave concerns, because with the Treymore 72 unit that just came in, they have a driveway here, we have a driveway here, or a street, street, and a street, coming onto a very busy street. You have got traffic turning from every which direction. You have nine months out of the year that the high school kids are going to school driving back and forth at certain times and we think it's going to be a matter of time before we have a critical wreck and with that many units, you're talking probably 125 to 150 trips a day out of those apartments. The other issue is is, yes, you do have Sunbridge there, that is a facility care that takes care of senior citizens, even some real critical senior citizens. You also have Treymore, which is a senior citizens housing type situation and now you're going to put this type of housing in back of that and those two don't mix -- or three don't mix, in our opinion. The other issue of concern Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 20 of 64 we have as homeowners is the fencing issue of the canal and the railroad tracks. We are very concerned about children and people. We know how well fences are maintained sometimes, whether it's a chain link or wood fence or whatever, that they are torn down and a child does get loose or gets out there and gets run over by a train or in canal. So, we do have some concerns about this subdivision. We don't think it fits that type of area and with those type of residents. Borup: Are there any fencing -- is there fencing up there now along the railroad tracks? Wali: No, sir. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you. Anyone else? Wilson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Mark Wilson, I'm also in the Navaro Place Homeowners Association and live in that subdivision. You did express some of my concerns, you took care of some of them, and that was the access to it. My biggest concern with that access is if he's going through this next subdivision -- let's see. Right here I guess it is. Are they going to have an access over to this subdivision on out or is this just going to be like a U shape and, then, there is going to be no access whatsoever to this piece here. Borup: That's probably -- that's really something we can't address, because we haven't seen -- Wilson: Right. But the agreement is to share access with this -- Borup: And that would be your emergency access is what they are concerned about. Wilson: Right. Right. And so I was just concerned also, like Dave Wali said, that there is a lot of traffic coming in and out of here and I don't know if you have ever been on the corner of Pine and Linder between 7:00 and 8:00 o'clock in the morning, it is backed up. We get kids that come -- and it starts backing up here. They came flying through this subdivision, they come flying up 11th Street and back through here, and it just backs up all through this area at that time in the morning. Now, the senior center that was put in here, we felt that it wasn't that critical, because they come and go at different hours than when the students do, but when you start putting residential -- you know, just standard -- I don't know how you determine, just normal everyday people like me that go to work all the time, I'm coming and going at the same time that the high school students are coming and going and it is quite a hazard at that point. I don't know what the remedy is, I don't know if there should be a traffic light at that intersection there at the high school to facilitate the cars going through there better or what, I don't know. It's not -- and it's something that's going to have to be addressed sooner or later, I think, because Pine Street is becoming pretty much a secondary artery east and west through this down and if they ever hook up up to Eagle Road and, then, on over to Cloverdale, it's really going to get busy through there. So, I mean it's not something that's going happen now, but eventually it will happen. And that's my concern is the traffic patterns. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 21 of 64 Borup: Well -- and now is the time to start making that known to the highway district. Sometimes it takes them awhile to move on things, but a signal light is something they can move a little faster on than other projects. Wilson: And it might facilitate the movement of traffic at the high school through there, because I know at times people are trying to go to work down Linder to get to Franklin and get over to the freeway, at the same time the students are trying to get to the high school, and it really gets congested. Borup: It sounds like you feel it would be beneficial to have some access to the other property. Wilson: I would think -- you know, if I was living in this area, it would be nice to have access back in through here, not that it -- you know, that that's a main artery to go through there -- Borup: It's just another option. Wilson: Yeah. It would be an option. And that might be something that you might want to consider when they develop these two other pieces of land that access through those. Borup: I think that's something we always look at. Wilson: Well, thank you for your time. Borup: Thank you. Did we have anyone else? Come forward. Come on up Johnson: Good evening. My name is Maxine Johnson, I am the regional supervisor of the management company for Treymore Senior Community. I believe that Mr. Hood received a fax letter from Tom Mannschreck today. We had a -- we had a fax receipt that showed that it was sent. I have a copy of the letter here and it is addressed to Mr. Craig Hood, Meridian Planning and Zoning Department, 600 East Water Tower Drive, Suite 202, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Regarding the Roundtree Subdivision conditional use. Dear Mr. Hood: Thank you for taking my telephone call Wednesday morning, February 4th, and giving me the overview of the land use action. I understand Roundtree is an 18 lot, four-plex subdivision with one common lot. A total of 72 apartment units may be built. By virtue of the platting process, each of the lots could be individually owned. I am one of the owners of Treymore Apartments, a 72 unit senior community immediately adjacent to the north of this proposed development. He has spoken with the development engineer John Rennison, PE, he was quite helpful and answered many of my questions. The owners of Treymore have the follow concerns. Number one. The Meridian fire department has apparently requested secondary access to Roundtree. Mr. Rennison is working with the landowner to the east. We support the concept of secondary access. But when the property to the east develops, we do not Meddian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 22 of 64 support that property utilizing our driveway on the west side of our property as any means of ingress and egress to their property and that is the current 25 foot driveway that's in place. The other concern we have is the common professional management company -- evidently they haven't thought about that, according to Mr. Rennison. There are several four-plex developments around the valley with the units individually owned. Unless the four-plexes have a common professional management company, homeowners association, and detailed declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions regarding architectural style, maintenance, et cetera, one or more of the buildings may fall under a state of disrepair, have junk, laundry, et cetera, on the decks and patios, and otherwise not a good and compatible neighbor. This has occurred at some of the other developments. We request the developer prepare covenants, conditions, and restrictions covering these items and submit to the city for review. Number three. I have not seen the landscape plan, but encourage dense planting with a preponderance of evergreens on this development's north property line to screen it from our Treymore development. And, then, he tells that I am the one that's going to be here tonight in this letter. And I'm open to any questions you may have as far as now we feel about the subdivision going forward. We request deferral of all items before the Commission until our issues are addressed. Sincerely, Thomas Development Company, Thomas C. Mannschreck, President, and he faxed it to 343-0337 was the fax number. One thing I want to make very clear, yes, we are a management company. No, we don't want to manage that particular project. And I have lived across the street from other projects similar to this and there is one here in Meridian -- every building had a different owner, every building had a different rule, some buildings let dogs, some didn't, it was very difficult for the management people to manage, because they only did parts of them and some of them fell into disrepair, some of them didn't, and it was -- it was very hard having them as a neighbor across the street from a very nice place to live. Again, we just want to make it very clear that our concerns about their professional management has nothing to do with us, because we manage our own properties and few of the owners that partnership up and we have no desire to manage this type of project. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Did we have anyone else? Okay. Mr. Rennison, you might want to address some of those items. Rennison: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I would like to address a couple of those. First, Tom's letter, he did -- he was kind enough to fax me a copy. I did speak with him yesterday in regards to the letter that Maxine just read for us into the record. I do have a copy of that myself. There were three items that he talked about in there. One was the emergency access or access through the development and the second was a -- was the CC&Rs and the third was -- had to do with landscaping. Well, the first one, the emergency access, in part, I -- as I understand it, it's Tom's concern that he didn't necessarily want to see the property to the east of us take access through that same -- through our piece and through his shared access, which we mutually share and, then, take access to Pine Street for public trafFc. I did want to clarify that this -- the driveways in this -- in this development are private, they are not public, and we, actually, don't want to encourage traffic through our development and through that approach either. So, we Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 23 of 64 are in support of what he's suggesting there, number one. However, we all need to acknowledge that emergency vehicles definitely need the passageway through both and that's what we intend to provide. Zaremba: Do you know -- I realize this isn't your project, but since you are trying to work with the property owner to the east to provide both of you with a second access, do you know -- could you, with a pointer, indicate to us how his access is going to work or what he's working on? Rennison: Actually, I have no idea, but -- Borup: Can we assume he would have access to Pine, though? Rennison: That's correct. That's about the extent of my knowledge on the project, unfortunately. I have not seen their site plan to date. Zaremba: But not through their property. Rennison: I'm looking forward to it, but -pardon me? Zaremba: Separate from the Treymore property, though? His access will not go through the Treymore property? Rennison: His primary access will not go through the Treymore -- either lot of the Treymore development. Clarification. Our project is Lot 2 of Treymore Subdivision. Tom's development is Lot 1 of Treymore Subdivision, that big building that you see in the upper portion of the -- on the preliminary plat there, that outline. Moe: And, then, do I, then, understand, then, there will be a secondary route out -- as well out of that same property --out of this property? Rennison: That's correct. If I can find this pointer, I will point at it. Right there. There is a drive aisle that goes up and out right there. Well, our secondary access is going to be right here. There is going to be connectivity between the two projects right at this point. Maybe we could flip to that master site plan. That show it a little better. The preliminary plat that we were just looking at showed the access easement. This illustration shows the drive aisle and we are going to connect right here. In fact, we are already coordinating with their engineer such that those two access will align. So, the connectivity will be emergency in nature. Did I answer that well enough? Moe: Yes. Rennison: The third item in Tom's letter talked about the landscaping. We will certainly complete the landscape plan in accordance with the ordinance. We don't intend to have -- make any exceptions to that. And, then, the deferral matter, hopefully, we would overlook that. We would certainly hope not to defer our project. If Tom wanted to defer Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 24 of 64 it, he could come down here and we could really hammer things out on the ground. That's the way I like to do it, anyway. I appreciate you coming, Maxine, but I don't see any need for deferral of this application, personally, based on these items. Did I skip over number two? I did. I'm sorry. Number two had to do with CC&Rs. We fully intend to engage a full set of CC&Rs. We had not drafted those to date. We do intend to do so. We have always intended to have a homeowners association, which will be responsible for the maintenance of common spaces, et cetera. Borup: How about maintenance of the buildings themselves? Was that -- Rennison: That is still somewhat open for discussion. We have not resolved that matter. There has been some discussions with my client and I. In fact, we were just speaking of it tonight and that it could be a situation where there is one management group that manages all of the buildings. However, there is a possibility that there could be individual ownership of those -- each particular building. It will be our intention to structure the CC&Rs such that we will protect against the car overhaul in the middle -- in the front of the building and things of that nature. Borup: And exterior maintenance and that type of thing, that will all be addressed in the CC&Rs? Rennison: We would certainly address all those types of items in the CC&Rs Zaremba: Well, just to suggest, you would have probably both design standards and building maintenance standards; right? In your CC&Rs? Rennison: That are correct to some degree. It's our intention at this time to have one builder build all of these -- all the buildings and he's here with us tonight, Ron Batten of Big View Builders. So, the design guidelines are not -- we are going to have full control of those -- we are going to build the buildings. That's the intention here. Zaremba: All right. Rennison: Just to hit on one last item, Dave Wali's comment on the traffic, as I understood it, I think one of his concerns was that a lot of the property to the east might come through -- a lot of the public traffic might come through our project and come out onto Pine Street -- our Pine Street access. And, again, that's not what we are wanting to encourage either. So, I think we are --our thoughts in line there. Moe: I guess I want to follow up on the Dave's comment. In regards to the design standards, if, in fact, you're going to have multiple owners of these properties, if you don't have some type of design criteria set, then, you're going to have one or two buildings decide they want to make, you know, wholesale changes to exteriors and whatnot of these facilities -- of the buildings, so I'm just kind of curious of maybe you guys even thought about that as far as setting any criteria that will have to stay, you know, with the development? I mean I saw your rendering and whatnot for your siding Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 25 of 64 and whatnot. If you get an owner that decides he wants to put effus up, now you have completely changed the outlook of the whole facility. Rennison: That's a very good perspective and that's something we will -- I think we can definitely consider. Unfortunately, I am not the expert on the drafting of those CC&Rs, that's just my arena, but we fully intend to engage somebody that is more versed in preparation of those things and having a little more foresight into items specific to that in nature, so -- Moe: Thank you Rennison: I think we can adequately address those -- those types of concerns. I guess that's all I have, unless there might be any questions. Rohm: I believe there was a request for fencing along the adjacent canal. Is there -- Borup: Well, there is both the canal and the railroad tracks. And you had perimeter fencing already planned for the project; isn't that correct? Rennison: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Rennison: Thanks for your time. Borup: Thanks, Mr. Rennison. Okay. Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on Item 6 and 7 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? Do we need any discussion on either item? Zaremba: I think I have gotten answers that satisfy me on almost everything. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: In that case, let me make a stab at it. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our agenda, PP 03-045, request for preliminary plat approval of 18 building lots and three other lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Rennison Engineering, south of West Pine, not north of West Pine -- south of West Pine Avenue and east of North Linder Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of February 5, 2004, received by the city clerk February 2, 2004, with no changes. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 20 of 04 Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on our agenda, CUP 03-069, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for 18 residential four-plex buildings on one lot in an L-O zone for proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Rennison Engineering, again, south of West Pine Avenue and east of North Linder Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of February 5, 2004, received by the city clerk February 2, 2004, with the following changes: On page 14, under site specific conditions, paragraph two has two subparagraphs and I would add a third subparagraph to paragraph two, the subparagraph three reads: No fencing shall be built closer to any building than five feet per story. Also on page 14 under site specific conditions, paragraph five will be changed to read: Provide each dwelling unit with at least 100 square feet of usable private open space, comma, with 48 square feet minimum in patio, and the balance in landscaping. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 03-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 46.40 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC -east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 03-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 215 residential building lots and 34 common lots on 46.40 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC -east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 03-070 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and front yard setbacks for patio homes for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC -east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Borup: Okay. Thank you. Our next item is Chesterfield Subdivision and I just realized maybe we should have said something earlier. Do we have anybody from the public