Loading...
2015 07-16Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 16, 2015 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 16, 2015, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice -Chairman Patrick Oliver. Present:, Commissioner Patrick Oliver Commissioner Gregory Wilson and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Absent: Chairman Yearsley and Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel. Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Joshua Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance: Roll -call X_ Gregory Wilson X Patrick Oliver Rhonda McCarvel X Ryan Fitzgerald Steven Yearsley - 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 for July 16th. We will begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda Oliver: Thank you. Next we move on to the adoption of the agenda. We have the Items A and B, approval of minutes and the fact of findings and conclusion. Do I have a motion to adopt the agenda as -- Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I move for adoption of the agenda as presented. Oliver: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Wilson: Second. Oliver: Moved and seconded that we adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Passes. The agenda has been adopted. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes from July 2, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 2 of 20 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 15- 012 Verraso by Chad Olsen Located 3491, 3495, 3565 and 3567 Modelo Lane Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Multi -Family Development Consisting of Thirty (31) Residential Units on 2.75 Acres of Land in a C-G Zoning District Oliver: We move on to the Consent Agenda. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Or excuse me. Yes. Fitzgerald: I would move for approval of the Consent Agenda as presented by the staff. Wilson: Second. Oliver: All in favor say aye. It's been adopted. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Oliver: Okay. So, moving on to our first item. As we begin our process tonight for our public hearing, we will open each item. We will have the staff report and the findings regarding how each item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff's recommendations. We will have the applicant come forward to present their case for the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. If there is any public testimony, then, that will follow. There is a sign-up sheet that you will find at the back of the room as you enter. Anyone wishing to testify can. They need to come forward. They will have three minutes to speak. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA and there is a show of hands to represent the group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After the testimony has been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to respond if they desire, another ten minutes. And, then, we will close the public hearing. The Commission will have the opportunity to discuss and hopefully be able to make a recommendation to the City Council. Oliver: At this time I would like to open the public hearing -- Parsons: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Yes. Parsons: Before you open up the public hearing items tonight I would like to introduce the Commission to our newest associate planner. This is Joshua Beach. He comes to us from Washington -- the state of Washington and he's been with the department for a little over -- approximately about a month. And so I wanted Joshua -- to at least introduce him to you and let you know that you're going to start seeing his face and his voice at these Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 3 of 20 hearings moving forward, but I thought it was appropriate to at least -- I wish both the other commissioners were here this evening to get to meet Josh, but over the next couple of months you will start seeing more and more of him. So, please, welcome him. Fitzgerald: Is he a Husky or a Coug? Beach: I actually went to BYU, so -- I am a Cougar. Fitzgerald: As long as you don't wear purple. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing: RZ 15-009 Earl Glen by Brinegar Investments, LLLP Located North Side of E. McMillan Road and East of N. Locust Grove Road Request: Rezone Approximately 1.65 Acres from the R-8 (Medium -Density Residential) Zoning District to the R-15 (Medium High -Density Residential) Zoning District B. Public Hearing: PP 15-011 Earl Glen by Brinegar Investments, LLLP Located North Side of E. McMillan Road and East of N. Locust Grove Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval of Three (3) Multi -Family Residential Lots, Seventeen (17) Single Family Residential Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on Approximately 4.65 Acres in the R-8 and Proposed R-15 Zoning Districts C. Public Hearing: CUP 15-015 Earl Glen by Brinegar Investments, LLLP Located North Side of E. McMillan Road and East of N. Locust Grove Road Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi - Family Development Consisting of Sixteen (16) Dwelling Units in the Proposed R-15 Zoning District Oliver: Welcome aboard. Okay. We will start with the Glen -- or Earl Glen Subdivision. RZ 15-009 and PP 15-011. Cup 15-015. With that we will start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The first application this evening -- before you this evening is Earl Glen Subdivision. This property was annexed into the city in 2008 and at that time there was a development agreement that required this site to develop with single family homes -- attached and detached homes. The applicant tonight is here to discuss rezone of a portion of the site, approximately 1.65 acres of land from the existing R-8 zoning, which you see here on the exhibit to the left. So, basically, the McMillan Road frontage will be rezoned -- or requested to rezone to the R-15 zoning district in order to construct a multi -family development. You can see the surrounding development of this property, it's surrounded by vacant, undeveloped commercial property zoned C-N zoning in the city. To the north you have Ada County parcel zoned RUT. To the east you have an existing subdivision within the city and that's zoned R-8 and, then, or course, on the south boundary you have the Idaho substation and Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 4 of 20 McMillan Road and currently on McMillan Road is under construction to be extended to a five lane arterial roadway. Currently the property is developed with a single family home. That will be demolished upon redevelopment of this property. So, here is the -- again, the proposed preliminary plat, which consist of 17 residential lots and, then, three multi -family lots that front along McMillan Road here and, then, you will also have I believe three commons lots, which will be a street buffer along McMillan Road, a passive open space lot here internal to the development and, then, there is also a pump station or irrigation lot located here, which is already constructed with the previous subdivision. Here is the proposed landscape plan for you this evening. One thing -- one unique item regarding this project is that the applicant wants to integrate the open space in conjunction with the single family homes, so rather than having a single family development and a multi -family development, the multi -family development will use the open space that's presented to you this evening. So, under the multi -family standards this subdivision is under the five acre minimum to require open space, but the applicant is proposing approximately .79 acres of open space I believe to be used as overall, so the overall development, which would include this passive open space and amenities proposed for this development will consist of a horseshoe pit, a picnic area -- a covered picnic area and, then, also an integrated walkway through that MEW lot or open space lot here. The landscape plan was in two different -- two different sheets, so this is the northern portion of the open space and this is the -- of course the southern half and, then, how the multi -family, again, is fronting along McMillan Road and, then, you can see here that there will be actually some landscaping around those units as well. Primary access to this development, if I can step back very quickly, if you saw on the arrow here there is a portion of North Beethoven Street that is constructed -- or Beethoven Avenue, excuse me, that is extended into the site. Applicant will have to extend that with the subdivision and as part of some off -site improvements and to provide a secondary access -- now, keep in mind this is not required by the fire department, but in order to provide that looped water system and get Sheridan Subdivision to the east into -- through this development and to the commercial development to the west, the applicant has elected to go ahead and complete that street segment as well, just to have better connectivity in the area. So, the applicant is proposing a conditional use permit as well. I wish I could zoom in here a little bit more for you to develop 16 residential units for this project that consist of one eight-plex building and two four-plex units here, to be built with similar architecture and I will get into that a little bit more. The site plan that you see here or what's represented on this landscape plan does depict 33 parking stalls, which is consistent with the parking standards of the UDC. The applicant is providing pedestrian connections to the adjacent sidewalks as well as what's required with the UDC and also as I mentioned early in my presentation, the open space and the amenities are proposed on that adjacent common lot or shared open common -- open space lot for the benefit of this development as well and staff has a recommended condition that that open space be tied to the multi -family -- the entire development, not primarily for the multi -family development. So, going forward, here are the proposed elevations of the multi -family units. These are similar to what is currently being constructed at the intersection of -- I think Linder and Ustick Road. You guys approved a similar project called Sawtooth Village. This will be similar architecture and similar design for those three lots and, then, here is what the applicant is proposing for the single family homes on those residential lots. Staff has received written testimony from Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 5 of 20 the applicant. They are in agreement with all conditions of approval in the staff report. To staffs knowledge there aren't any outstanding issues for you. We are recommending approval and I would be happy to stand -- that completes my presentation. I'd stand for any questions you may have. Oliver: Commissioners, do you have any questions? Thank you. Seeing none, we will have the applicant, please, come forward. When you do so, please, state your name for the record and your address. Warnick: All right. Thanks very much. For the record, my name is Lance Warnick, professional engineer with Aspen Engineers, business address 45 West Main in Kuna. 83634. And for the record I'm an Aggie, so, please, don't hold that against me. I think as always Bill does a great job in introducing the project. He covers a lot of the things I think are pertinent and important and we want to thank him for that effort. We have been working on this property for about a year. We actually submitted an application for this project last year. After getting some feedback from staff we withdrew the application to kind of revamp it and we see it tonight -- what you see before you tonight we think has integrated a lot of good comments and recommendations from staff. We were originally looking to put some commercial areas on the south side of the property, but in looking what's around there we opted to go with the multi -family portion on the south. As you can see in the map that you see on your screen right now, on your arrow photo there is a lot of stuff we like to try to buffer the single family residences from and so that's why we are requesting the rezone to the R-15 on the south side of the property. To put the apartments there will kind of provide both a visual, as well as physical barrier that will help separate the single family residence, particularly from the substation facility. So, that's the reason we are going with the R-15. When you look at the overall density of both the single family and multi -family zone, the combined density is still really less than eight units per acre. So, we are still kind of in that same R-8 overall zone, so it's -- I think it fits in well with the neighborhood. The second thing we are talking about is -- is the creation of that single family subdivision. You know, the 17 lots and, then, the three lots here for the -- for the units that you see there. You know, I was the engineer on that Sawtooth Village project on McMillan and Linder. We call it McLinder Subdivision. Same architects involved on these units as well and the nice thing about these -- these multi -family buildings is they look similar in nature to like a single family home. They are not like, you know, this big, stark, big apartment building. We will have exterior modulation and use of color. The doors kind of come out on all four sides of the units and so it's not like -- it's a very attractive building and so we are excited for the opportunity to -- to place these things here. You know, our hope is that this development would be kind of integrated. You know, we will have the single family portion, we will have the multi -family, they can both, you know, visit, they can play in that common area. We think it's important. And as Bill said, we are voluntarily offering to extend that road up on the north to, essentially, provide interconnectivity with the -- with the existing roadway from this proposed subdivision. You know, there is not a lot more -- I think a lot I can add to what Bill has said before. You know, just to recap we want to rezone the south to R-15, put the apartments in. The CUP application is to allow apartments in that zone. The plat obviously is to create lots for single family and for the apartments and, then, we need to modify that development Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 6 of 20 agreement, so that we can put the apartments and, then, also not construct the attached homes that were originally proposed as part of that unit, we'd like to have each home in the single family portion be able to be detached. So, with that I would stand for any questions. Thank you. Oliver: Commissioners, do you have any questions? Fitzgerald: Just so I'm clear. So, you are -- there is a vacation of the easement -- or you're getting the easement to ACHD or you guys are actually putting a road in? Warnick: Yeah. Mr. Commissioners, that property we will actually be dedicating -- it's off site, but it would a dedicated right of way. So, that would be public road that will not only be dedicated, but would be built to ACHD standards. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Oliver: Mr. Wilson? Nothing? Thank you. Warnick: Thank you for your time. Oliver: Looking at that the public testimony we have one person signed up and it's Lance Warnick. Oh. That's -- okay. So, we have no one to testify. Is there anyone that would like to come forward and testify? Okay. Seeing none. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Yes. Fitzgerald: I would move that we close the public hearing. Oliver: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Wilson: Second. Oliver: It's been moved and seconded that we close our hearing. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Meeting closed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Oliver: Okay. I will just go quick -- real quick. I think that the development looks nice. like the look of the homes that are going in. I think you have gone above and beyond what you were expected to do and I appreciate you doing that. I think it looks well done and I think it will work real nice in that area, so I'm definitely looking at it favorable. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I agree completely. I think it's -- I'm a big buffer to either commercial space or to the roads. I think putting that multi -family up front looks great, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 7 of 20 especially with the Maverick stub street coming over right into those. I think it's perfect. So, we appreciate it. Thank you. Wilson: I would agree. I know the area, I have driven by that area and I think this will be a -- will be a nice addition, so -- Oliver: Okay. Seeing no others. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Oliver: Yes. Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval of file number RZ 15-009, PP 15-011, CUP 15-015 and MDA 15-006 as presented during the hearing July 16th, 2015, as staff has presented it. Oliver: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Wilson: Just a point of clarification. Did you have an additional -- I didn't -- Oliver: Yes. That is not included in the -- Fitzgerald: Oh. Wilson: Yeah. I just wanted to make sure we are -- Oliver: No, it would be -- Fitzgerald: I was reading my -- Wilson: With that stricken I second. Oliver: We have moved and seconded that we approve RZ 15-009, PP 15-011 and CUP 15-015. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. D. Public Hearing: AZ 15-007 Sovi Subdivision by DevCo, LLC Located 3515 S. Eagle Road Request: Annexation of Five (5) Acres of Land from the RUT Zoning District in Ada County to the R-15 (Medium -High Density Residential) Zoning District E. Public Hearing: PP 15-010 Sovi Subdivision by DevCo, LLC Located 3515 S. Eagle Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty -Six (36) Single Family Residential Lots and Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 8 of 20 Seven (7) Common Lots on Approximately Five (5) Acres in a Proposed R-15 Zoning District Oliver: Okay. Next on the agenda is the Sovi Subdivision. AZ 15-007 and PP 15-010. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda is the Sovi Subdivision. Currently the site consists 5.09 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County. You can see here in the aerial that the property is currently developed with a single family residential use developed in the county. Again, that home would be demolished with the development of this property. A couple things have transpired since we have issued the staff report. The applicant came into -- came and met with staff beginning of the week and has since our initial recommendation was for denial of this project based on some of the concerns that were raised in the staff report. In working with the applicant they have provided staff with a revised preliminary plat, revised landscape plan and also was able to acquire that basically enclave or sliver of property along the west boundary that we called out in the staff report. Having that additional information, staff is comfortable with having you at least take a look at some draft conditions that we have prepared in case you did want to maybe change or recommend approval of this project and move it on to City Council. What I will try to do this evening is I will go through the presentation and give you the update of what's changed from what's in the staff report to what we have tonight and, then, also maybe let you have some time where you take a few minutes to review those conditions of approval and let any members in the audience have a chance to -- to look at those conditions as well, so they are not -- the audience doesn't think this is a bate and switch or that we -- as they come here thinking they are testifying on denial of the project, when, actually, staff has some recommended conditions that aren't reflected in the current staff report. So, I just wanted to go on the record and say, hey, things have changed since we have issued the staff report and we need to get that out for you guys to take that under consideration tonight. So, going forward, originally in the staff report the annexation boundary was five acres, as I have mentioned to you just previously. The current boundary has expanded a little bit from five acres to 5.08 acres. The applicant is requesting to annex that in with the R-8 -- the R-15 zoning district and the main reason for the rezone is because the applicant is wanting to try to have a denser project, stay within the confines of the Comprehensive Plan under the medium density residential district, but still allow you to get some relief from the dimensional standard of the R-8 zoning. So, that's really why they are requesting the R-15. It's not to construct multi -family or anything, they want to do a single family project, they just want some flexibility in the design of the lots. So, looking at the surrounding developments, we have an adjacent subdivision on the north boundary that has a mix of single family and multi- family units, zoned R-4. That's Medford Place. Across to the east we have vacant property currently within the city zoned R-8. The recorded development agreement for that property does allow the development of a nursing care facility on that property. To the south we have Tuscany and the Messina Village Subdivisions, zoned R-4 and, then, again, along the west boundary we have R-4 zoned property that's currently developed with an elementary school. Here is the revised plans. I was talking about first the primary reason why staff had recommended denial of this property was the fact that if this one -- the legal description and the plat that was submitted with the application did not include a Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 9 of 20 sliver of property along the west boundary. It was a survey arrow back in 1972 based on what the applicant shared with us and that applicant was able to work with the current property owner and the county surveyor to get that discrepancy corrected. The applicant has submitted revised legal descriptions for both the subdivision boundary and the annexation boundary that will incorporated into the ordinance approval if this does go on to City Council and ultimately gets approved by the city. So, the primary changes in the landscape plan -- or at least the plat tonight consist of that sliver of property on the west boundary. You can see that it is incorporated. At this point in time the applicant is proposing that that strip be -- be two separate common lots and I will get into that more as I get to the landscape plan. The extension of the stub street -- or extension of the streets into the development is consistent with what ACHD and staff looked at originally as part of the staff report. One of staffs recommended conditions for you to take under consideration tonight is the extension of this stub street to the south boundary and, again, I will elaborate that a little bit more as well. The plat itself still consists of 36 residential lots. Obviously, the common lots have increased with those additions. The applicant has also revised the landscape plan. The plan here does provide the 25 foot wide landscape buffer required along the road, some internal street buffers, landscaping along the internal streets and one of staff's concerns that was raised in the staff report was the amount of usable open space. Now, keep mind that annexation boundary of this project is 5.09 acres and the plat is 4.86 acres. So, technically, staff -- the open space requirement in this -- they don't apply to this property, but given the number of homes that are proposed for this plat, staff feels that the applicant should incorporate some usable open space and one amenity into this site and that's what the applicant has shown here this evening on the revised landscape plan. So, you can see here they have added a walking path into this passive open space lot here in the corner. Now, keep in mind this is a dual purpose open space. It will have drainage in it and it will also have the pathway and the -- and the covered picnic area. Under the UDC draining areas can count towards usable open space if it's designed in accordance with our -- our code. The applicant doesn't have those designs worked out yet, but in looking -- moving forward with the final plat we can certainly work those details out. Also one other -- going back to the stub street, staff feels that the applicant should stub that street. We feel it's important for future connectivity. Now, we understand just a little bit of history on that. If I can go back to that aerial here. When Messina Meadows came in and annexed into the city, the staff at that time had required a stub street or a cross -access easement to this property. The developer at the time was given the option to either stub the street or provide a cross -access. Well, they took the easier route and platted a cross -access drive. What that's created is now ACHD no longer has jurisdiction, because that's a private easement, it's not dedicated right of way. So, it is their legal department's opinion that they cannot enforce or require that to be a street that connects to East Rome and so that's where the dilemma lies. So, you have the city pushing for the stub street and you have ACHD staff and their legal department not wanting that stub street. So, there lies the dilemma for you to take under advisement this evening. Now, I would mention to you short term, if it doesn't punch through, I mean residents are going to have to turn onto Eagle Road, go back onto Rome Drive and get the children to the school. That's a fact. That's a reality. But if you look north there you can see Medford Place does have a stub street here to this Ada County piece and Messina Meadows or Tuscany Village also provided a stub street in that Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 10 of 20 alignment. So, you can see all is not lost if that road does not punch through. There will be another way for folks to get to the school site, get to the city park, get to some of those amenities out there without having to turn into the road. So, we still have some connectivity issues we have to work on. At least there can be some connectivity to get them out, other than Eagle Road in the future. Fitzgerald: Bill, real quick while you are on that. Parsons: Yeah. Fitzgerald: So, if ACHD says they don't have jurisdiction, it's Messina Meadows' property, Messina Meadows is saying they don't want to do it -- Parsons: That is correct. Fitzgerald: -- so how do you force the issue if they -- I mean ACHD supposedly has right of way over the roads, so I don't know how you can force -- Parsons: Exactly. And that's the dilemma is -- but staff doesn't want it -- things change over time. I -- I mean I agree with you a hundred percent. Things change. How do we know the HOA 30 years from now doesn't want that to punch through and just by us closing the door on it -- if we don't get the stub street we have basically, essentially, closed the door, we are never going to get it and if we do get a stub there we still leave the door cracked a little bit to possibly work with ACHD, work with the HOA, the city can maybe get -- get those talks going and at least try to make it happen. If you look at the way the cross -access was created, I think all of us could agree in this room that it's 50 feet wide. It was meant to be a street. Unfortunately, staff at the time didn't -- and ACHD staff didn't require it to be dedicated and constructed as a stub street. So, now we have to try to find a way to either correct it or ignore it I guess, for lack of a better word. So, at this point the applicant is only proposing an emergency access and that is a requirement of the fire department, they will have to work with the HOA in order to construct the emergency access for the fire department. The applicant is proposing some elevations this evening. Again, these are pretty typical. A couple years ago I believe the Commission acted on a project that was called Solterra Subdivision. These similar homes are being constructed within that development off of Hickory and Fairview. Again the applicant wants relief from those dimensional standards of the R-8 zoning district to, basically, construct single family homes. The current comp plan, as I mentioned to you, is medium density residential, so anticipate densities between three and eight dwelling units to the acre. The project this evening is on the upper end of that spectrum, it's a 7.55 dwelling units to the acre. So, it's right within the parameters and the density range of what we envision under the Comprehensive Plan. So, in closing you still have options this evening. If you feel that it's still not in the best interest of the city you can still recommend denial of the project and move it on. You have the option of even continuing the project and have staff amend the staff report and bring back those draft conditions in the form of a revised staff report or if you feel comfortable on what's being presented to you this evening and have a chance to really review the draft conditions that I mentioned to you Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 11 of 20 earlier in my presentation, you can take a recess or we could at least put them up here on the slide and give you a chance to at least review them on the record and if you are comfortable with staffs recommended conditions this evening you can certainly move that -- move that -- ask staff to amend the staff report, change that, and insert those conditions into the staff report prior to City Council. If I can step back very quickly, I did want you -- so, really had two outstanding issues for you this evening. I think staff -- the applicant has done a great job addressing a lot of staffs concerns this evening, but we still -- we still have a couple outstanding issues for you this evening. The first being, of course, that stub street and I think I have kind of explained where we are at on that and I think you understand what ACHD's position is, too. So, we still want you to make a decision or recommendation on what you want to see there as far as the connection. Do you want it a stub street? Do you want the applicant to construct a private street through the development or are you happy with them providing it as shown here with the emergency access and the stub road stopping and having, again, the common drive connection. And, then, also I would like to point your attention to a strip that was incorporated into the plat and the annexation boundary. Staff would like the applicant to explain how this would be used and how it would be the open space -- I mean my -- my discussions with the applicant have always been that he would integrate that or do these -- allow these common lots to be used by the adjacent homeowners. They will own it, landscape it, maintain it. Under the UDC our -- when we plat a common lot we expect the homeowners association to maintain that. We expect that to be open land for everyone to use. That's the intent behind the code. And so in my discussions with the applicant, as I mentioned, they intend to have these homeowners give them an exclusive use easement for the right to use that open space of that property as part of their buildable lot. Typically the city doesn't get involved in that, as long as it's not platted as a common lot. So, I think my suggestion to the applicant this evening was maybe when they come in with the final plat rather than creating those common lots, possibly just dedicating them with nonbuildable lots and, then, through their CC&Rs they can dictate how and who is to use and maintain that and we certainly want to make sure that the applicant does not fence off that -- put fencing on that shared boundary. That causes concern for staff creating this narrow tunnel along the sides of those homes. I have one last item that I failed to mention in my presentation is the applicant is also working with the school district on a pedestrian connection along the west boundary. So, I think that's probably going to happen, too. So, kudos to the applicant coming back, working with staff, and trying to come -- bring forth some usable solutions for you to take under advisement tonight. I will stop with my presentation and I'd certainly stand for any questions you may have. And I -- if you want to see the draft conditions I'm more than happy to pull those up now or wait until the applicant presents their project to you. Oliver: I guess I just have one question regarding the -- the strip. You said you -- there will be no fence along there at all. The people that own those lots are not going to have a fence there? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, currently the school district has chain link fencing along this west boundary. We just want to try to avoid a case where we have chain link fence ten feet and, then, additional fencing, so we don't create that. And Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 12 of 20 in speaking with the applicant I think he's agreeable to that as well and I think he wants that to be part of their side yard or -- except they have a larger lot to use and create on and enjoy. So, again, I will let him try to explain how they will want to set that up with you and if you feel comfortable with it we can certainly incorporate something into the conditions. Oliver: Okay. Commissioners, do we have questions? Fitzgerald: Do we want to look at the conditions now or -- Mr. Chairman, do you want to look at the conditions now or do you want to wait for the applicant to present and, then, look at them afterwards? Oliver: Do you mind if we look at them now? Is that all right? Parsons: It's your call. Oliver: Let's look at them now before we go on. Parsons: I think it's appropriate to get in front before we start taking public testimony on it. Oliver: That way we will know what -- Parsons: Okay. What we can do it maybe get some copies printed off and maybe let the applicant present theirs. Apologize for that. I'm not sure why this is locking up and not allowing us to come over. If you want to call the applicant up. Oliver: Okay. Could I have the applicant come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Conger: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Commission. Jim Conger, 4824 West Fairview Avenue. Super excited to be in front of you guys tonight with this in -fill development. As you can see from what Bill has shown you and where we have -- have done with this, it's one of the last properties to develop in that Victory -Eagle area as far as the west side of Eagle goes. This Sovi neighborhood is modeled after the same housing product, as Mr. Parsons indicated, of our Solterra Project, which was approved in Meridian a year and a half ago at Eagle and Fairview. So, the product as far as how it fits, how it lives, how it's adjusted to the site and how people use the amenities and how they park is a project now that's tested. The first time the Commission trusted the approval we -- it was one of our first at seven units per acre and now we are lucky enough to be back in front of you with a -- with a repeat project that we know works. With this in fill comes great benefits. As you can see we are -- we are tied in next to the school to the west. We are built out to Victory to the north. You have got one five acre property zoned into the south. Tuscany is built out. Again, going through kind of the benefits of this project, what you have today is an Ada County parcel in the middle of your city. I am respectfully wondering why we would deny an annexation to get rid of this when we can bring a project into your city and get the last Ada County piece into the city. So, with that Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 13 of 20 we do -- we do want to move forward with the conditions and would hope the city looks at that the same way. We are removing the fire hazard. A year and a half ago that entire length of fence that you can see that I might be running a cursor on, of the HOA at Tuscany burnt -- one hundred percent of that vinyl caught on fire and was toasted, so that's pretty much a brand new fence. There has been numerous other complaints and such. You can see the houses that are visible from Eagle Road. That's just to name a few of the benefits of this in -fill development. The connectivity -- as you can see, we are the last piece on Eagle Road that doesn't have sidewalk. It's not landscaped but the sidewalk is the big deal. Every neighborhood meeting we have had, everybody that's the first thing they gravitate to. And so not annexing this property is -- would just not make sense. It is needed and it's the last piece on this side. We are utilizing the existing sewer and water infrastructure that's in place with the city -- City of Meridian Public Works. And, then, our proximity to the school, which we are next door to, and, then, our proximity to the Renaissance Park just all fits at this last piece and I think as far as, you know, our density at 7.2, it's why we have this on the screen and I'm being told this moves. Does the cursor move when I do that? It must not. To our north is single family homes on the west side of our north and on the east side of our homes it's a multi -family apartment complex, so think that's important to keep in mind. What also makes this such a great project, besides the in -fill component is architecture that Tahoe Homes has honed through in our Solterra project in Meridian that we are transferring now to this project. It's the single family detached homes that you can see in kind of the yellow color and, then, we do have also single level townhomes in the lighter tan color. Those are single level, where our detached home in the tan are two story, just as you saw in the architectural with Bill. I would -- you know, you might have heard or read in a packet the concern about two story homes. Let's back up one. We have one side -- sides of two story homes barely at the end. If you see our green park at our west boundary -- thanks, Bill. If you come in the entry -- I have given two -- two photos here, Bill. If you would show the bottom right one. The bottom right one. You can see our buffer. We have a 45 foot buffer that was put in by the Tuscany HOA. Their buffer of their homes is on a 30 foot wide buffer. So, we already have the advantage of a 45 wide buffer or should I say the neighbors driving in already have an advantage of a 45 foot wide buffer. The upper picture shows you -- and it moved some for some reason. The two story -- the entry house is two story and the first house you see when you drive in is two stories. So, some concern of a two story from us behind a 40 foot buffer and we really only have one house at the end of the development near the school shouldn't be a concern and that is consistent with every one of our homeowners meeting and our meeting with the board at Tuscany HOA. Yeah. I think with the -- I will move kind of into the staff report, which was kind of a shock and dismay on Monday when we got the denial report that -- that wasn't -- we didn't understand that. We -- we knew there was several items that could be conditioned that got stripped. We had been working on that for two months with attorneys. You don't even want to see our attorney bills to get that little 11 foot strip. We didn't want it. We could develop the property without it. The city staff had issue with it and we have been working for the last two and a half months. We didn't realize we needed to get it deeded over to get an approval, having a condition of that being done, but either here nor there, we actually recorded a deed today, not because of the meeting tonight, it's just it took two and a half months to get done. The only issue when the -- in the conditions of approval you will see Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 14 of 20 -- and if you guys have received them it's 1.1.2 that I will get into in a second. It is either extend Milan Avenue or approve the plat as drawn and I guess that's what's in front of you tonight. The staff's original concern of open spaces, percentages, you heard a little bit about that tonight about the storm drain pond, if we had sand it's deductible -- we continue to not understand that. This is 4.86 acre parcel. It's 5.03. We have provided survey after survey and your code -- you know, I'm not going to go into this, but I just wanted to make sure everybody understands it -- your Unified Development Code 11-3G, projects under five acres don't have a ten percent open space requirement or the one amenity. We are annexing in, your staff thinks -- and I -- we agree with it, they -- you know, in the best interest of the project they can -- they can put a condition upon us to do an amenity space, but, again, in -fill projects are tough. The City of Meridian should want in fill over time, that's where things are going to start going as you start getting your perimeter filled up, your code is written to give some bonus to in fill, they are so difficult to pull off. So, we don't have deduction for sand bottoms or any of that ten percent that you will read in the staff report. So, open space, the boundary survey -- there was concern of common driveways and the connection to the school. All roads are either conditioned or they just went away, because they weren't part of the code. Going in -- and I don't know what -- what happened here, why this is acting goofy. It's because I'm on the right side. So, the only issue really in front of us tonight is the outstanding roadway connection. Staff is recommending we stub to Rome Drive. I will get to that drawing in a second. What wanted to do was give you the history of Rome Drive and Tuscany. It was platted in Messina Village phase number one and it was in 2003. I'm telling you 2003 was not that long ago. Yes, there is a 50 foot, very weakly written ingress -egress across this common lot, but I am sure when you see the 25 mile per hour speed sign, that is where the City of Meridian staff believes the intent was to do a stub road. We develop a lot of lots a year. You guys approve a lot of lots a year. When a stub road is required put it in. But being for the highway district to miss it and the City of Meridian to miss it, there had to be another circumstance or -- maybe it was a mistake, I don't know. I think more importantly what we keep coming back to, what's in front of you today on the conditions of approval, staff is saying extend our avenue or you guys suggest approval as it's drawn. I -- I'm going to kind of slow down here, because this is at the end of the day for us the only thing that matters. This ACHD staff report, which I didn't -- this is not the staff report. I don't need to show you a copy on the screen, you have it in your packet -- does not -- will not accept a stub road across that property. City staff keeps putting as a condition of approval. They have worded it nice enough today for you guys' to make the decision and we are very appreciative of that for sure, but it still shouldn't even be on the table. So, this is highway district's e-mail as of Tuesday of this week and I'm just going to spend the time to read it, because I think it's that important. The city is placing conditions on public streets that will not be approved by ACHD with regard to Rome Drive, as I have previously discussed and sent via e-mail, ACHD legal staff reviewed the plat note and determined that ACHD cannot require a connection. ACHD will not allow a public street to be stubbed to the HOA strip, since legal has already determined that it is up to the HOA. If the HOA does not want a public street connection, which means they won't sign an easement, which I understand they won't, which you have their letter and I will show you in a second, then, we would have an unfinished stub street that will never get extended or constructed in the future and Bill is talking about a door open. What ACHD is telling you and what they tell Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 15 of 20 all of us -- and we just had one in Boise three weeks ago that the city of Boise wanted. They are not going to burden their taxpayers to maintain a street to nowhere for the next 30 or 90 years while they wait for an easement. That's not their responsible charter and they would be going against what their -- their charter is for taxpayers. So, if you choose the safe method that staff is recommending, we will be back in front of you, you will have delayed me two or three months and we will be back in front of you with another ACHD letter saying it's not going to be allowed. So, I personally don't understand if there is a choice. I just can't see that there is a choice on this. This is the Tuscany letter. Mr. Hood asked -- well, asked us -- told us you have got to go get an -- you have got to go get an easement for ACHD. So, I went in personally, met with the board of Tuscany, and they didn't throw me out, but it was close. And I think you have a fellow commissioner here that's the president of the Tuscany Homeowners Association, they are not going to sign an easement to ACHD for a public access road. So, I can continue on for an hour of why I don't understand why you have to make a choice tonight, but I think I'm starting to beat a dead horse and in my rebuttal if I need to hit it again you folks will let me know for sure. The -- they are not common lots, but the nonbuildable lots -- Bill, could you circle them one more time for me, please. They are green right now, because we are just going to show them so they highlight it out for today. But much like that project at Solterra that's already in Meridian and we do it every day in Harris Ranch, those would just be use easements by those yards, much as you heard Bill say a long skinny little strip, you just can't really leave that as a common lot, you would have it fenced on both sides. It would be an easement that's covered in our CC&Rs. They can't fence across it, but because they are going to fence at the far edge of the green, which is between them and the school. The fence already exists. So, those would be use easements. That's the best use of that little piece of strip land that was finally acquired that had been missing since 1971. 1 think in closing we have a great in -fill neighborhood for a change in Meridian, Idaho. Usually we are on the fringe bringing you the next, which -- which is what Meridian does, because you are a growing city. We finally are able to utilize parts of your unified development code for in fill and bring it into a land which we know we will -- and we are currently trying to acquire more -- be bringing more of these in -fills in, they just have to be addressed and looked at differently than page 22 of Paramount or phase 22 of any other larger master planned community. They are difficult. Your code is written differently for parcels under five acres and -- and it utilizes your existing infrastructure -- you know, all the -- it's on Eagle, we got a lot of commercial on Eagle Road that we are using. So, in closing I just respectfully with trust on Item 1.12 on the conditions that you were given, think it's worded very nicely by Mr. Parsons, it gives you the option of stubbing the road that I will be back in front of you in two months after ACHD denies it again or approve the plat as it is. Every other condition we have worked very hard with your staff and, believe me, your staff has worked harder than me over the last two and a half days to resurrect this to where we feel it should have been the first time, but unbelievable job done by them and I know they worked past 6:00 o'clock, because we were trading a -mails past then, so think with that I will definitely stand for any questions you have and certainly open if you have any questions you have about the conditions of approval, but we accept every condition with the modification of 1.12, the second option for you to accept. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 16 of 20 Fitzgerald: Jim, the question I have on the -- I guess the access to Milan -- or to Rome, I'm sorry, the emergency, are they putting bollards out at the end and, then, grasscrete it, is that the discussion with Tuscany? Conger: Yeah. Mr. President, Commissioner Fitzgerald, yes, there is no discussion with Tuscany, but we are going to be a fabulous neighbor. The easement exists for us to do the fire road today. There is no asking for permission. The way easements are written and the way a good neighbor is is you go do what you do for that ingress -egress, which is allowed and you repair things to the natural condition all around it. So, that is also an existing sewer easement and water easement, our water line and sewer line will also come through that same area. So, we will disrupt that area by easement, no permission needed, and we will put it back like a great neighbor would do. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Wilson: Nothing. Oliver: I may have missed it, but do you have examples of some of the building lots of what they would look like, the homes that would be built there? Conger: You know, Mr. President, Commissioner Oliver, Mr. Parsons had that -- so, didn't double dip on that -- in his presentation. We can go back to Bill's -- but -- but he showed those. Oliver: Yeah. Conger: -- at the first -- at the front part, but we could go back into that for sure. You know, our detached homes are what you were seeing here, they will range in the 14 to 15 to 1,850 to 1,900 square feet, in that range, and, then, our townhomes are the single level in that range, in that 1,300, 1,350 foot range. Oliver: That's what I missed. Yeah. Thank you. Conger: Yeah. No. Absolutely. It's a wonderful product. It was designed and produced by Tahoe Homes and they would be our sole builder in this neighborhood. Oliver: Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. Conger: I really appreciate your time. Oliver: At this time I do not have anyone signed up for public testimony. Is there someone in the audience that would like to come forward and testify? No? Okay. Seeing none, do I have a motion? Excuse me. Do you want to look at the -- Parsons: Commission, it's up to you however long you need to review that, if you want to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 17 of 20 Oliver: Yeah. Parsons: We can certainly put those up on the overhead, too, for the audience if that works while you guys are reading. Oliver: Yeah. Give us about five minutes or a couple minutes here to go through it. Parsons: Yeah. Oliver: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Bill, is it possible, since we have an open meeting, if I ask one more question of the applicant? Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Fitzgerald, did you close the public hearing? Fitzgerald: No. Parsons: Yes, you can. Fitzgerald: Can I ask one quick question in regards to -- did you guys get the connection to the school? Conger: President, Commissioner Fitzgerald, yes, we had the value on getting access for the school from day one of tying up this property. We did not understand it through any pre -application meetings or with city staff that it was going to be such a -- such an item on that original denial. But, again, we had been working for two months. We do have written approval from the school district to tie one. We will come straight out that. They have limited us to only one gate, but we only want one gate. But, yeah, that is done, that is finished. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Thank you. Oliver: Are we good? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Oliver: Okay. After reviewing do you have any questions regarding -- Commissioner Wilson? Wilson: I'm good. Oliver: Good. Thank you, Bill. Appreciate it. Again, seeing no one coming to testify, do have a motion? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 18 of 20 Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing. Oliver: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Wilson: Second. Oliver: It's been moved and seconded that we close the meeting for Sovi Subdivision, AZ 15-007 and PP 15-010. Commissioners. Fitzgerald: Do we have to vote? Do we have to vote on closing the hearing? Oliver: Oh. All in favor. Opposed say nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Okay. I will -- I will lead off. I -- I think the applicant should be commended. think thanks to both the applicant and to Bill. In fill is hard. I think this is a difficult piece of property. I think it's an eye sore, as you can see. I think they have done a good job of working with staff significantly, especially the -- with the strip in the back. This product that they are bringing works well near schools. It works well near big -- near subdivisions, because you have attached product that elderly folks would move into to see -- be close to their grandkids. I think it's good product. I know it sells. They have done it already once. And it sounds like you have got a condition of approval for a nursing home across the street, which I -- I mean it kind of adds value to your bringing attached product to a neighborhood that's difficult to put single family homes in and make them make sense and so I do think the applicant has a good point about in fill. I think it's -- I think it should be taken into account. I do appreciate all of Bill's work, but I think after all the efforts that's been made I think it's good. I also agree that you can't force them to build a road for something that ACHD is never going to approve and so they are bringing something that will give them -- the Fire Department wants access, they are going to put grasscrete in, they are going to make it so it's safe for the neighbors. You do have a cross -access to the -- to the school coming through -- like up to the north through Medford when that parcel does come in. I know it's a challenge for the people that are in that neighborhood for bringing their kids to school, but there is that cross -access to walk. So, I think you're covering as much of the bases in an in -fill property as you can and I think in that regard I think it's a good -- a good project. And it was hard, but it's good for what it is -- for what their being dealt, if you will. So, I think I will be in support of -- without the road having to be connected. Wilson: And I think I'm -- I think I will also support moving it up to City Council. Again, mean I'm looking at the list of, you know, reasons for the staff recommended denial and think that those were adequately addressed through the hard work of staff and the developer and just through an explanation in the -- in the initial presentation. So, I would agree with you of what you have said. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 19 of 20 Oliver: I just kind of agree with both -- both of what you said, as well as that it is a difficult area to fill. There were some very good concerns that were brought up and I think you did your best to solve those. And as long as you continue on the west side of -- on Eagle Road, that -- that that's kind of the same deal that Tuscany has with the -- the landscaping there. I think the whole plan will work. So, I'm -- it's unfortunate, I would like to see the stub put in, but knowing what you presented with ACHD and the HOA president's letter, that that will probably never happen, that they would not let that happen anyway. So, all in all I think it's about the best we can, like you say, for an in fill, so -- any other discussion? Seeing none, do I have a motion? Wilson: Do you want to -- Fitzgerald: Sure. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval file number AZ 15-007 and PP 15-010 to City Council with the change of 1.1 -- or 1.1.2 to not require the stub street to Rome -- or, I'm sorry, to -- is that right? Yes. To not require the stub street to Rome of Milan Avenue. Wilson: Okay. Second. Oliver: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the Sovi Subdivision, AZ 15-007 and PP 15-010, with the modification that we -- not include the stub; right? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Oliver: Yeah. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Oliver: At this point that is the end. One more thing to do and we are closed. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman -- oh, go ahead. I have moved all night -- Wilson: You might as well. Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn. Oliver: It's been moved that we adjourn. Do I have a second? Wilson: Second. Oliver: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Opposed say nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Oliver: Meeting is now closed. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 16, 2015 Page 20 of 20 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 'Vint Aq� - VICE -CHAIRMAN ( �10 ct )AC Ciao✓ Ve ( ­.a.c;Kvi5 ATTEST: OAC&jk_,+�Lu fw AYCEE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK Co?. f yt r 1101ANi �s WAN, `� SEAL i w n , TRFASIA A' I. 2 Q_I/' DATE APPROVED