Loading...
2015 01-15E IDIAN- MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING I D AHO COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. Roll -call Attendance X Patrick Oliver X Rhonda McCarvel X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall O Steven Yearsley - Chairman 2. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted 3. Consent Agenda Approved A. Approve Minutes of January 6, 2015 Special Meeting 4. Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued from December 4, 2014: RZ 14-007 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone of 3.05 Acres from R-15 to TN -R; 1.67 Acres from R-4 to R-8; and 0.83 of an acre from R-8 to R-4 Continued to February 5, 2015 B. Public Hearing Continued from December 4, 2014: PP 14-017 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 167 Single -Family Residential Building Lots and 329 Common/Other Lots on 48.56 Acres of Land in the R-4, R-8 and TN -R Zoning Districts Continued to February 5, 2015 C. Public Hearing: AZ 14-016 Nesting Swan Ranch by Blossom 1, LLC Located 4617 and 4620 S. Martinel Lane Request: Annexation and Zoning of 27.75 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District Continued to February 5, 2015 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — Thursday, January 15, 2015Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. D. Public Hearing: PP 14-018 Nesting Swan Ranch by Blossom 1, LLC Located 4617 and 4620 S. Martinel Lane Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty -One (31) Building Lots and Seven (7) Common / Other Lots on 10.37 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District Continued to February 5, 2015 E. Public Hearing: AZ 14-015 Granton Square Subdivision by Granton Square Properties, LLC Located East Side of N. Locust Grove Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request: Annexation of Approximately 5.13 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District Continued to February 5, 2015 F. Public Hearing: PP 14-019 Granton Square Subdivision by Granton Square Properties, LLC Located East Side of N. Locust Grove Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty -Nine (29) Single Family Residential Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on Approximately 4.81 Acres in the Proposed R-8 Zoning District Continued to February 5, 2015 G. Public Hearing Continued and Renoticed from December 18, 2014: AZ 14-014 Sulamita Church by Architecture Northwest Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Black Cat Road: Annexation and Zoning of 9.76 Acres of Land with an R- 8 Zoning District Continued to February 5, 2015. Applicant will correct a noticing error with the property posting signage H. Public Hearing Continued and Renoticed from December 18, 2014: CUP 14-019 Sulamita Church by Architecture Northwest Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Black Cat Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Develop a Church on Approximately 8.47 Acres in the Proposed R-8 Zoning District Continued to February 5, 2015. Applicant will correct a noticing error with the property posting signage. I. Public Hearing: MCU 14-006 Baltic Place by L.C. Development Located 82 S. Baltic Place Request: Modification to the Planned Development to Allow a Five -Foot Instead of Ten -Foot Wide Interior Side Setback for Lot 5, Block 1 and 15 Feet Instead of 20 Feet Between Buildings in a C -G Zoning District Approved J. Public Hearing: PP 14-020 Accommodations Subdivision by Providence Management, LLC Located South Side of E. Falcon Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — Thursday, January 15, 2015Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Drive and East of S. Eagle Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Fourteen (14) Single Family Residential Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on Approximately 4.71 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District Approved Adjourned at 7:09 PM Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — Thursday, January 15, 2015Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 15 2015 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 15, 2015, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice -Chairman Patrick Oliver. Present: Chairman Joe Marshall, Commissioner, Commissioner Scott Freeman, Commissioner Patrick Oliver and Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel. Members Absent: Steven Yearsley. Others Present: Jacy Jones, Ted Baird, Sonya Watters Bill Parsons and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call Steven Yearsley X Patrick Oliver X Rhonda McCarvel X Scott Freeman X Joe Marshall - Chairman Oliver: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for January 15th, 2015. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Oliver: Thank you. Next we will begin with the adoption of the agenda. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have Items A, B, C, D, E and F, which will be opened for the sole purpose of continuing these items to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 15th. It will be opened solely for the purpose, so anyone here tonight to testify to this particular application, we will not be taking testimony today. Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we adopt the agenda as modified Oliver: I have a motion to adopt as modified. A second? Freeman: Second. Oliver: We have a second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 2 of 25 A. Approve Minutes of January 6, 2015 Special Meeting Oliver: We will move onto the Consent Agenda. Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have several items on the Consent Agenda. Do I have any additions or corrections? Seeing none, could I get a motion to accept the Consent -- Consent Agenda? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the Consent Agenda. Oliver: I have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Freeman: Second. Oliver: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Oliver: Moving on to the agenda items for tonight. We are going to open up the continuances. At this time I'd like to open up the public hearing for several items to be considered continued. The sole purpose of continuing these items is to the regularly scheduled meeting of January 15th. We have items -- starting with items on the agenda Southridge Estates, RZ 14-007, PP 14-017, Nesting Swan, AZ -- Baird: Mr. Chair? Oliver: Yes. Baird: If I may interrupt. I would suggest that we open the first two items and, then, hear from staff about the specifics with continuance and the actual date certain to which it will be continued. So, let's start with those. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued from December 4, 2014: RZ 14-007 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Rezone of 3.05 Acres from R-15 to TN -R; 1.67 Acres from R-4 to R-8; and 0.83 of an acre from R-8 to R-4 B. Public Hearing Continued from December 4, 2014: PP 14-017 Southridge Estates Subdivision by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC Located South of W. Overland Road Between S. Linder Road and S. Ten Mile Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 167 Single -Family Residential Building Lots and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 3 of 25 329 Common/Other Lots on 48.56 Acres of Land in the R-4, R-8 and TN -R Zoning Districts Oliver: Thank you. So, we will work with the Southridge Estates, RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017. Watters: Chairman Oliver, the applicant for Southridge Estates Subdivision requests a continuance to the February 5th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for additional time to complete the architectural guidelines for the development requested by the Commission at the last meeting. Oliver: Thank you. Is there any discussion? Marshall: I would simply ask is the applicant here to address that at all? And that is because of -- you said the architectural details? What are we -- Watters: Yes. The architectural design guidelines that were requested at the last hearing. Marshall: Thank you, Commissioner -- or Chairman. Oliver: Is there any other discussion? Seeing none, could I get a motion? Marshall: Mr. Chair -- Oliver: Mr. Commissioner. Marshall: 4th; right? Watters: February 5th. Marshall: 5th. Geez. All right. Mr. Chair, I move that we continue Southridge Estates Subdivision, RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017, to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for February 5th, 2015. Oliver: We have a motion to continue Southridge Estates, RZ 14-007 and PP 14-017, and move that to the February 5th agenda. Do I have a second? McCarvel: Second. Oliver: I have a motion and a second to move that to the February 5th agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 4 of 25 C. Public Hearing: AZ 14-016 Nesting Swan Ranch by Blossom 1, LLC Located 4617 and 4620 S. Martinel Lane Request: Annexation and Zoning of 27.75 Acres of Land with an R-8 Zoning District D. Public Hearing: PP 14-018 Nesting Swan Ranch by Blossom 1, LLC Located 4617 and 4620 S. Martinel Lane Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty -One (31) Building Lots and Seven (7) Common / Other Lots on 10.37 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District Oliver: Moving on to the next one. It would be Nesting Swan, AZ 14-016, PP 14-018, for the purpose of discussion at this time, the sole purpose is to continue these -- both items to our February 5th agenda as well. Do I have any discussion? Watters: Chairman Oliver, Commissioners, the applicant requests a continuance, as you said, to the February 5th meeting due to the site not being posted within the required time frame. Oliver: Commissioners, any questions? Marshall: I would ask it is being noticed now with the appropriate February 5th? Watters: That is correct. Yes. Marshall: Thank you. Oliver: Do I have anyone from Nesting Swan that would like to speak to this? Okay. Seeing no one. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we continue Nesting Swan Ranch, AZ 14-016 and PP 14-018, to the February 5th regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting. Freeman: I second. Oliver: Thank you. I have a motion and a second to move Nesting Swan, AZ 14-016 and PP 14-018 to the February 5th agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed nay? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing: AZ 14-015 Granton Square Subdivision by Granton Square Properties, LLC Located East Side of N. Locust Grove Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request: Annexation of Approximately 5.13 Acres from RUT in Ada Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 5 of 25 County to the R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District Continued to February 5, 2015 F. Public Hearing: PP 14-019 Granton Square Subdivision by Granton Square Properties, LLC Located East Side of N. Locust Grove Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty -Nine (29) Single Family Residential Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on Approximately 4.81 Acres in the Proposed R-8 Zoning District Oliver: Finally, we are looking at the next item, which would be 4-E and F, that's Granton Square, AZ 14-015 and PP 14-019, looking at, again, at a continuance for this to the February 5th meeting. Any discussion? Parsons: Members of the Commission, again, this item was also requested to be continued to the February 5th hearing. The applicant is making some modifications to the plan that we can anticipate a revised plat, so he needs some time to finalize his design, so that we can actually get a staff report in front of you and discuss it at the February 5th hearing. Marshall: Mr. Chair? Oliver: Go ahead. Marshall: I have a question for staff. So, they believe they can get all of that accomplished before the February 5th meeting? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Marshall, I spoke with the applicant this afternoon and I believe they are finalizing their plans and the applicant is here to address any concerns or questions you may have as well. Marshall: Mr. Chair, I don't have any questions for the applicant, but maybe they'd like to address what it is they are changing. Oliver: Would the applicant like to come forward and address -- please state your name and your address for the record. Clarno: My name is Randy Clarno and I'm the manager of Granton Square properties and my address is 412 South 13th, Boise. There is some issues concerning access and parking and some of these things came up over the holidays when people weren't around to get answers at ACHD and other places, so we just didn't have enough time, but we will be ready by the 5th without any problem. Oliver: Thank you very much. Commissioners, any other questions? Freeman: No. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 6 of 25 Oliver: No? Clarno: Thanks. Oliver: Thank you very much. Any other discussions, Commissioners? Marshall: Mr. Chair, I move that we continue Granton Square Subdivision, AZ 14-015 and PP 14-019, to the regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting for February 5th, 2015. Freeman: Second. Oliver: We have a motion and a second to move Granton Square, AZ 14-015 and PP 14-019, to the February 5th agenda. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Oliver: Okay. Now, we are moving to the public hearing process. We will open each item. We will have a staff report finding regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code, with staff recommendations. The applicant will come forward to present these -- their case for approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. Any public testimony will then follow. There will be a sign-up sheet, which I have in front of me now. Any person wishing to testify will come forward and will be allowed three minutes to speak. If they are speaking for a large group, like an HOA, there is a show of hands -- a show of hands that they are representing that group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After each testimony has been heard, the applicant will have the opportunity to respond to those and has another ten minutes to do so. Then we will close the public hearing, the Commission will have an opportunity to discuss and hopefully be able to make a recommendation to City Council at that point. G. Public Hearing Continued and Renoticed from December 18, 2014: AZ 14-014 Sulamita Church by Architecture Northwest Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Black Cat Road: Annexation and Zoning of 9.76 Acres of Land with an R- 8 Zoning District Continued to February 5, 2015. Applicant will correct a noticing error with the property posting signage H. Public Hearing Continued and Renoticed from December 18, 2014: CUP 14-019 Sulamita Church by Architecture Northwest Located Southwest Corner of W. Cherry Lane and N. Black Cat Road Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Develop a Church on Approximately 8.47 Acres in the Proposed R-8 Zoning District Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 7 of 25 Oliver: So, we will now open the public hearing. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item AZ 14-014 and CUP 14-019. Do I have someone speaking to that? Watters: Thank you, Chairman Oliver, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning and a conditional use permit. This site consists of -- Baird: Mr. Chair? Sorry to interrupt. There is a possible issue with noticing that we need to get on the record before we go any further with this matter. The matter was originally scheduled for the regular meeting on December 18th of 2014. There was an error in the mailed notice that gave the wrong address. So, we required that the meeting be continued to tonight and that proper mailed notice be sent. An issue came up today where the City Clerk's Office was contacted by a neighbor, who indicated that the sign that was posted, another form of posting, the sign on the site was covered with a black plastic bag and I went by this afternoon and verified that the bag is still on the sign. So, I'd like to hear from the applicant or the applicant's representative about what was going on with the sign, when the bag was put up, and we will take it from there. Mr. Chair, if you would ask the applicant to come forward. Oliver: If the applicant could come forward for both AZ 14-014 and PP 14-019. Hatch: Good evening. Jeff Hatch representing Architecture Northwest. Our address is 224 16th Avenue South, Nampa, Idaho. 83651. The mailing error that you are referencing -- if I'm not, you know, correct, was a press error, is that -- Baird: It was a -- no. It was a -- there are three forms of notice that are required for each hearing. One is that the -- a notice get published in the paper and that was done properly. The site needs to be posted with the date and time and certain information and that was posted in advance of the hearing with the proper date. The third form, the mailed notice that's mailed to residents within a 300 foot radius of the site, the initial mailed notice contained an error that basically referred those people to a different site. It didn't reference Black Cat and Cherry Lane, it referenced something on the other side of town. So, somebody receiving that notice would have looked at it, said, oh, doesn't matter to me, because it's not in my neighborhood, and thrown it away. So, that's why we require -- the city went ahead and mailed another notice. We opened the hearing on the 18th for anybody you saw the sign, got notice, and, then, anybody who was here that night would have known to show up tonight. What I'm getting at is when -- when was the sign -- when and why was the sign covered up, so -- Hatch: The sign was originally posted for the correct date that was noticed on the letter that was issued. In contacting the city planner that we were working with, we were notified that we did not have to repost the sign, because this was an error performed by the city. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 8 of 25 Baird: That's correct. What concerns me is that a neighbor contacted the city and they said that in advance of the hearing the sign was covered up with the plastic sign, so they were watching the sign to see when that was going to -- you know, when the new hearing date was going to be. The sign is -- even though the hearing date was changed, the sign should have been per our code left up and visible and readable up until the date of the hearing and it's my concern that it wasn't. I'm trying to confirm on the record what date the sign was covered up. Do you know? Hatch: I don't know what date the sign was covered up, but I do know that the date -- the sign had been covered up since the -- the prior one that it was actually dated for and the reason for doing so was for clarity, so that people didn't know it had already past. Baird: Yeah. It's unfortunate that that happened, because it produced just the opposite result in the residents. We had somebody call up and say that they were told in advance of the 18th don't bother coming, because it will be continued and, you know, they covered up the sign. So, what I'm getting at is if we are not able to confirm that the sign was clearly posted up until the evening of the hearing of the 18th, unfortunately, we are going to have to continue this one more time, so we can get all three forms of notice correct. Hatch: That would be a question for the person who actually covered it. Baird: Can you find that out and let us know? Hatch: Yeah. Oliver: Commissioners, do you have any questions? Freeman: Not yet. I think we need to wait to see if we have more information on when the sign was covered and, then, figure out what to do. Marshall: It is rather unfortunate. Freeman: Yeah. Hatch: Apologize for the back and forth. In talking with the representative who covered the sign per the verbiage in -- in the -- in city code, it requests that the sign be covered after three days after the hearing meeting. So, in talking to them they said that they did that per the suggestions of the city. So, it would have been covered on the 21st. Baird: It sounds like there has been some miscommunication. I don't want to turn this into an evidentiary hearing, but I have got a neighbor who says it was covered up before the hearing. Hatch: Do you have any documentation for that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 9 of 25 Baird: Maybe we could -- Mr. Chair, can we entertain -- if the -- if Mr. Law is willing to come forward and tell me what -- is Mr. Law here today? Sorry to turn this into a hearing, but we -- this is important stuff. If somebody didn't get the proper notice, we got to do it right, so -- Law: Okay. You guys are out of line, I'm going to tell you that first. Baird: Sir, if you could give you name and address. Law: My name is Brent Law. I reside at 40888 West Cherry Lane. I'm right across the street from this property. I am in Meridian. The intent of my phone call today was not to have this happen. I simply called because I wanted to find out for sure if this piece of property was still in the agenda for tonight. Because of the confusion at the last meeting I didn't know for sure whether to show up tonight to hear what was going on or not. I'm not opposed to the meeting or opposed to the -- the sign being covered or anything else. I was simply doing it out of information to find out is this on the agenda tonight or not. So, if it created -- if it was wrong for the way they did it, I didn't mean to do that to them, but at the same time I was simply questioning why was -- you know, was the sign covered, because we were kind of concerned -- that's how we found out last time the meeting that was taken off the agenda. Last time we saw the sign get covered, because we called -- there was actually another neighbor there who called the planning and zoning or you guys -- called somebody and found out that it had been taken off the agenda. He then called me and told me, hey, there is no point in going tonight, because it's been taken off the agenda and we just assumed that means it's off the agenda until -- there is probably a new posting of the sign. Well, then, we did receive the notice that it was put back on today's agenda, but because the sign was still covered we are like, wait a minute, so is it on tonight or not. That's the only reason we made the phone call was to find out for sure and I didn't -- you know, I knew it was some kind of regulation as far as the sign being covered or not, but that really didn't make any difference to me, I was simply questioning is it still on the agenda tonight. That was all I was trying to find out. So, if it created a legal problem, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to, but at the same time I wanted to know whether to come to the meeting or not, so -- any questions or anything? Did anybody -- Freeman: Not from me. That clarifies for me. Thanks. Baird: I'm curious when did you believe that the sign was covered up? Or did you have knowledge that it was -- Law: The sign was actually covered before the last meeting and the only reason we know that is because that's how my neighbor -- he and I were talking and we walked over and looked at the sign previous to the meeting, like, I don't know, probably a week before and we actually walked over to the sign, looked at the date on it and everything and then -- you know, because -- just to make sure of when it was so we could be here. Well, a few days he noticed the sign was covered up. Now, to say it was three days, four days -- I don't know. All I know is it was before the last meeting and that's how we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 10 of 25 knew -- he called in to find out why is the sign covered and that's when he was told that it was taken off the agenda. So, we -- it was -- you know. And he called us the day of the meeting. So, it's possible it was posted that day. Baird: That's all the information I need. We can have Mr. Law sit down. Thank you. And acknowledge that you weren't trying to cause trouble, I just wanted to find out what -- what you knew and when you knew it. Law: Yeah. Okay. Baird: So, Mr. Chair, I'm not here to say who was right and who was wrong. There has, obviously, been some confusion created as to when the sign was covered up. These things aren't just esoteric things that -- that have to be followed just because it's in the rules, there are possibly people out there who were confused by what happened who aren't here tonight thinking that the sign was going to be reposted with the right -- right date, even though that's not required, but the sign -- as far as the covering up, unfortunately, there must have been some miscommunication to the applicant about that, because this is the first time I had ever heard of the sign being covered with a black plastic garbage bag. So, given that situation, with apologies to the applicant and everyone here tonight who is here for the meeting, we have to renotice the hearing -- unfortunately that because of what happened with the sign, the sign is going to have to have anew hearing date put it on and the city will provide whatever additional notice is necessary. So, what I would do at this point is find a meet -- a meeting date that we can continue this, put that on the record, so that people here tonight can put that on their calendars and be here and anybody else who was waiting, because of the situation with the sign, they will get that notice and they can be here, too. So, apologies to everybody, but that's the only way we can do it. Oliver: So, taking -- having said that, staff, is there a date when -- Watters: Chairman Oliver, February 5th would be the next available Commission meeting. Marshall: I would ask, Mr. Chair, if I could. Oliver: Yes. Marshall: Question of staff. Does that provide us with enough time to notice this? Watters: The -- Commissioner Marshall, it has been noticed correctly in the two other forms of noticing. It's not required. However, I would strongly suggest the applicant update the sign at this point and just put the February 5th date on it just to avoid further confusion on this. Baird: All we are looking for is clarity. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 11 of 25 Marshall: Just a sign patch. They don't have to redo the -- Baird: It looks like the applicant wants to be heard as well. Oliver: Would you like to come back? Again, restate your name and address. Hatch: Jeff Hatch representing Architecture Northwest. Address is 224 16th Avenue South, Nampa, Idaho. 83686. The construction and procedure that we have performed up to date has been mostly through phone call. So, to proceed properly and to make sure that we follow the instructions properly, it would be very helpful if we could have some kind of documentation as far as what we need to do to make sure that this goes through properly, through the dialogue we just had it's still not very clear for us. Baird: I'd ask you to -- Sonya, do you have time to meet with them after this or are you presenting the next item as well? Watters: I'm presenting the next item. Baird: Okay. Hatch: It can be just an e-mail or something. Baird: Can you give them your contact information and follow up tomorrow? Watters: Yes. Baird: Appreciate it. Hatch: Thank you very much. Appreciate your time Freeman: Mr. Chair, in light of discussions regarding proper posting of this project, I would move that we continue AZ 14-014 and CUP 14-019, Sulamita -- Sulamita Church to the February 5th regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, so that it -- so that the sign can be properly posted for the appropriate amount of time. Marshall: Second. Oliver: It's been moved and seconded that we take and move Sulamita Church, AZ 14- 014 and CUP 14-019, to the February 5th meeting in order for them to repost. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Oliver: With that I had ten people testify -- who would want to testify to that. That we will have to move to the February 5th meeting. Thank you, though, for coming in on that. Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 12 of 25 Baird: And, Mr. Chair, if I could just mention one thing. If there is anybody here tonight who can't be here on the 5th, we are accepting written testimony up until the date of that hearing, so send letters or e-mails to the city clerk and I apologize for the inconvenience. Public Hearing: MCU 14-006 Baltic Place by L.C. Development Located 82 S. Baltic Place Request: Modification to the Planned Development to Allow a Five -Foot Instead of Ten -Foot Wide Interior Side Setback for Lot 5, Block 1 and 15 Feet Instead of 20 Feet Between Buildings in a C -G Zoning District Oliver: Okay. At this time we would like to move to Item I on the agenda, which is MCU 14-006, Baltic Place, by LC Development. Watters: Thank you, Chairman Oliver, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a conditional use permit modification. This site consists of .14 of an acre of land, zoned C -G, located southeast of the South Baltic Place and East Franklin Road intersection. There are existing offices to the west and east and a parking lot to the north of this site, all zoned C -G, and contractor's yard to the south, zoned I -L. In 2001 a conditional use permit, planned unit development, was approved for a mixed use residential -commercial development for Baltic Place Subdivision, which included the subject property. The applicant is requesting a modification to that previously approved planned unit development for this site. At the time the Council required ten foot interior side building setbacks on each of the commercial lots, with a 20 foot separation between buildings. The applicant is requesting a reduced interior side setback from ten feet to five feet per the site plan here and a reduced separation between buildings from 20 feet to 15 feet for Lot 5, Block 1, Baltic Place Subdivision. The other lots around it are developed out, so it's just -- this one doesn't show yet, but it has been built upon and this is the only lot we are talking about here. The concept plan as shown there -- it was approved with the planned unit development. On the left shows how the site was proposed to develop. A new site plan on the right was submitted by the applicant with this application, which shows how Lot 5, Block 1, is proposed to develop with the modified setbacks and, again, the lot we are talking about is this one right here on the left. The city code that was in effect in 2001 did not require minimum interior side setback in a C -G zone or a separation between buildings. However, based on International Fire Code in effect at that time, the fire department requested a greater setback and separation between buildings for fire suppression and protection. The fire department has reviewed the applicant's request and has determined the reduced setback and separation between buildings meets current International Fire Code and does not object to the modification. Because the fire department does not deem there to be a life safety issue with allowing the proposed separation between buildings, staff is supportive of the proposed modification as requested by the applicant. The application Shari Stiles, the applicant's representative, has submitted written testimony in agreement with the staff report and staff is recommending approval. Staff would stand for any questions Commission might have. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 13 of 25 Oliver: Commissioners, any questions? Marshall: Not at this time. Oliver: Seeing none, would the applicant like to come forward, please? State your name and address for the record. Stiles: Good evening. My name is Shari Stiles, I'm with Engineering Solutions, at 1029 North Rosario Street in Meridian. She did a fine job explaining what we are requesting. Things have changed quite a bit since the initial planned development that had quite a large apartment complex to the south, but that is now housed by the H.D. Fowler -- their new corporate office and it had been rezoned industrial to the south and I'm just here if you have any questions. Oliver: Commissioners? Freeman: I don't have any questions. Oliver: Looks good. Thank you. Stiles: Thank you. Oliver: Looking at public testimony, you're the only one that was on here signed up. So, is there anyone else in the audience that would like to come up and testify to this applicant? No? Okay. At this time we see no one coming up, so we'd like to close the public hearing. Freeman: Mr. Chair, I move that we close the public hearing for MCU 14-006, Baltic Place. Marshall: I'll second that. Oliver: I have a motion and a second to close MCU 14-006, Baltic Place. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Okay. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Freeman: Mr. Chair? Oliver: Yes. Freeman: This seems pretty straight forward. It seems that we -- we required some setbacks, because we didn't -- because of a code that is no longer requiring that fire separation distance and the current codes allow this, the fire department is on board, no Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 14 of 25 reason I can see to deny this. It's perfectly fine with me. That's all I have to say about it. Oliver: Thank you Marshall: Mr. Chair, I'm just happy to see occasionally when code changes work in favor for some people and I'm all for it. Freeman: That is unusual. McCarvel: Mr. Chairman, I move to approve file number MCU 14-006 as presented by the staff report in the hearing date of January 15th, 2015. Marshall: I'll second that. Oliver: It's been moved and seconded to approve MCU 14-006. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. J. Public Hearing: PP 14-020 Accommodations Subdivision by Providence Management, LLC Located South Side of E. Falcon Drive and East of S. Eagle Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Fourteen (14) Single Family Residential Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on Approximately 4.71 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District Oliver: Thank you very much. Okay. Moving on to our last item on the agenda. If I can find it. Item J. PP 14-020, Accommodations Subdivision by Providence Management,. Parsons: Next item before you is the Accommodations Subdivision. It's a 4.7 acre piece of property currently zoned R-4 in the city. It's currently surrounded by Ada County parcel to the north, zoned RUT, and the Karmelle Subdivision that -- you acted on that preliminary plat back in 2013. That's zoned R-4 as well. To the east we have another Ada County piece that's RUT and on the south we have the Dartmoor Subdivision, Ada County, that's R-1 in the county as well. And, then, to the left side of this development we have a property that's undeveloped. It has a single family residence and the rest of it is vacant and it's zoned R-8 within the city limits. You can see here in the aerial that the site currently houses a single family residence. That will be remaining with the proposed subdivision and the application will be required to hook that home up to city infrastructure, sewer and water, moving forward and any lot that's platted around there would have to be per the dimensional standards of the R-4 zone and meet those setbacks as well. This property was annexed and preliminary platted in 2006 and that's why it's currently zoned R-4 within the city. In the downturn of the economy this property went back to the bank, it went into foreclosure, or -- it was purchased by folks that wanted to use the property for horse -- use it for horse property, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 15 of 25 single family residence. The applicant purchased the property and the home was never hooked up to city utilities. So, at this time we are going to get it right and make sure it does get hooked up. The subdivision before you this evening is fairly consistent -- is, basically, identical to what was acted on or approved back in '06 -- 2006. So, the preliminary plat that's before you tonight does consist of 14 single family detached residential lots and three common lots. The proposed density for this development is 2.97 dwelling units to the acre. The surrounding properties and this property are currently designated low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan, in which we envision anywhere three units or less to the acre. So, the proposed subdivision this evening does fall within the density parameters of the R-4 zone and also the low density residential designation of the Comprehensive Plan. And as I mentioned earlier, it does comport to the -- the same design that was approved in the city back in 2006. Landscaping is minimal, because this site is under that four point -- or under that five acre threshold the applicant doesn't really have to provide any open space or site amenities, but the applicant has stated in their narrative -- and they are the developer of the Karmelle Subdivision to the north, which did provide the two amenities and the ten percent required open space. They are the same developer on this piece of ground and this development will be rolled into their CC&Rs and HOA and they will both share open space and amenities between each of the developments. So, it will be one HOA governing both developments, as it was originally envisioned in 2006. The road layout is, basically, a dead end cul-de-sac that meets the subdivision standards. It does not exceed the 450 block length requirement and the intersecting street that it connects with is East Falcon Drive and is designated a local street and it ties back into Eagle Road, which provides the primary access within the area. If you looked at the aerial as well you would notice that when the Karmelle Subdivision came in they also provided a local street network that provided access to Victory Road. So, it's not at a dead end street, there are second -- two means of access to this development, one to Eagle Road and one to Victory. The applicant is proposing approximately .021 acres of open space, which is approximately 4.5 percent, so there is some accommodations for that and, again, the project to the north had ten percent, so we are getting probably ten -- 10.25 percent open space between both projects, which is consistent with the open space requirements of the ordinance. Currently the property has a three rail fencing around it, with barbed wire to contain the horses. Staff -- in my staff report I had mentioned that the applicant would have to bring forth a fencing plan demonstrating compliance with our fencing ordinance and if you look here on the landscape plan, you can see here that they are bringing in sewer from Eagle Road across private property, so certainly have to work with that adjacent neighbor on the west to provide the sewer connection into the sub, but, then, they are platting basically a common lot over top of that sewer easement and because the property to the west is already annexed and zoned into the city, staff is recommending that they construct a micro path within that common lot. That way we can at least -- although we are not requiring pedestrian -- or vehicular connectivity with that parcel, we will still get some interconnectivity -- pedestrian interconnectivity moving forward. Here are the proposed elevations for you. Again, this is very similar to what is being constructed north of this site. Staff has recommended a condition in the staff report that any future elevations in this development comply with these sample elevations that are before you. A mix of materials includes stucco, rock, composite Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 16 of 25 shingle roofing. You can see they are not your typical -- or your starter homes for the area and it's pretty consistent to what's developed in the surrounding area. So, we -- based on the type of housing they are proposing, based on the lot sizes where they actually exceed the minimum lot sizes of the R-4 district and because they are -- they do fall within that low density range, staff is supportive of the plat before you and we are recommending approval of that. Staff also received written testimony from the applicant that they are also in agreement with all the conditions in the staff report and, then, this morning I did receive some written testimony from Mike Stout, he's one of the adjacent neighbors along the south boundary, and he had some concerns with the transition of lot sizes adjacent to that -- to the property -- to his property on the south boundary, as I mentioned to you earlier. There is one acre lots and I believe the smallest lot on that south boundary is about 8,600 square feet and they increase from there. So, there are five homes that buffer along those Ada County lots, but, again, in my presentation it is low density, it is consistent to what was acted on and approved in 2006. Staff is recommending approval of the project. And with that I would stand for any questions you have. Oliver: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions? Freeman: No. Oliver: Okay. Seeing none, I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward, please. State your name and address for the record. Wonders: Good evening. Scott Wonders. JUB. 250 South Beechwood Avenue in Boise. 83709. I'm here -- and I have Zach Evans with Zach Evans Development as well here if you need to speak with him for anything. He's here and more than willing to answer any questions you have. As Bill said, we are in full agreement with the staff report and all the conditions of approval. This also -- Zach also was -- has been building in Karmelle, he was the original developer of that. This was originally all of the Harcourt Development that was approved back in 2006. After they completed Karmelle last year -- I think it was last year or the year before, the property owner of this came to him and asked if he would be interested in purchasing the property, so we kind of added it in with the Karmelle Subdivision. Like Bill said, it will be a part of the HOA, it will be sharing the same amenities. We will be adding this portion into the pressurized irrigation system, so it will be fully -- have pressurized irrigation. We have met -- another item that we will need to work with is some of the gravity irrigation on the south boundary, make sure that we still allow the properties adjacent to us to continue to get their -- their gravity water, as well as being able to discharge their wastewater. So, again, I'm here and Zach is here as well to answer any questions that you may have and we will stand for any questions if you have any at this time. Oliver: Commissioners, do you have any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 17 of 25 Marshall: My only question is -- is on the sewer line coming in from Eagle and how far that's gone in conjunction with the neighbor. It looks like you have identified an easement through there? Wonders: That is correct. Yeah. I'm glad you brought that up. Yeah. We worked with the adjacent property owner. We actually have a recorded easement to grant -- he granted us access for an easement for sewer and we are, basically, pulling it off of Eagle Road. It, basically, aligns with what their original proposed development is and so it was -- it looks specific and it actually is very specific to their proposed layout that they had. Marshall: So, my question, then, goes to -- the original layout also covered that piece of property? Wonders: Not with this development. This is a different application all together. Yes. Marshall: Got you. It goes with their development. Got you. Wonders: We just coordinated the sewer with them to make sure that if -- if and when they ever develop that it adhered to their proposed layout that they were looking at bringing and presenting. Marshall: Thank you. Wonders: Sure. Oliver: Okay. If there is no other questions, we have some people signed up for testimony. Start with Zach Evans. Would you like to come up? You don't have to. Okay. Thank you. Moving on to Mr. Bob Aldridge. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Aldridge: Bob Aldridge, 3300 Falcon Drive. I am the property to the northwest of this -- on the -- one of the remaining five plus acre lots in that area and we have been here a number of times before as we have continued to have development around me and I have always said I wish the world would go away and leave me alone, but it didn't, so -- in this case my main concerns have always been, number one, quality of development and we have -- I have been working with Karmelle that actually went very, very well. I have lost some privacy, but I'm planting trees. So, that's the price of progress. In this case part of what I would like to get on record is that ACHD still has not dealt with Eagle Road south of Victory and we continue to have massive problems on that and they have nothing in their agenda until something like 2021 for any real changes there. So, as a practical matter, what's happening now with the traffic there and what's going to happen is they are going to go out to the north. Because trying to get on Eagle Road -- I literally don't go after 7:00 o'clock or wait -- after 7:00 o'clock unless it's 8:30 or after and coming home I avoid it, because it's just a mess. But that's out of our control and I just want to vent that again to ACHD. Other than that, if there is -- if there is going to be Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 18 of 25 something there, I want it to be a quality situation and in the past they have worked well with us. They worked very well on this irrigation problem, which is going to have to be solved. I'm the only one right now taking water out of that, but this property and the property to the west of this property -- both are still on that system and have to be dealt with and so I have confidence we are going to be able to get that done. So, there are some other issues that in Dartmoor that we have on the lot sizes and so forth. Those don't directly affect me, so I will let them speak about those. But in terms of the general project, I think it's much better than a lot of other things that could be in there, much better than the thing that we fought to the west of this and it was turned down. So, I would be in favor of the project. Oliver: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Freeman: No. Just a comment. Thank you for your thoughtful and informed testimony. Appreciate that. Oliver: Thank you. We have one more person signed up. Harold Krasinski. Krasinski: Evening, Commissioners. I'm Harold Krasinski at 3475 East Falcon Drive. We are the -- I guess I'm not sure where the -- the house on the east end of the cul-de- sac, east side of this property. The only thing I want to make sure we get on record -- and 1 think, actually, Scott addressed it -- is we have flood irrigation and on the far southeast corner of this subdivision -- well, thank you whoever that was. The far southeast corner there is where our tail water would come down and go out and it goes into a culvert approximately in the center of their east -west boundary there and just have to have accommodations to be able to -- allow our water to be plumbed underground into that discharge system and it looks like, as they survey, as it turns out the previous property owners -- original property owners and ourselves, there was the post and rail fence along that boundary there that was -- at least we were told it is exactly on the property line. As it turns out it looks like it's actually a few feet on their side of the property and I have spoken with them and it sounds like they are going to be accommodating to make sure when it comes time to put their fencing in that we can figure out a way to take our fence down. We do have horses, so we will have to coordinate, make sure the existing fence comes down, then, we just have a smooth transition between our boundary and their boundary. So, I think those are -- and I do want to agree with Bob Aldridge about the traffic there. The way -- the way that intersection at Eagle and Victory comes together it tapers down from the intersection back to a county lane exactly at the entrance to East Falcon Drive. So, there is no turn lanes there. Obviously, there is going to be more traffic and I guess hard to predict who is going to go where from these two subdivisions. It's kind of a mess right now and it will probably get worse, but that's I guess for ACHD. Those were the particular items I wanted to make comment on and -- do you have any questions? Oliver: Thank you. Commissioners? Marshall: No, but thank you very much, sir. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 19 of 25 Oliver: Thank you. Krasinski: Thank you for your time. Oliver: That's all I have on our list for people who want to testify. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Please come forward and state your name and address. Turner: Good evening. My name is Brady Turner. I live at 3628 South Caleb Place in Meridian and this is my property right here. I'm opposed to this development as presented for three reasons. The first is the transitional densities or the lack thereof. The minimum lot size surrounding Dartmoor in the Kingsbridge Subdivision is 16,800 square feet, but that's across a 60 foot wide ditch. The lots directly to the Dartmoor Subdivision are 22,200 square feet. All the lots adjacent to Dartmoor are also covenant restricted to single story homes. The smallest three lots in this proposed subdivision at 8,844, 9,100 and 8,638 square feet respectively, are right here directly adjacent to my property. We asked the applicant at their neighborhood meeting to increase the transitional density directly adjacent to us by removing one lot, but our request was denied by the applicant. We feel if they took one of the lots out of here and split it into two lots, instead of three, that would create better transitional densities, it would result in an average lot size of 13,000 square feet, slightly higher than the average lot size for this subdivision, but still significantly smaller than those lots abutting Dartmoor division and Kingsbridge. We believe it would be more appropriate to place the smallest lots on the west side here where it is zoned as R-8, so we would have a flow of R-8 to R-4 to RUT, creating a nice transitional flow of densities from R-8 to R-4 to RUT and we believe the developer, by rearranging some of the lots on the east -- or the west side off this development, could move one lot from the south border to the west border and create a better transitional density. Second, the proposed development is uphill in elevation from our land. We asked the applicant to covenant restrict the homes next to us to single story homes to help mitigate the impact, but, again, the applicant refused, stating that that housing choice would be driven by the market. This puts the building style most directly -- directly impacting us in the hands of unknown third parties, with no connection to this land or to our neighborhood. The lots in Dartmoor that were covenant restricted had no problem selling the lots. In fact, people seemed to really like those lots. We built our home over 20 years ago when all the land surrounding us were agricultural. We moved to the country for open space and all that open space has disappeared in the last ten years. We certainly understand the market driven forces and we are not trying to stop this development, but, rather, make it more compatible with where we live. All we ask is that the impact of the changes be lessened to a greater degree. Through the ten to 15 public hearings where I have presented before you, we have asked the city over the years -- the city has always encouraged developers to work with the existing neighbors to attempt to resolve differences. We believe our 20 years history here deserves a little respect and consideration. A third concern is some lack of details in the application. The lowest portion of the development, as Mr. Krasinski mentioned, is right here and the tail water from his Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 20 of 25 property flows across this property, through a culvert, onto my property and, then, down through and into our irrigation pond. There was no details in how this was going to be remediated in the proposed development, so we would like to see some definitive plans of how that's going to be handled. We cannot allow street water from the development to be running into our irrigation system. Finally, I did not see any details for the permanent fencing in the proposal. I would like to see those addressed before the proposal would be approved. I thank you for your understanding of our concerns. Oliver: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Marshall: I do, Mr. Chair. Mr. Turner is it? Turner: Yes. Marshall: My question is -- so, you moved in 20 years ago and that was agricultural land behind you or was it these five acre lots that -- Turner: Not the Falcon Estates Subdivision, but all to the west, which is now Tuscany, and all of the east, which is all now Kingsbridge, to the south of us it was all agricultural and certainly we know all the development that's occurred along Eagle Road north of Victory between Victory and Overland with all of the business parks going in. All of that was agricultural when we moved out there 20 years ago. Marshall: Looking at this right now, though, it appears that area to the north of you Turner: Uh-huh. Marshall: -- at some point in time became large five acre lots? Turner: It was large five acre lots when we purchased out there, yes. Marshall: So, at that time when you moved in you had the small lot -- Turner: Yes. Marshall: -- in a bunch of small lots against somebody's five acre parcel. Turner: Yes. There was two houses abutting that five acre parcel. Now, what we are seeing is four houses abutting my one acre parcel. Marshall: Appreciate that. Thank you. Turner: Uh-huh. You're welcome. Thank you for your time. Oliver: Commissioners, any other questions? Could I have the applicant come back up, please? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 21 of 25 Freeman: Do you have any others that -- Oliver: Oh. I should have said -- are there any other -- any other testimonies? Seeing none -- Evans: Zach Evans. I live at 688 East Giant Saguaro, Meridian, Idaho. The neighbor to the south of me did call me and talk to me about that. We are only working with 13 -- it's 14 lots, but we are only adding 13. So, cutting back on one of the lots would limit us to 12 and with home prices and ground costs nowadays, it would really raise the cost of this development and hurt the feasibility of the development and Karmelle, when we built those, we built -- I think I built two -- two two stories out of 18 homes or 20 homes. So, the majority of the homes I do build are single levels and I have a reputation for building single levels. I did have a building partner in phase one and I don't know if I'm going to do that again. I'd like to try to do this myself. We are also -- it's hard for us to adjust the lot lines because of the -- where the sewer easement is located and how that all works. So, to stretch and move those around would be difficult. Also I went and looked on Google Earth and measured out like the closest we would be to any of those homes would be 134 feet with our setbacks and where their homes are currently located. Let's see if I got anything else here. There is no added traffic to the neighbors to the south, because of the -- we are coming in off of Falcon or back onto Victory Road. This piece could have been attached to another piece maybe and, then, the traffic would have been coming through their subdivision and I think we may have helped some of the Falcon people's traffic situation, because of the road that we put in that goes to Victory. Any questions? Oliver: Commissioners? Freeman: Yeah. I have one. Could you -- it sounds like your neighbor to the east was pretty clear on and comfortable with the drainage issue in the southeast corner. Your neighbor to the south was a bit less clear. I wonder if you would address that a bit more. Evans: Okay. And I might have to defer to my engineer, but I think we will provide all those details of that attachment and the drainage when we do our -- our engineering work on the development. Freeman: Yeah. If your engineer could maybe perhaps just elaborate on that. Wonders: Sure. Again for the record, Scott Wonders, JUB, 250 South Beechwood in Boise. Yeah. I just want to make sure we got it on the record that was one of the items that we discussed at the neighborhood meeting that everyone seemed to have some concern about, is that we wanted to make sure that we were able to provide Mr. Krasinski ability to discharge his tail water and also continue the irrigation through there. So, it's -- it's very simple. Everything falls from north to south, so we would be, basically, picking it up in a near -- you know, in a pipe at the corner of Mr. Krasinski's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 22 of 25 property, taking it along the south boundary to the point where that -- there is another pipe that exists there now that takes it to the south or southwest direction and we would just be making that connection and it would be in an easement that would be dedicated on the final plat that would grant those -- the continuance of that use and the ability to maintain and get -- and maintain access to that, so -- Freeman: Thank you. It's at the preliminary plat stage and I understand it's way early to be talking about details at this stage. We are just -- we are just considering the preliminary plat. But I did want you to get on record that you thought about this, that you don't see any reason why there is going to be issues that are going to be difficult to overcome. You do have some conceptual idea of how you're going to deal with that. That's what I was looking for and you have satisfied that curiosity. Thank you. Wonders: Thank you. Oliver: Commissioners, are there any questions? McCarvel: Just one. I think the other concern was the fencing back there. Is that -- could that be something that adds to the privacy between those lots or what -- Wonders: Yeah. We had planned -- and I think it was in the staff report about the six foot vinyl fence, similar -- or the same as what we did in Karmelle. McCarvel: Thank you. Oliver: Seeing no others -- okay. At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item PP 14-020. Marshall: So moved. Freeman: Second. Oliver: I have a motion and a second to close the PP 14-020. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Oliver: Okay. At this point that is all I have on my agenda. Is that correct? Freeman: We are going to discuss this one, though. Oliver: Oh, yes. Marshall: Mr. Chair. I do worry about the traffic out on Eagle. We are growing. I worry about the -- right now we need -- we need some new methods of funding some additional infrastructure -- traffic infrastructure. I know this is an area that really needs Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 23 of 25 addressed. We have got a number of them across the valley and in Meridian. I spent some years on the traffic task force before it became the traffic committee and I know there are a lot of hot spot concerns and I think we are getting a little more attention now that ACHD has reorganized their priority system and we are getting a little better attention than we used to get. A little more funding is coming west of the far east. Again, though, I -- I don't see this as anything -- the traffic concerns aren't enough to -- to shut down development out here yet. I do think that it actually should help flag the area. The more development we have the more it's going to be flagged. ACHD is not going to do a darn thing out there until there is more development and that development is going to come over time. I appreciate the fact that a couple of people that testified -- a couple of citizens testified that they very much approved of how the previous development had built out, that it was attractive and a good neighbor and they have worked well with them. I really, really like to hear developers get those kind of reviews from their neighbors. That's awesome. I have to admit, you know, I feel sorry for people that moved out into the rural area and want to maintain that style, but I'm afraid growth is going to happen whether we address it or not, whether we have code for it and this meets the code that we as a city developed over the last 20 years. We have spent a lot of time, committees, hundreds, even thousands of people have worked on these committees to develop a blueprint for us to move forward in development. This meets that blueprint exactly as what was identified by those committees over years and years of work and it still continues today and, unfortunately, development is going to Continue to happen throughout the valley. You can move out way out in the middle of nowhere, but eventually it's going to happen out there as well. This whole valley is going to develop some day. I am personally for the project. I think the developer has done a nice job trying to work with neighbors. It sound like it's going to be a very positive project and I am for it. Oliver: Thank you. Freeman: Mr. Chair? Oliver: Yes. Freeman: I agree with Commissioner Marshall in that I -- I think this project as an extension of the Karmelle Subdivision is a very appropriate use of this particular piece of property. I do appreciate the developers reaching out to the surrounding neighbors and neighbors getting feedback and that being considered. It doesn't mean that we are going to have unanimous agreement and in this case we don't have unanimous agreement. I know the neighbors to the south -- and do I want to acknowledge I also got the letter from Rick and Michelle Stott, who also oppose it for similar reasons stated by Mr. Turner when he testified. I did read through those things. I do understand the concerns. I understand there is disappointment that there is going to be more density, possibly even some more construction height than what would be desired, but I would come back to reiterating what Commissioner Marshall said. For this zone this developer is entirely within his right to -- to lay this out as -- as he has to take advantage of his piece of -- his piece of property economically from a viability standpoint and it Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 24 of 25 comes up ones in awhile that we have neighbors approach the Commission and ask, well, could you at least limit a few of these lots to -- to one story, instead of two, and the answer invariably is, no, we really don't have a mechanism to impose that sort of a limitation on a developer in this case. An R-4 allows for two stories. There is -- there is no compelling reason, even in this case, to -- to require otherwise. Given all of the concerns that this developer has had to work with and the concerns of the neighbors, I think overall you have done a very fine job of -- of proposing a good preliminary plat for this -- for this piece of property. I am -- I am for the project. I think it makes sense. I can understand the property owners to the south wishing that there were only three lots bordering their property when they are going to get four, but, again, I can see why four would be practical from the owner's standpoint and the owner does have a right to do that, which I would support in this case. Looking at those homes, those are very nice home designs that I saw. Not your starter homes. Most of what I saw was single level. Again, we don't know whether any of those lots are going to be two level or not. Maybe all of them will be. I don't doubt that. Maybe none of them will be. That's probably a greater possibility. But given the distance that you have, the zone, I do agree that this is a very good project for the transition. What you probably wouldn't want to see transitioning from your RUT is a -- is a commercial zone and, obviously, we are not going to -- we don't have that situation here. The R-4 is one of the more appropriate zones for that transition. So, I'm in favor of the project. If I was making the motion I would move to approve. Oliver: Thank you. Commissioner McCarvel, can you - McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I'm -- I feel for the neighbors to the south with the lots the way they have been designed, but I can also agree with the developer, it's hard with that natural easement. I think he did give that a lot of thought of where to put those lots and, you know, continuing to be a good neighbor and the strength of his current designs on the single level, that's probably what's going to end up going there, although you can't require it. It makes sense. Those are very nice looking homes. Oliver: Thank you. McCarvel: I agree. Oliver: That said, could I get a motion? McCarvel: Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 14-020 and presented by the staff report in the hearing date of January 15, 2015. Marshall: Second. Oliver: It's been moved and seconded that we accept PP 14-020 to the City Council. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission January 15, 2015 Page 25 of 25 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Marshall: Mr. Chair. Oliver: Commissioner Marshall. Marshall: I move that we adjourn. McCarvel: Second. Oliver: All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Oliver: The meeting is now closed. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:09 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 4 PArRIC Oi�IVER - VICE-CHAIRMAN ATTEST: HOLMAN, CITY CLERK DATE APPROVED ow `/Q�City of E II7IAN� �oaxo SEAL �Ae TAF A5�'11' y /'�/ L-TAflC► AGI 1^L -T MAI A / A /►T//11•/ Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Pl a n n i n g & Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n M e e t i n g Ja n u a r y 1 5 , 2 0 1 5 Ja n u a r y 1 5 , 2 0 1 5 Ja n u a r y 1 5 , 2 0 1 5 Ja n u a r y 1 5 , 2 0 1 5 h2 It e m # 4 G & H : S u l a m i t a C h u r c h - Z o n i n g & A e r i a l M a p s Su l a m i t a C h u r c h – P r o p o s e d S i t e & L a n d s c a p e P l a n Pr o p o s e d E l e v a t i o n s It e m # 4 C : B a l t i c P l a c e - Z o n i n g & A e r i a l M a p s Ba l t i c P l a c e Si t e Pr o p o s e d E l e v a t i o n & S i t e L a y o u t Pr e v i o u s l y a p p r o v e d Si t e P l a n It e m # 4 J : A c c o m m o d a t i o n s S u b d i v i s i o n - Z o n i n g & A e r i a l M a p s Ac c o m m o d a t i o n s S u b d i v i s i o n – P r o p o s e d P r e l i m i n a r y P l a t Ac c o m m o d a t i o n s S u b d i v i s i o n – P r o p o s e d L a n d s c a p e P l a n Ac c o m m o d a t i o n s S u b d i v i s i o n – Pr o p o s e d E l e v a t i o n s Meridian Planning .Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: Januar, 15, 2015 ITEM NUMBICh:,.1 PROJECT NUMBER: P131v"144,47 ; Item: Southridgd Subdivision Public Hearing continued from 12/4/14: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 193 sinow fomily residential building lots and 19 common /other lots on 48.65 acres of land in the R4,, R -80r d11 Z 20r.01ho districts by DBTV Southridge Farm, LLC - s/o W. Overland Road between S. Under Road orad; Ten Mile Road 1 ?. MEETING NOTES Cdr+t n v d CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: January 15, 2015 ITEM PROJECT NUMBER ' 4c. Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting TE: January 15, 2015 ITEM NUMOW v 4Cy .' PROJECT NUMBER: f Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: January 15, 2015 PROJECT N IT a Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: January 15, 2015 ITEM' NUMB:': PROJECT NUMBER: P Item: Granton Square Subdivision Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 29 single family residential lots ano 6Comn ion lots on approximately 4.81 acres in the proposed R-8 by Granton Square Properties, LLC T' , f14. Locust Grove Road and south of E. Ustick Road ,. MEETING NOTES DATE: I E STAFF ILED TO I AGENCSENT Y I SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES i r . 1 Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: January 15, 2015 PROJECT NU Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: January 15, 2015 ITEM 'NUMBt <, u�