The URL can be used to link to this page

2004 11-18 /~1- < Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina November 18. 2004. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner David Zaremba, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay and Commissioner David Moe. Others Present: Bill Nary, Machelle Hill, Tara Green, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Anna Canning, Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Josh Wilson, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X David Zaremba X X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X X Chairman Keith Borup David Moe Michael Rohm Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for November 18th. Begin with roll call of Commissioners. Borup: Before we get onto the rest of the agenda, I'd like to -- Director Canning had a couple of announcements she wanted to -- or comments she wanted to make. Canning: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. I just wanted to give you a couple of heads up on some dates. On December 6th, a man named Dave Leland is going to be coming to town and he's going to do a workshop in the morning. I have been working with ULI Idaho to bring him here to talk about mixed use and we are still working on the exact details of the workshop, but it's going to be, basically, what cities need to do to get ready for mixed use development. So, it seems very appropriate. The City of Meridian is going to be kind of a co-sponsor of this event. So, I wanted to give you guys a heads up. I will get you more information and fliers once we have them, so I'll try and get that to you. Zaremba: Time and place and -- Canning: Pardon? Zaremba: Time and place information? Canning: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Ntlvember ~8, 2004 Page 2 of 64 Canning: It, unfortunately, is going to be in Boise. We couldn't get a Meridian location. I know. I'm sorry. Zaremba: Where is that? Newton-Huckabay: I think Boise is to the west. Canning: It's in Canyon County somewhere. Zaremba: East Meridian. Canning: The other one is -- Diane Cushland has offered to do some training for planning and zoning commissioners pro bono and I said I would -- I know that some of you have asked for that, so,. hopefully, you don't take objection to this, but I wanted to run -- Rohm: Training? Canning: Wanted to run a date by you. I had looked at February 24th and I don't know if that's a good one for you all, but I just kind of wanted to get some feedback on that if you could. Newton-Huckabay: Is this a day? Canning: I think the 24th -- I think I picked it, because it was on a fourth Thursday. Newton-Huckabay: Is it an all day event or -- Canning: No. No. No. It would just be a couple hours, is my understanding. And we could do it in the evening. But I'd certainly take comments on what time of day or what kind of day you would like it or -- I was going to also invite the Kuna planning and zoning commission and Eagle. It is a Thursday. I guess I assumed we would be doing it in the evening. Rohm: Works for me. Zaremba: February 24 you're talking about? Canning: Yes. And I will get the information to the clerk's office, so they can advertise and everything also. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Sounds good. Canning: The 24th seems like a good day? Meridian Planning & Zoning NO.vember 18,2004 Page 3 of 64 Moe: Yes. Borup: That's one of our off Thursdays; right? Canning: Yes. It's a fourth Thursday. I'll double-check. February 24th. Newton-Huckabay: In the evening? Canning: Pardon? Newton-Huckabay: In the p.m? Canning: Yes. Okay. I will work on those and get you more information. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of October 21, 2004 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Borup: Thank you. Next item is minutes of October 21 st. Do we have any comments or additions? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of October 21st, 2004, as written. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Recommendation: VAG 04-008 Request for a Vacation of a portion of the 5-foot utility easements located on each side of the shared lot line of Lots 26 & 27, Block 1 for Lochsa Falls Subdivision No.6 by Ramsey Homes -1660 West Glade Creek: Borup: Okay. Next Item is VAC 04-008. This is a -- this is not a Public Hearing, it would be a recommendation from this Commission. It's a request for vacation of a portion of five-foot utility easement on each side of a shared lot line. I'd like to go ahead and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. You have seen several of these vacations before. I won't spend much time on this one. It just Meridian Planning & Zoning Ntlvember~8, 2004 Page 4 of 64 involves two lots and it is a side utility easement. The location is in Lochsa Falls Subdivision No.6. Both affected lots, actually, do back up to Linder Road. This is a blow up of the final plat that they got and we are talking about this northeast corner, these on two lots, 26 and 17, and this is the plot plan that you got in your applications that shows the footprint of the residence as it was constructed and the proposed new lot line would follow this southerly line here and the new easement would follow that. So, staff's looking for the Commission's recommendation for approval to the Council for this. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I noted in the report that anybody interested in the easements is acknowledging they don't need it and plus one person that hasn't -- who was it? Cable One hasn't responded yet, but I assume that will happen. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Actually, we did -- staff did receive Cable One relinquishment a couple of days ago. Zaremba: The only question I would have is after parcel 26 is reconfigured to remove amount of area, is it still over 8,000 square feet? Do we know that? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, we do know that and it is. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: These are the new square footage numbers? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. I thought that was the old numbers. Moe: I guess I would have one question and it may be trivial here, but why was this not done before the house was built? Zaremba: Did somebody mis-measure when they built the house? Hawkins-Clark: I will not speak on behalf of Ramsey Homes tonight. Moe: Good enough. Borup: The other question I had is when the square footage is adequate, the frontage at the street is 40 feet, but, then, it narrows up. Is there anything in ordinance at all that addresses that? Because they don't have 40 feet by the time you're back 15 feet. Meridian Planning & Zoning Ntlvember 18, 2004 Page 5 of 64 Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, If I could just clarify. You're talking about the frontage that's here and then-- Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: -- as you extend to the east, then, it tapers down? Borup: Well, yeah, I'm looking at the front point right there, that 40 .. Hawkins-Clark: Oh, I see. Right. Right. Well, I mean the frontage is measured on the cord measurement, which -- Borup: Right. That's what I understand. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Borup: But using that same criteria you could .- you could have lots with 40-foot of frontage that would neck back to ten feet and still comply. Is that what you're saying? Hawkins-Clark: Technically that's correct. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Obviously, you have to have a build-able lot. Borup: Right. I mean I know that's not practical, that's taken to the extreme, but, apparently, that's not something that's addressed. Hawkins-Clark: Right. I mean the flag lot, you know, is sort of part of that scenario where flag lots can come out and only touch at 15 feet, so that you can get behind, you know, another house or something like that, but -. Zaremba: On that same subject, from where would you measure a setback, a front setback? From that narrow throat point or from the street? Hawkins-Clark: It would be from the property line. Yeah. Nearest the right of way in the front. Is that your question, Commissioner, on terms of the front -- the front building setback, where would that be measured from? Zaremba: Right. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. 1-- Borup: Any other questions, Commissioners? Did the same builder own both lots? Zaremba: Do we need to post somebody out there to watch them? Meridian Pianning & Zoning November'8,2004 Page 6 of 64 Borup: No. I mean is that -- apparently. That's what it looked like. Hawkins-Clark: We did, Chairman, receive affidavits from two different people, two different owners. One was Ramsey Homes and the one was Jay Heath and Emilee Holverson. Borup: They were the owners on Lot 27. Hawkins-Clark: There has been a change of title since this application was submitted, it sounds like. Borup: Okay. Any concluding questions? Zaremba: Yeah. If staff is satisfied that Lot 26 is still build-able, I don't have any problem with it. Borup: Okay. We just need a motion for a recommendation. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of VAC 04-008, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 18, 2004, received by the city clerk November 15, 2004. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from September 16, 2004: PFP 04-007 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval for 4 building lots on 1.6 acres in a R-4 zone for Woodward Estates Subdivision by Eagleson Place, LLC - southwest corner of South Crestwood Drive and West 1 ih Street: Borup: Okay. We'd like to continue and go into public hearings. Maybe just a couple things I might mention, even though we do have a fairly small crowd here tonight, just a little bit on procedural orders. On a Public Hearing the -- we. ask the staff to give a presentation on the project to start with, then, the applicant will have an opportunity to discuss the project any further, and also maybe a chance for Commissioners to ask some questions, after which the time will be allowed for any public testimony at all. We usually try to do those who may be opposed to have opportunity first and, then, others to follow. After public testimony, the applicant will have a final opportunity to either answer any questions or give any rebuttal that they may have. I don't anticipate we are going to have a big problem here tonight. We do have a timer. Sometimes we find that necessary to keep the meeting moving along on schedule and we -- the Commissioners can allow extra time if there is some information they feel that they would like to ask Meridian Planning & Zoning N\wember 18, 2004 Page 7 of 64 anyone testifying. We do have a timer with these light systems. The yellow means 30 seconds and the red means the time is over. Okay. Next item is a continued hearing from September 16th. This is PFP 04-007, request for preliminary/final plat approval of four building lots on 1.6 acres for Woodward Estates. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, we have a request from the applicant. The way the applicant stated was to take this off of the agenda. Staff has interpreted that as meaning they wish to withdraw this application. I believe the procedure would be to close the Public Hearing and, then, move to accept their withdrawal, if that's appropriate. Rohm: Sounds good. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on PFP 04-007. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the applicant's withdrawal of PFP 04-007. Moe: Second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from November 4, 2004: PP 04-035 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 62 building lots (8 office, 33 multi-family, 9 single-family attached, 12 -garage lots) and 6 common lots on 12.731 acres in L-O and R-15 zones for Sommersby Subdivision by Confluence Management, LLC - NEC of West Pine Avenue and North Ten Mile Road: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from November 4, 2004: CUP 04-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit (Planned Development) for reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage, setbacks and increased lot coverage in L-O and R-15 zones for Sommersby Subdivision by Confluence Management, LLC - NEC of West Pine Avenue and North Ten Mile Road: Borup: Next item is, again, a continued Public Hearing, PP 04-035, request for preliminary plat for 62 building lots, eight office, 33 multi-family, nine single family, 12 Meridian Planning & Zoning ~vemb",,18, 2004 Page 8 of 64 garage lots, six common lots. This is on 12.731 acres in an L-O and L-15 zone for Sommersby Subdivision. And accompanying that is CUP 04-040, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development on the same project. Again, this is also a continued Public Hearing, but we would like to begin with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. As you noted, Chairman, this property, there are two applications that we have received for it. First is a preliminary plat and, then, the other is a planned development. The property is shown here on the screen. It has already been annexed and zoned in the City of Meridian back in 2000. The zoning, actually, doesn't reflect correctly on this slide. The property, when it came through as Valerie Heights Subdivision did get approved with an L-O zone on the corner, generally an L shape there. This map shows it to be all R-15, which the majority of it is, but I just wanted to clarify that. The applicant is Confluence, Management, LLC. The acreage is a little over 12 and a-half acres, There is currently a residence and, then, some outbuildings on the property. The property has an Ada County un-platted parcel to the east. The project that came through the city as the Courtyards at Ten Mile is to the south of Pine. There is a couple of smaller lot subdivisions on the west side of Ten Mile Road that are either being built or already constructed, Moshers Farm and Berkeley Square. On the north side is Thunder Creek Subdivision. Here is an aerial that generally shows the area. The preliminary plat is shown here. Most of the time I think we will probably spend tonight on the planned development site plan, but I did want to clarify as well that we -- I think the Commission received yesterday some revised copies of the plats and what are shown here in the Powerpoint presentation do reflect the revisions, most of which were made since the meeting two weeks ago. When they received staff's report, they did go and make several modifications based on that report. The basic layout does involve all private -- for the most part private circulation, with the exception of two public streets that are being extended up through Thunder Creek -- or down from Thunder Creek, I should say. There is a cul-de-sac that they are proposing to extend here, which would, actually, not have any connection to the rest of the project. It would serve almost as an extension of Thunder Creek Subdivision and, then, also here on the eastern side they are extending and proposing to stub for further development to the east here and they have townhouses on the north of that. So, there are a couple of different product types that they have in here. And, actually, this is the planned development that is approved today on the property. This was the Valerie Heights that was approved several years ago, not constructed, but since it is what is currently on record as approved and could potentially be built on the property, I just wanted to point it out to the Commission. Some similarities in that they have their entrance generally at the same location, utilizing some open space area in the center with some multi-family housing and some office around the perimeter in the L-O and some townhouses in the corners in the north end there. Here is the planned development that is before you tonight. They have their entrance, as I mentioned, off of Pine in a similar location. They are showing a roundabout here and a roundabout at the entrance off of Ten Mile. These are, as I mentioned, private common lots that provide the circulation throughout the project. The plat is proposing several office lots here on the corner and, then, there are five attached four-plex buildings, essentially eight-plex buildings that are here immediately across Meridian Pianning & Zoning Niovember'18, 2004 Page 9 of 64 from the office lots and, then, one of the attached four-plex buildings is also here on this corner. Then you have four-plex structures all the way throughout the rest of the interior and around here on Pine. The town homes you have attached four single-family units up in the corner off of this public street, Gray Cloud, and, then, there are attached units on both sides of the cul-de-sac on the north end. What they are proposing on the Gray Cloud, for the Commission and the benefit of anybody that's here tonight from Thunder Creek, is actually showing a 20-foot wide landscape buffer with about a three foot berm, propose to put a small fence on the top of that. That would, essentially, serve as, you know, that boundary between the multi-family portion of the development and this single-family portion. Similarly, over here on the cul-de-sac as you come in off of Ten Mile, there is also a landscape buffer area there. They are proposing a pedestrian connection off the end of the cul-de-sac that would provide a little better integration for that. The staff report did not mention anything about a connection out here to Gray Cloud. I guess I'll just leave that up to the Commission if that's something you want to bring up. That has not been brought up with the applicant, though. A couple other highlights from the staff report, starting on page four. Building setbacks, the applicant is proposing several reduced setbacks and they did submit a written response to our staff report, which, hopefully, you received and they outlined -- I think the second page from the end of that, that their response was a detail of the exceptions to the setbacks and frontages that they are asking for. Several of those are very similar to other multi-family projects that the city has approved. One of the main differences is that they are asking for what is on the lot, only a five-foot rear setback for these three buildings down here off of Pine. There is the required 20-foot landscape buffer, which we have asked to be in a common lot, but, then, if you take five foot off that landscape buffer, then, that's where they are proposing a rear setback and the planned development ordinance does say you cannot reduce the perimeter around a planned development, you can't reduce the perimeter rear setbacks. And that's something that staff -- you know, there really is no other alternative for that. So, we are recommending that the Commission not approve those four-plexes off of Pine, because of that minimum rear setback. The main alternative that we see, while there might be others, is to -- instead of having those be four-plexes, they could be attached town-homes, so that would probably better able to meet that rear setback. So, there are a lot of good changes that were made, staff thinks, through this revision. They have taken out one of the garages. They have proposed in two locations -- actually, three locations they have proposed garages that would actually sit on their own lots, so that residents of this project would -- instead of -- while they would also have parking on the common drive, there would be the option in this location down in the southeast and, then, at the entrance there is a couple of garages here and, then, on the north, so those would be available as, you know, covered parking for the residents. There was a setback issue. that we asked to be cleaned up down here on the southeast and they did remove one of those garages, which allows for the setbacks to be met there. Item C on page four talks about the temporary emergency turnaround. The initial plan that came through on Gray Cloud showed a temporary emergency turnaround that was just an easement on these lots. What they are showing here is, actually, a hammerhead that is all within the right of way and it, actually, has a curb, gutter, and sidewalk around it. One of the things that I talked with Becky, the application's representative tonight, is that staff would probably Meridian Planning & Zoning N¡¡vember1B,2004 Page 10 of 64 prefer to see that remain just temporary, you know, so that in the future as you extend -- you know, as this roadway is extended, you don't have this knuckle, you know, right in the middle of the street that is there permanently, it could ultimately go away when the lot to the -- when the parcel to the east is redeveloped. It does, obviously, need to be constructed with the asphalt today to accommodate the emergency vehicles, but to put in the sidewalk and the curb and the gutter around there that would have to be torn out in the future, I guess we just don't think makes much sense. So, we think that should stay a temporary. I think on the preliminary plat those are just the main two issues I wanted to point out. There are several other issues that I think the applicant is largely in agreement with. So, I will go on to the planned development. This is a landscape plan that, actually, reflects the old layout, but -- so I wasn't going to talk much about that, but on the elevations, this is the elevation -- and I, actually, was going to put up a colored elevation that might give you a little better feel for the buildings here, if you could bear with me just a second. One of the comments that staff made on the elevation was if the builders -- if the developer would be willing to provide some -- another color on the elevation around the trim to kind of provide some more interest throughout the development and also to maybe vary the base color. Since each of these four-plexes will be on their own lot, they could potentially in the future be sold to different parties, so it is different than what you might think of historically as typical apartment complexes where one property management company owns the whole piece. In this case, you know, each four-plex could be sold off. They would sit on their own titled piece of ground. So, we have asked that the CC&Rs, you know, be pretty explicit, since in the future you could have all these different property owners to help make sure that these are -- there is some similarities in terms of how they are kept up, maintenance, coloring, et cetera. This is something that the zoning ordinance amendment group has talked about. And so - otherwise, you know, we think that the elevations do work. As you can see, they have rear patios on them and there are windows on both sides of the units to provide for some visibility into the open space areas for watching for kids, et cetera. This is an elevation of the town-homes up in the two comers at the north end of this site that are attached. Another option there. They do -- they are proposing to provide two car garages with the town-homes. And, then, the next couple of photographs are of office buildings. They are proposing to receive detailed conditional use permit approval with this application, so that these office buildings would, actually, not come back to you in the future, as long as they comply with some of the elevations. This one has -- is showing some brick, as is this elevation here. These I don't believe are. We don't have -- I could ask Becky to get their -- they are stucco. Yeah, but -- so, you know, as a planned development, obviously, the principle of this is to have some -- you know, some intersection between the materials and some -- you know, some complimenting between what the residential units are and -- not that they have to look exactly the same, but certainly as far as basic elevations. So, the residential units are all stucco. You know, if these should be stucco or some brick, I guess just bear in mind that if you approve this application, if they come back in the future, in a year or whatever, and they show us office buildings that generally look like these single story with these similar type hip roofs, et cetera, then, they would be able to build those outright, without coming in through another conditional use. But you do have the option tonight to make some comments if you want to on the types of materials and the elevations of the offices. So, Meridian Pianning & Zoning N\>vember~8, 2004 Page 11 0164 I think in terms of the conditions of approval, if you get to that point tonight that you are going to make a motion, I would recommend referencing the November 16 response of the applicant, if you'd like to just have staff incorporate some of their changes into our recommendation to the City Council. If you do that, there are two or three of the items that staff has some disagreement with that we wouldn't want to just incorporate it outright and I'll just point out those numbers for you. The first one on their November 16 memo is on page two and that's item number four, which I mentioned, on the turnaround. They are saying to delete that T and we would recommend keeping a temporary easement, but allow, you know, the construction of the buildings. And, then, the -- item number six talks about the fencing and the last line on item number six says the temporary fencing will be provided on the easterly boundary and I guess I'd just ask that the Commission and the applicant address how that eastern boundary, since there is ag land there, how that's going to be treated. I mean a permanent fence may be a good thing. The ordinance doesn't require a permanent fence, but it may be something that the Commission wants to do. It doesn't sound like they are proposing to do that. Otherwise, as far as the preliminary plat conditions, I think those are the two that staff had some issues with. And, then, on page four of their response, this is talking about the planned development and, again, on the rear setback, the R-15 has a City of Meridian standard of 15 feet and the proposed is five and we would say a 12-foot minimum. I'm sorry, a 15-foot minimum on the perimeter. Maybe reduce that to 12 elsewhere in the project, but we think five is too small. Zaremba: I'm sorry. Identify again which line you're looking at. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, that's, I think, the fourth line down from once you start under R-15 there. It says a rear setback. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: And they say five feet. As far as the L-O, I just wanted to clarify on the proposed standard of five feet for the front setback, as it's shown on the site plan, it is, actually, 25 feet off of Ten Mile Road, so just a clarification, I guess, there more than anything, that it's -- you know, while the front of the office buildings would go towards the inside of the project and the rear -- you know, the rear would actually, technically, probably be on Ten Mile, but we would want to see construction four sided -- or at least two sided construction that provides a nice elevation facing Ten Mile Road and even if that's the rear, it should be a -- you know, an elevation that is similar to one of these projected tonight. But I think the way that it is worded is okay, it says five feet for the purposes of this application, front setback for the office building has been determined from the internal driveway, which would be a consistent feel through -- you know, as you're going inside, so -- and, then, items four and five on the bottom of page four talks about the open space, the required open space on these multi-family units. You know, we have a minimum of 100 square feet for each unit that is required and what they are proposing is to be able to use some of the lot area that would count towards that and staff does not think that the ordinance would permit that and you have your minimum lot size, which is just your minimum lot size and, then, you have to provide private area on Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2004 Page 120f64 top of that. And what they are proposing is to use -- well, saying that 283 square feet per unit, but that includes some of the open space that is part of the normal lot size, so -- normally we would not allow that to count toward the private open space. So, the bottom line of that is if you agree with staff, that I -- I think it, really, is mainly going to affect the eight-plexes. You know, there is five eight-plexes on this project. The rest of them, I think, are going to be okay, but -- and, then, finally, I wanted to clarify on page five, the Sanitary Service Company is requiring them to put in six eight cubic yard containers to serve the project. Only four are shown on the site plan, so they would need to make space for two more and staff will just want to review that during the certificate of zoning compliance. So, I guess, in summary, there are some outstanding issues there that I just addressed and disagreements. The one that was not addressed in their report -- or their response, I'm sorry, is the square footage of the dwelling units. I addressed it in one of the findings and they are proposing some 500 square foot dwelling units and those would be within the eight-plexes. You know, that would be for singles, essentially, and I'd just ask the applicant to address that more tonight. It's more of a marketability issue. You need to find that these -- that this project and these units are in the best interest of the City of Meridian and are marketable, et cetera, and will be something that serves the area. So, the ordinance does not say you cannot go to 500 square feet. So, you're mainly dealing with making a finding tonight that -- that that is acceptable for you and for the city. And, then, as I mentioned, we are recommending that the townhouses on Pine -- I mean that there be townhouses on Pine, not the four- plexes, to address that rear setback. And, then, the other items that I mentioned in here. So, hopefully, that gets the discussion on the way tonight. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners at this point? Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman. The townhouses right here on the southeast corner, is that what we are talking about? Is that what you were suggesting, Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Excuse me? Newton-Huckabay: The townhouses on the -- I don't have a pointer. Right there. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: The applicant is suggesting four-plexes and you're suggesting townhouses? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: In order to get the exterior -- the perimeter rear setback. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Oh, of course. I mean there may be other options. I'm just saying in order to keep this site plan and this layout and not have other significant changes, that seems to be the most logical. Meridian Planning & Zoning November'8,2004 Page 13 of 64 Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? McKay: Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, in Eagle. I'm representing the applicant in this application. Originally, when the client brought this project to me, I was a little bit pessimistic when the word Valerie Heights came about, because I remember one night when I could hardly get in the doors out there, because Valerie Heights was having a Public Hearing. I can't remember if it was before the Planning and Zoning Commission or before the Council. It was a very controversial application back in 2000, as Brad indicated. A lot of heated debate took place. It was a mixed use project with three story apartment buildings, large parking lots, and, then, some office units and some town-homes. The owner of the property, the Fullers, entered into a development agreement with the City of Meridian in 2000. The property was rezoned, as Brad indicated, to R-15 and L-O and it's kind of a funny little L shape, but the L-O comes in like this and it comes down and, then, it comes around and just makes like a little perfect L. The people that originally started the Valerie Heights projects, obviously, after all the dust settles and it was rezoned and annexed, decided that the project was not viable. My client took a look at it and kind took a different perspective and said I think that we could make a good mixed-use project by utilizing some different product and working with the neighbors. We did hold a neighborhood meeting here at the Council chambers. We did have a pretty good little turn out. We got a lot of good comments from everyone. At that time our drawing was just in pencil form, because I, obviously, wanted to demonstrate to them that we were here to work with them and not to try to shove something down their throat and that was the main thing that the neighbors said was they never felt that the developer or his representatives had tried -- made any effort to work with them. They were just trying to force the project that they had already decided on prior to meeting with them. So, one of the problems that they had was, originally, this public street here is stubbed to this property and the original project brought that public street into this and so the entrance, as you can see here, off of Ten Mile, came into the project like that and that fed part of this project here for these multi-family apartment buildings. So, one of the things we came up with, since that was a controversial issue, was to just cul-de-sac that, since there is no turnaround there, they need a turnaround, and, then, put some town-homes, single level, they would have a residential character to them, as Brad showed on the overhead, and try to integrate that into their subdivision, instead of just pushing it on through and, then, possibly forcing some of our traffic into their development. That was -- that was a favored approach. This other public street here, some of the residents asked that if we could do the same for that public street, that would be great. However, unlike this one, we have a vacant, undeveloped property right here on our eastern boundary. So, therefore, Ada County Highway District stated we must stub that public street to that property owner and the property owner and his wife were present at our neighborhood meeting, they also voiced, yes, we do want a public street connection. So, here is what we did -- we have four town-homes, the same type of product, a single level, stucco, rock type design and, then, we will berm along here and, then, put a fence and so that would be integrated into their neighborhood here, but yet these units are Meridian Planning & Zoning Nbvember-18,2004 Page 140f64 oriented internally. So, we have tried to kind of isolate the more intensive multi-family from the single family residential that we adjoin. Now, one tricky thing was trying to make this office work. We have Mosher Farms over here, we have aligned with their entrance and, then, we have the Courtyards at Ten Mile right here. I think I'm running out of light. Thank you, Bruce. So we have aligned with their entrance right there. When you come into the project this is a nice large rotary, it will have a fountain right in the middle and, then, landscaping around it. The same would hold true here to give it a nice good feel when someone came -- entered into the project. These entrances are 30 feet wide, then, as you come into the rotary, these are 25-foot private aisles and this we made into the parking and the access way is all a separate lot that would be under the association. It also goes this direction. We met with the Meridian fire department and got their input. Their main concern was keeping these aisles a minimum of 25. They like the fact that this is a loop through. I don't have any dead ends. Everything is interconnected and looped through. So, they were pleased with that. We did meet with Sanitary Services. They did give us some recommendations on how to orient the trash enclosures. They do have to be handicap accessible, so we will be working closely with them to make sure that the location and the design is acceptable to Sanitary Services. These are the office buildings along here. I think we have got approximately eight of them, They are what I call neighborhood compatible office buildings. They are single story in nature. The applicant would like those to be a stucco, rock type design to try to integrate it in there. When I was out ill, my assistant sent over the office buildings that had brick on it, so that's how that got into the public record, but it is our intent for those to be a stucco and rock design and they would be along that perimeter. We have a 25 foot setback there I think for those buildings and a 20-foot landscape easement and, then, the buildings are offset five feet. One of the things that created a problem is in designing this, when we do office or commercial, we typically do the landscape easements, instead of a separate landscape lot. Historically with the residential, we have a separate lot for our mandatory perimeter landscaping. Pine is a collector, so we have 20 feet that's required there. I used that as a landscape easement. Staff brought it to my attention after we had submitted that that should be a separate lot. So, in the changes to the site plan we did make that a separate lot there and we made it a separate lot there on the perimeter also. Then, that creates an issue of the setback. So, I created a 20-foot separate lot, now my setback for these three buildings is five feet from that 20-foot landscape -- or 20-foot wide landscape lot. There are multiple options. We could go with say a smaller building to maintain the 15-foot perimeter setback that staff has asked for. That's one option that we could do. The other component we have, in -- when we did this drawing, I wanted to make sure that I had a little bit of room to play, so these pads were 50 by 60, The units themselves for the four-plexes are like 47 by 48. I just like to have a little bit of room to play, so I didn't have everything down to the exact inch. When I resubmitted the revisions to Brad, I did shrink those two, their actual pad footprint, so he could see what open space we had and get a better look at that. We have also got these separate -- I think 11 garages. We have a 25-foot drive comes in and, then, we have these separate garages here and, then, we have got four located there and, then, two right here. Those are used -- a lot of people will have -- you know, maybe they are building a house, it's going to take a year, they have furniture that they want to store, so they may rent one of those garages, or they may prefer that Meridian Planning & Zoning N'ovember18,2004 Page 150f64 their car be in a garage. They could be used for a vehicle or for storage, but they are like a standard two car type garage and they are on separate lots. The eight-plexes, they are very similar in size to the four-plexes. They are called like an attached four- plex. What they have is 500 square foot, one bedroom apartments in them and this came about based on another project that the applicant has built. There was a lot of desire -- it's also in Meridian -- for people coming in asking do you have anyone bedroom units. They said, no, with the four-plexes they are typically two bedroom units and they are 856 square feet per unit. So, that's why we incorporated some of these single bedroom units into the project. We feel that -- that it's a good project and we have tried to also provide pedestrian accesses throughout the project. I have got a pedestrian access coming out of that cul-de-sac. Brad talked about the possibility of a pedestrian access coming between two of the buildings and linking up to this public street. Our central open space is right here in the core. We have got an activity court, like a basketball court, we have got a couple of picnic gazebos, playground equipment, and, then, pathways linking up and connecting to the other interior pathways that lead to the building. I'd like to submit for the record -- I think Brad's got a copy of it in his file. I don't know if he wants to put that on the overhead or not. I did want to show the Commission what our intent was for our amenities. It has been staff's desire in other applications that we show them exactly what we are proposing. This is the type of play equipment that we would like to construct. You can pass that around to the Commission members. As far as the gazebos, they would be of wood construction, very similar to this wood unit right here. We can put park benches, picnic benches; they are typically just kind of a passive picnic area. You know, putting some benches in the project, there is differing types of benches and picnic tables that we could utilize. Obviously, some are quite attractive. Also one things that I submitted to Brad this evening -- we just got from one of the designers, is the eight-plexes. Although I submitted an elevation of the four-plex type building, we did not submit an elevation of the eight-plex. The designer is working on it. This is what they have came up with and that would be the front elevation to kind of demonstrate what that type of unit looks like. Now, one concern Brad had was the private open space per unit that's required under the ordinance, that 100 square feet. All of the four-plexes, the ground level meets that 100 square-feet. All of the eight-plexes, the second story and first story will meet that 100 square feet and the town-homes. Where we ran into a problem was the upper story on the four-plexes, based on that elevation that Brad showed -- Brad, could you put that one elevation up that showed the deck on the four-plex, if you could. On that particular design we do not have 100 square feet. We have approximately a 41.5 square foot rear deck on that upper level you see there with the -- right there. And, then, they also provide an additional 15.75 square feet of storage area off of the front here and it's kind of cool, I went out and looked at it to see how -- how it meshed in and you really don't even notice that it's -- that it's there, but it's a separate door off the front when you enter up to that second story. So, if I show you the 15 square feet, there is a separate door here and they have a little storage area right there on that upper level. That allows them for like a bicycle -- I saw people like -- with bicycles up there, kids toys, things like that. So, that was kind of a neat feature as far as this type of product is concerned. We have got quite a bit of open space in the project, a total of 3.27 acres of open space that would, obviously, all be, you know, landscaped, treed, I tried to utilize a lot of parking Meridian Planning & Zoning i'lovember'18,2004 Page 16 of 64 islands to break up the parking. One of the problems we see is, you know, the sea of parking. As you can see here where these trees are, I tried to minimize the number of spaces and so since we have kind of got this winding through every time I take a bend, I have got to put some type of a landscape median. So, that does break up that parking quite a bit and gives for a little better curb appeal as you drive through the complex. These aren't easy. They are not traditional. Since we don't have, you know, internal public streets, you don't have standardized type setbacks. We do mandate -- the fire code mandates 20 feet between buildings. I have maintained that, so under Uniform Fire Code I have -- I have not fudged at all on that requirement. Do you have any questions? Borup: Questions from the Commission? I don't think you had addressed staff's comment on the cul-de-sac up in the northeast corner. Or did I miss that? Newton-Huckabay: The hammerhead. McKay: The hammerhead? Borup: Right. The existing -- yeah, the new hammerhead. McKay: Okay. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yes, I better address that. Originally, we had a standard type temporary cul-de-sac where the cul-de-sac came out, it would be a hundred foot radius. Staff's concern with that in that original design was it was only about five to seven feet from the edge of the building, so it was staff's interpretation -- and rightfully so -- that how can you build a building where the turnaround is so close to it and his recommendation that those buildings that adjoined it not be constructed until such time as the turnaround was removed and that street continued on to the east. So, what I did is instead of using a standard turnaround, I went with the T turnaround, which is acceptable under ACHD standards and, then, by rotating this building I could meet a 20 foot setback here and a 20 foot setback here. So, this could be a permanent turnaround if staff so chose or it would be temporary. So, what staff was saying is in our drawing we show curb, gutter and sidewalk wrapping around it like this. It is staff's wish that we take the curb, gutter and sidewalk across like that and this just be asphalt here and here, just a temporary. Itkind of looks like a little eyebrow behind the back of the sidewalk. Borup: But still stays a hammerhead. McKay: It still -- Borup: Okay. McKay: The design is the same, other than where the curb and gutter go and the sidewalk. Borup: Well, I think the applicant would prefer that, too, wouldn't he? Meridian Planning & Zoning l'Jovember'18, 2004 Page 170164 McKay: It would probably be more cost effective, yes. Borup: Yeah. Did we get a clarification on the setback on Pine? You said a new building is going to accommodate that or are you -- you started talking about that, but I don't think you ever really -- McKay: Yes, sir. Based on the 47 by 48 building and if I make this a 20-foot separate lot, the rear of that building is five feet from that separate common lot. Borup: That was with the -- the actual size -- the actual size of the buildings? McKay: The actual size of the building. Yes, sir. So, in reality, from edge of right of way to the rear of the building is 25 feet. However, we have to look at setbacks from property lines, since historically we have placed our common lots as separate lots for residential purposes, the rear setback becomes five feet, and I believe staff's argument is the ordinance does not allow us to deviate on our perimeter setbacks. Around the exterior of this I have maintained 20 feet, so I do -- that is the only place on my perimeter that I have deviated from the standard 15-foot setback that's mandated by the code. Moe: But I did hear you say correctly that you could make changes to that to address that. McKay: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. What we would have to do is these three buildings would have to be a variance of the units I have shown you to basically shrink them up, so they are not as deep. Maybe they are a little bit wider, but not as deep, in order to accommodate the 15 foot setback. Borup: So that's feasible for you, then? McKay: Yes, sir. Borup: Okay. Other questions? Zaremba: You commented on staff's request to make a pedestrian pass through somewhere in there and your comment was staff has asked for it. You did not go on to say your opinion about that. McKay: Commissioner Zaremba, anytime we are creating mixed-use projects, it is always nice if we can have some pedestrian interconnection. Since I have no vehicular interconnection, if we do have -- say someone has a child that lives in this subdivision and they are friends with someone who lives over here in our complex, you know, a pathway would, obviously, be convenient, so - Zaremba: So, you're thinking you can work that in? Merldien Planning & Zoning N'ovember'8,2004 Page 18 of 64 McKay: I think so. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. McKay: It was an oversight on my part. Sorry about that. Zaremba: That's the part I didn't hear is whether you could do it or not. Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. The east perimeter fence. Borup: I think we had one more question, Becky. Go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: Staff had asked you to address the perimeter fencing type on the east side of the property. McKay: Oh. Yes. The reason we responded that way was staff's comment was -- I think in the staff report something to the effect of address the fact if fencing along the exterior would be temporary construction fencing or permanent; is that correct, Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Right. It reads if no perimeter fencing is provided on the perimeter, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. And, normally, the detailed fencing plan is submitted with the final plat, but, you know, I guess we do like to get that on the record during the hearings, since final plats aren't hearings, what the fencing is going to be, if it's -- you know, if it's adjacent to agricultural uses, so -- or, you know, non-urban type. So, we just wanted to clarify. If you're comfortable with no fence, then, I guess that's what you're here to decide. Borup: Okay. Commissioner Rohm, you look puzzled. Rohm: Well, I just have a question about 100 square foot personal space on the second story units and maybe it's more of a question for staff, but I'd like you to remain up there. Is their proposal acceptable to staff for those second story units or is there still some question that it's not in compliance and we need to work through that just a bit? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Rohm, the ordinance is pretty clear about, you know, multi-family units needing 100 square feet of private space per unit. Rohm: That's kind of what it sounded like to me and so I would be interested in the applicant's proposed solution to that 100 square foot on those second story units. McKay: Commissioner Rohm, in my discussions with my client about that, in the project that -- the Cooper Canyon project he constructed in Meridian here just a year or so ago, he indicated that -- that they -- it was determined that their open space that was provided for the buildings -- because buildings are all open, there is no fencing allowed Meridian Planning & Zoning i'lovember'8,2004 Page 19 of 64 between buildings or behind buildings or anything, even though they do sit on separate lots. And he will build each -- he is the developer and the builder. They don't sell these lots to separate builders and, then, people purchase it. So, they are all consistent in their style and so forth, But in that particular project he said that he was allowed to deviate on that upper level of the four-plex units, so he believed that it was reasonable, I guess, to request that. So, I don't -- I don't know what staff member had that application and it was not my application. So, I guess it would, obviously, be up to the Commission and the staff. If no deviation is allowable under the -- the way the ordinance is written, then, no deviation is allowed. Rohm: And I guess what my question is, if there was no deviation allowed, how would you reconfigure the upper level? Because it looks like it's pretty well cast in concrete, based upon the current design. McKay: Yeah. You know, obviously, the design of the unit sets -- you know, its kind of inset into the building itself. I guess he would, obviously, have to redesign that building to somehow -- it would have to extend past the exterior wall. Rohm: And I guess that's kind of where I was going with this is can you have a balcony that extends beyond the perimeter wall to come up with that 100 square feet or if that -- is that acceptable by staff to have an extension out from the -- I'm not a contractor, I don't know if you can even do it. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioners, if you remember the Rock Creek Subdivision, which also had four-plexes -- I'm sorry I didn't bring those tonight, but there were elevations that did meet the 100 on the second floor there and I'm not remembering exactly, but I think, you know, there was some eave overhang with, you know, a little bit of an extended balcony there and I think there was an allowance granted to let some of that balcony overhang into that easement, so that -- Rohm: All right. And I guess the follow up to that, then, is, okay, they have got the square footage in the front where they can hang their bikes what have you. Is it a combination that has to add up to 100 or -- Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Rohm: Okay, So, how many -- you have how many square feet in the front? McKay: I think it was 57 or something like that. Rohm: Fifty-seven total between the -- McKay: I believe 57 square feet and I believe staff refers to that personal space per unit. Meridian Planning & Zoning November18,2004 Pege 20 of 64 Rohm: Right. Right. Okay. And I'm just trying to come up with an extension out on the balcony that you would have to have to get that minimum hundred. McKay: Yeah. If you look at the unit, you can see that the balcony is inset into the unit. On the lower floor you can see that the patio extends beyond the building, so I would assume this would have to extend out to the same point as that patio on the lower floor, which does meet the criteria for that 100 square feet. Rohm: I think we are getting somewhere. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Well, the advantage to the people on the lower floor, they would have a fully covered patio. McKay: True. Borup: Thank you. Like to turn the time over for any other public testimony at this time. Do we have anyone else here to testify? Now is the time to come forward. Martin: Commission, my name is Steve Martin. I live at 2885 West Forecast Street in Meridian, which is just north of this development. The Sommers by Subdivision, the Fuller property, this design is still not right. Almost five years ago Planning and Zoning approved the current zoning. Apartments were approved and Planning and Zoning did not listen to the community concerns. When it gets to the City Council, they listened to the public and there were certain attachment conditions to the development and the developer backed out. We commend the Fullers on their new approach, but the zoning requirements in their request is wrong. Again, there is many buildings per the zoning request. In looking at Thunder Creek and Haven Cove, two weeks ago the public had concerns on the Milliron Subdivision, quoting zoning requirements, yet the subdivision was approved. Their concerns were the square footage lots in comparison to their development. They even brought up concerns not addressed at your requested neighborhood meeting and you still approved 83 single family units for 25.86 acres. This request is 62 units to 12.7 acres. Look at the correlation. Too many buildings per square foot. There is no -- there is no sidewalk. I was involved with the Valerie Heights and there were many conditions put on by the City Council that the -- even though you approved the Valerie Heights in the Planning and Zoning as you saw it tonight, the City Council added so many conditions on it, safety requirements -- you do not have a light at Pine, there is no access for these people -- like an island, there is no access for these people. Once they get passed Thunder Creek there is no sidewalks on the west side. They will walk across people's property or on the road to get to either the churches or -- to the Albertson's. There are -- like an island here, they go to the high school at the end of this development there is no sidewalks. Again, these people will -- kids will be walking on the side. Okay. Let's see where I left off. Ten Mile off ramp is not coming soon. I was in highway construction for many years up to four years ago in 2002. I was on the committee to get the transportation six-year plan approved by Congress in 1994 and 1998. Then Ten Mile -- Ten Mile existence has been on each of those plans, but, again, on -- and also on 2004. It has not yet been built and it is not in the plan to be Meridian Planning & Zoning Hovember'18,2004 Page 21 of 64 built. Let's reduce the buildings per acres. My lot is over 8,000 square feet and it's one of the smaller ones on the north side. Most of the requested size on these lots are half the size of mine and you're talking multi units, do not blend in, as you tried to do in the Milliron development with the neighborhood. Let's be concerned citizens from Meridian and Ada County and let's not let this article -- I think everybody is reading this and there is going to be more and more people concerned, you all read this in the Sunday paper, okay? And let's not get into this kind of situation in Meridian as concerned citizens, let's listen to those and reduce the buildings per acre that are requested, have the developer meet with the neighborhood again. I live there, I live within the requirements and, again, for the third time I did not get a letter to say that there was a neighborhood meeting. There is still a number of us that have not attended there and we requested that we do that. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions for Mr. Martin? Now, did you understand that this was not an annexation or zoning application that this property is already zoned R-15? Martin: Oh, yeah. I understand where it is, sir. Borup: Okay. Martin: We are asking for a change in that. Correct. Is that number seven? Aren't they asking to change to reduce the -- Borup: Well, they are changing the design. Martin: Yes. Borup: They are not asking for additional -- they are not asking for additional density. Martin: I understand that. Borup: Yeah. The R-15 -- you know, 15 units per acre would be 180 units. Martin: I understand that, sir. Also, the City Council did four years ago and, like I said, they put a number of contingencies against the developer and that's why they backed out. Borup: Okay. And-- Martin: And those are on record. Yeah. Borup: Mr. Hawkins-Clark, that's one of the questions I did have from Mr. Martin. Thank you, sir. Is were those conditions that the City Council put, were those part of the development agreement? Meridian Planning & Zoning Nbvember '8, 2004 Page 22 of 64 Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Chairman, that's correct. The development agreement that was entered into between the former developer of Valerie Heights and the City of Meridian remains a part of the title on this property and those conditions were there, not only in the development agreement, but part of the Conditional Use Permit that was there and it did include a half mile of sidewalk from Pine up to Cherry and the installation of a signal, amongst other things. Borup: So, those same conditions still apply, then? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Now, the applicant has proposed to modify the development agreement. That is the application that -- by ordinance, because it's, essentially, a contract, the City Council enters into contracts, not the Commission. Borup: Right. Hawkins-Clark: That's something that the Council will hear at theirs. Now, I did ask our city attorney today and if -- certainly, if you want to make some suggestions or discussions about that development agreement, since it is going to be addressed at City Council, I think that's appropriate, but -- Rohm: I think it's good that that's brought up, that there is, actually, some discussion about that pedestrian traffic going north and south along Ten Mile. So, that's -- at least it's being addressed. Maybe not necessarily as part of this application before P&Z, but it will be as part of the development project. Borup: And that's what I wanted everyone to understand. As it stands right now, that those conditions are still in place. And as staff has mentioned, that that could be amended by City Council, but not by this body. So, at the City Council meeting, if you have some concern on, that would be a place to address that. We need to have you on the microphone if you want that on record. Martin: Excuse me, Commissioners. Sorry. I just want to make sure that that's on record, then, as it goes to City Council, that the pedestrian sidewalk or access north -- Borup: Well-- Martin. And the city -- and the stop light, the signal light at Pine and Ten Mile. Borup: Let me clarify. We were not part of that, so what -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Martin, all of that is -- Martin: No, but I just want to make a record. Borup: Whatever was approved previously -- Meridian Piannlng & Zoning Nbvember~8, 2004 Page 23 of 64 Martin: Is still attached with the property. Borup: Yes. Martin: That's just what I wanted to make clear that's in the notes. Borup: Yes. Martin: Okay. Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Nary: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Mr. Nary. Nary: Just so that the record is clear, too, you should have in front of you a letter from Mrs. Atkinson, also a neighbor at 1124 North Lightning Place, and she indicated she couldn't be present, but I wanted to make sure it was noted on the record that her letter was part of the record as well. Borup: Right. Yes. That would be part of the record. We all received that previously. Okay. Any final comments, Becky? McKay: Becky McKay. I'd just like to address a couple of Mr. Martin's concerns. We did submit the miscellaneous application to modify that development agreement. There are some certain requirements that are in that development agreement and circumstances have changed. One of those circumstances is the fact that Ada County Highway District has been working on a design to make Ten Mile five lanes, improve this whole stretch of Pine here, and this intersection will be built out and signalized. According to Ada County Highway District staff, their plans are 95 percent complete, and, like I said, they include the piping of that stub drain across here with a signal and, then, building this to its full build out potential. As far as sidewalks are concerned, I have my sidewalk shown on outside the right of way along Pine and along Ten Mile. Therefore, they would not conflict or have to be tore out and redone when Ada County Highway District comes in in 2007 -- so, we are basically a little over two years away, they will do this complete rebuild here. So, they have asked us -- in fact, I think they have mandated us to trust fund for some of the extra lane width that's going to be required on Pine, because that is a collector and any improvements required are at our expense on the collector. I think that's like 27 or 28 thousand dollars. I'd like to remind the Commission that the property is already annexed, it is zoned, so we are just, basically, trying to come in with a design that meets the intent of the ordinance and that, obviously, co-exist with the neighborhood. And I think it's demonstrated this evening where we just have a handful of people that have some concerns that I think we have done a good job. We have worked with the homeowners associations, we have had at Meridian Planning & Zoning November'18,2004 Page 24 of 64 least two meetings and tried to make sure that everyone was comfortable with what we had. We can't please everybody, but we try. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. pleasure? Commissioners, any discussion first or what would be your Newton-Huckabay: I had a note about 500 square feet. What was your comment on the 500 square feet? Borup: I think he just wanted us to be aware of it and if there was concerns on that size of unit. Rohm: That's just a marketing issue and as long as it complies with the ordinance, I don't think that this body even needs to speak to that. If they believe they can market a 500 square foot unit and it's within compliance, then, that's certainly their prerogative, I would say. Borup: You just wanted us to be aware of that? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Borup: Okay, Were there any of the other items we have any concern on? There were just a few items I know on the applicant's response to the staff report. Rohm: And I guess, you know, back to that second story, 100 square foot, I think if-- before motion is made, if we just say that stick with staff comments on that -- in that area, then, the developer will have to come up with a way of meeting that and we don't necessarily have to provide solutions for them, but just that they have to be in compliance with the 100 square foot and whether it's an extended balcony or whatever other means where they bring the - the personal space up to the 100 square foot. Is that kind of the way you would see it, too, Chairman? Borup: Yes, I think so. I don't think it's up to us to dictate how they design the project, but just to comply. Rohm: Okay. Well, with that, then, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on items PP 04-035 and CUP 04-040. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: I don't know that there is anything that we necessarily have to change from the staff -- Meridian Planning & Zoning NtJvember18,2004 Page 25 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Oh, the walking path, is that-- Zaremba: I would suggest making part of your motion a reference to the preliminary plat with the revision date of 11/15, received by the city clerk 11/17. Revision date 11/15, received by the clerk 11/17. Rohm: You know, Dave, normally you're the guy to make these motions on these. Zaremba: I'm happy to support you. Rohm: What a guy. I'm still working here. Zaremba: What might be helpful, possibly, to have Brad go through the applicant's response again and just comment -- if your thought is to reference the applicant's response, just have Brad run through that again and some of those issues may have been resolved. Rohm: Yeah. That's not a bad idea, Zaremba: I think that would frame a motion once that's done. Rohm: Yeah. Good. Brad, you got that? Hawkins-Clark: Sure. I'm happy to do that. On the preliminary plat, there was, actually, just -- there was two differences, I believe -- well, I don't know if there is differences. One was item number four regarding the T turnaround and whether or not the right of way is designed as a T or if you have an easement for the turnaround portion and the right of way is just a standard 50. So, I -- you know, I think if you included a modification to number four that, essentially, is a combination of the response that the applicant has provided in the staff report, which would address that. Is that clear on that one? Borup: Well, do we need to change the wording of turnaround to a T in the staff report? I mean the staff report already says -- Hawkins-Clark: Well, a T is a turnaround, sir. Borup: So, is there anything that even needs to change from the staff report, then? That's on item four on page five. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman, yeah, the way it's worded right now is that an applicant shall include a temporary deed restriction and that would be stricken and it would just say temporary turnaround. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning \'ovember18, 2004 Page 26 of 64 Hawkins-Clark: Instead of deed restricting the construction. Then, on item number six, I think the way that it's worded now is just that they are going to have to submit a detailed fencing plan for that east boundary -- well, the whole site, but a detailed fencing plan with the final plat. And just to clarify again, that is not something that the public has a chance to comment on, so I think it's just helpful to make sure that the public knows what fencing is going to be at this point in time. And, you know, I guess our recommendation, just to clarify, if the Commission would, that you're in agreement with temporary fencing during construction to contain debris. If you adopt the staff condition as it's written, no permanent fence is required on the east boundary. Rohm: But a temporary fence is -- Hawkins-Clark: But a temporary fence during construction would be and you wouldn't need to change it, if that's the way you want to go. Rohm: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: I think the applicant stated that they will comply with -- with the remainder of those preliminary plat conditions. They did clarify that that Ten Mile stub drain will remain open until the intersection of Pine and Ten Mile is improved, which, then, it would be piped. They are requesting a waiver for tiling of the Eight Mile Lateral up in the northeast corner. That Eight Mile Lateral is not piped today on either side, so I think that's consistent. If you approve number eight per her response, then, staff is comfortable with that. Borup: So that just has to be tiled just across their property? Hawkins-Clark: Well, if tiling -- if you do not grant the waiver, correct, they would just be tiling that little corner. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: But, ultimately, the waiver is granted by the City Council, so -- on the planned development Conditional Use Permit, then, the staff report conditions begin on page 12 of the staff report and I think the main issue there -- we have intentionally left blank the reduced setbacks, because of -- we hadn't received their response yet when we wrote the staff report. And, again, I think the main thing there if we could get the Commission to clarify on the minimum rear setbacks. At this point in time the plan does meet them, except for Pine. So, if you wanted to just provide some clarification on Pine. Rohm: And I think that we concluded that they can adjust the building to accommodate the 15 foot, which is a part of ordinance? . Newton-Huckabay: Yes, Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ovember'8, 2004 Page 27 of 64 Rohm: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: So, you would -- you would not incorporate their -- the full number two in the applicant's response, because they have shown five foot there. Rohm: I think we just leave it by city standards. Hawkins-Clark: I think, then, on item number five on page 12 addresses the private usable area and the second sentence states: Present at the P&Z Commission Public Hearing calculations and/or drawings that explain how the required usable private open space will be met. If I hear the Commission's discussion right, you're going to, essentially, leave that -- I mean state that you want the 100 feet, but they will be able to work out how that's accomplished. And so that second sentence, I think, could be stricken, since they presented the -- and, then, item number six talks about the trim bands on the corner accents and the applicant's response states that they will use complimentary colors for the trim bands and window trims, but not the corner accents, and if you're comfortable with that, then, I'd recommend incorporating the applicant's number 6-A. Zaremba: Page five of the applicant's letter. Moe: Right here. Hawkins-Clark: And other than that, I think the staff report was in agreement. Borup: Commissioner Rohm, just maybe one on the setbacks. The applicant did request a reduced front setback on the interior lots. You had talked about staying with the city standard. I don't know if they are -- we need discussion on that or -- that's on -- on their chart on page four and, then, the staff report has it blank on page 12 of the staff report. Rohm: Right. So-- Borup: Are we saying we are keeping the first one, the rear at 15? Rohm: Right. The rear at 15. Borup: Okay, So, then, number two would be the question, I mean -- number three I mean. Rohm: Well, the city standards are 20 and, let's see, they requested five on that one as well. Would staff like to provide comment on that, too? On that minimum front setback. Hawkins-Clark: For the R-15 or the L-O? Rohm: For the R-15. Meridian Planning & Zoning Novemb.r~8, 2004 Page 28 of 64 Hawkins-Clark: R-15. If I could just clarify. The five feet is not, actually, the facade of the structure; correct? I mean that's the stair well. So, we are not -- you know, if you remember on the elevation the stair well extends, you know, out in front of the facade itself and -- but it is a part of the permanent structure, which is how the building code measures --if it's a part of the permanent structure, then, that's, you know, what cannot encroach, so -- and this design, I believe, has been approved on Rock Creek and a couple of others, where the face itself is, you know, I think approximately eight to ten. So, you know, you do still have -- I mean it's a little different than what the code anticipated for a standard R-15 front setback, where you would have, you know, maybe a townhouse with a garage or something. So, just to clarify, I think with -- given that it's -- maybe you could clarify that the front setback of the five feet is to allow for the stair well and the landing. Borup: Which will also only apply to the two story units, not the single story townhouse. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. That would be a good clarification. Rohm: On the two story -- Borup: Just the two story -- Hawkins-Clark: You could just say multi-family, not single family. Borup: Just the four-plexes and the eight-plexes, but that would not apply to the townhouse units that are separated. Rohm: Okay. But two story units, whether it be four-plex or otherwise, would be inclusive? Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Rohm: Okay. Okay. I think we are done. All right. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we forward to City Council recommending approval of PP 04-035, request for preliminary plat for Sommersby Subdivision, including staff comments dated November 4th, 2004, received November 2nd, 2004, and the addition of Engineering Solutions' responses received November 16th for hearing date of November 18th. And the preliminary plat received on 11/17, with the date stamp of 11/15, with the following changes: On page five of the staff report, item four under site specific conditions, delete the words deed restriction and replace that with turnaround. On page six, item six, the detailed fencing will require a temporary fence during construction on the east line of the property to make sure that it keeps debris and construction product from blowing off site. Item eight we will go with the applicant's response, which would be on page two of their response dated November 16th, the bottom item number eight as written. And I believe that's all the changes to the preliminary plat motion. End of motion. Meridian Planning & Zoning N'!>vember'8,20O4 Page 29 of 64 Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-040, request for a Conditional Use Permit for Sommersby Subdivision and including all staff comments and applicant's response as well, as stated in the previous motion, with the following changes: On staff report page 12, item two, sub item three, minimum front setback will be five feet for those two story units. Item five, the applicant will provide a solution to City Council prior to -- or a solution to the patio deck size prior to City Council hearing this -- when is that, in a couple weeks? Before City Council hears it. Item six. I have to find the applicant's response. It says the applicant's response is acceptable, so that's -- Newton-Huckabay: Page five, 6-A. Rohm: There we go. Okay. On page five of the applicant's response, number 6-A is acceptable in replacement of staff comments. And I believe that's the end of those adjustments as well. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 04-012 Request for a Rezone of 3.74 acres from I-L & CoG zones to all CoG zone for Raymond Estates by Ronald Van Auker - NEC of East Franklin Road and North Gaudians Avenue: Borup: Okay. Thank you. I was wondering if we couldn't maybe try to do these next two short ones before we take a break. Okay. Our next item is Public Hearing RZ 04- 012, request for a rezone of 3.74 acres in I-L and CoG zones for Raymond Estates by Ron Van Auker. Like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, this application that -- the zoning map as shown before you is inaccurate, actually, and this -- thank you. The property is located at the intersection of Eagle Road and Franklin and as you're well aware, RC. Willey is in this area and then Gaudains Street -- this is Gaudains Street. The applicant has requested a zoning change to modify the existing zoning, which isn't shown on here. There is a strip of CoG that cuts cross the front portion of this property, so this property has both a split zoning and a split Comprehensive Plan designation of commercial on the front and, then, industrial in the rear. About -- let's see. At about September we started re-Iooking at a portion of the code that allows for a reduction in Meridian Planning & Zoning N\)vember~8, 2004 Page 30 of 64 platting requirements if approved by the planning director and the city engineer and the City Council decided it was appropriate in some instances to allow that reduction in platting requirements. What the city engineer and I have basically decided upon is that we would only consider those reduction in platting requirements if -- if they were just looking to create one additional lot -- so this means that they are not going through the subdivision process. If it was commercial or industrial property, if they were not asking for more than one lot split and if there were - all the necessary services were already there. So, this was the first one they approved was for a lot split on this property and it took off a corner in this area here. This was the first one and one of the conditions of approval is that the applicant also submit both properties, the full property. A subdivision plat needs to be submitted and accepted by staff before we will release the certificate of occupancy on the building they wanted to start construction. So, it was a means to facilitate early construction of it. They will be coming through with a final plat on this. Another condition of approval, though, was that they get one zoning on the property, because it will be a retail store, it's a carpet warehouse, so it is retail. It sits at the back portion of the property, which has the I-L zoning currently. So, we did tell them they needed to do a rezone through the normal procedures to put just one zoning on that property. So, they are requesting that the C-G zone be expanded to fit the entire property. So, that is the issue that's before you tonight. Because it's a -- because it's a rezone, there are no conditions of approval. We did have a number of site-specific comments, but most of them just reinforce some of the construction aspects of the building, but there is not a lot of planning issues associated with them. Does that answer -- to give one other -- most of the ones that are on prominent properties or complicated properties such as this, we are asking that those lot splits, essentially, also come through with a full subdivision. On some of them where they are not on prominent roads or don't seem to be a critical issue, we are not requiring that. So, some of those lot splits you will see again, some of them you will not. Borup: Okay. Additional questions, Commission? Anything the applicant would like to add? Okay. Is there anyone else to testify on this application? Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of RZ 04-012, to include all staff comments of the hearing date November 18th, 2004. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ovember'18, 2004 Page 31 of 64 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 04-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window in a C-C zone for Jack in the Box by RHL Design Group - NWC of E. Goldstone Drive and North Eagle Road: Borup: Thank you. Next item is CUP 04-046, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru window in a C-C zone for Jack in the Box by RLH Design Group. I'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Wilson: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, the application before you is for a Conditional Use Permit for a Jack in the Box restaurant. It's located on Lot 3, Block 4 of Bonito Subdivision, at the intersection of Eagle Road and East Goldstone Drive, which is down right there. Wrong way. It's a portion of the platted Bonito Subdivision. Landscape improvements were completed as part of the Bonito Subdivision along Eagle Road and East Goldstone Drive. The site is 1.61 acres. Zoned CoCo In the C-C zone, a restaurant is a permitted use. The conditional use aspect of it is the drive-thru. There is also a convenience store located in the same structure as the restaurant, with fuel pumps associated with it. In the C-C zone that would normally be a conditional use as well. The development agreement for Bonito Subdivision allows it as a permitted use. So, the matter before you tonight is the drive-thru for the restaurant. I have to apologize first. There is a typo in the parking section of the standards. In the same paragraph I state that they have provided 48 and I say 50. There are 48 regular parking spaces provided, with two handicapped. The required landscape street buffers, as I mentioned previously, were completed as part of the Bonito Subdivision. There is some required landscaping along the perimeter of the drive aisle and parking area as depicted in the landscape plan here. This is required landscaping. They have provided -- a five-foot buffer is required by the ordinance, as well as one tree per 35 linear feet. A couple of the outstanding issues let's go ahead and touch base on. Well, we'll go through the elevations here, since they are next. The upper elevation is the drive-thru side of the structure. The lower elevation would be the main entrance with the Jack in the Box sign and entrance here and, then, the Quick Stuff convenience store sign entrance here. This would be that elevation right there. A couple more elevations. The upper elevation is the -- would be the easterly elevation facing portions of the parking lot. The bottom elevation would be the northerly elevation facing the north lot line and the drive-thru lane. Let's see, which one shows this best. This proposal is on a portion of the platted Lot 3, Block 4 on Bonito Subdivision. The applicant has proposed to complete a record of survey after approval of the application. The -- maybe if I can get some assistance from Brad to get this up on the camera. The platted Lot 3, Block 4 of the Bonito Subdivision lot line does go all the way across there and like that. The applicant has proposed that with a record of survey the lot line would shift slightly north and down like that, making a reconfigured -- I think that's Lot 2, Block 4. A condition in the staff report is that this is recorded -- this record of survey is recorded before issuance of the certificate of zoning compliance associated -- that would be associated with this structure. The reconfiguration of the lot does raise another issue, which is the need for cross-access and I think -- let's see if we can get back to the Powerpoint. Thanks. Meridian Planning & Zoning f>1ovember'18,2004 Page 32 of 64 Once that lot line is shifted, egress -- vehicular egress from the site -- because this right here is a right-in, right-out, will take place through this curb cut here, requiring a cross- access agreement with the newly reconfigured Lot 2, Block 4. That's another item for consideration. And also per the landscape ordinance no more than 12 parking spots may be located in a row without a landscape island. There is 25 right there now, so it makes pretty good sense to put a landscape island in the middle of that row of parking, creating 12 and then 12 spots, which would comply with the ordinance. I think that's alii have right now. Borup: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Questions from the Commission at this time? Does the applicant have -- Zaremba: I, actually, have two questions. Borup: Oh. Okay. Sorry. Sorry, Commissioner. Zaremba: And these are for anybody. My copy of the staff report was not perfectly copied, so I have a question. On page five at the bottom of page five there is a paragraph four and I see a bullet of which I only have the first few words. If anybody has a complete sentence there, can you read it to me? Wilson: I believe it's -- I think it's like that with all the copies. Mine was like that, too, and I was going to mention that and I apologize for forgetting, Zaremba: And I have the same thing at the bottom of page six. There appears to be a Paragraph ten that I don't have. Wilson: The omitted sentence on the bottom of page five -- I'll have to look and see what the last word that made it on there is. Borup: Eastern is the last one. Wilson: Okay. Thank you. That would read -- I'll read the entire bullet, for clarification. It reads: Add a planter island in the middle of the road, 25 parking spaces, near the eastern property boundary, creating two sections of 12 parking places each. And on page six, number ten was omitted as well. Okay. The first sentence is -- it's the first sentence of the certificate of occupancy. Condition of approval reads: Certificate of occupancy. All required improvements must be completed prior to obtaining -- and, then, continuing on the next page, a certificate of occupancy for the proposed development. Zaremba: Good. I didn't think there would be any surprises, but thank you. Borup: Okay, Would the applicant like to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning ~vember'18, 2004 Page 33 of 64 Eagy: Richard Eagy with RHL Design Group, 1550 140th Avenue Northeast, Suite 100, Bellevue, Washington. 98005. We are in agreement with the staff report as written. Thank you. Unless you have -- Borup: Any questions? Moe: No questions here. Borup: That makes it easy. We thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone else here that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none -- Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-046, with all staff comments for the hearing date November 18th, 2004, received by the city clerk November 15th, 2004. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. We would like a break. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 04-028 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 43.83 acres from RUT to R-4 & L-O zones for Strada Bellissima Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - NWC of Victory Road and State Highway 69: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 04-038 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 90 single-family residential building lots, 14 commercial office lots and 12 common lots of 42.46 acres in a proposed R-4 & L-O zones for Strada Bellissima Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - NWC of Victory Road and State Highway 69: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 04-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development consisting of a single family residential and office Meridian Planning & Zoning i'Iovember"18,2004 Page 34 of 64 uses with a request for reduction to the minimum requirements for street frontage from 80-feet to 79-feet for the residential portion for Strada Bellissima Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. - NWC of Victory Road and State Highway 69: Borup: Okay. We'd like to continue our meeting this evening. Next project and -- with three public hearings. Like to open Public Hearing AZ 04-028, it's a request for annexation and zoning of 43.83 acres from RUT to R-4 and L-O zones for Strada Bellissima Subdivision and PP 04-038, request for preliminary plat for 90 residential lots, 14 commercial lots, and CUP 04-047, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development on the same project. Again, we'd like to open all three hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the application for Strada Bellissima Subdivision. Many of you remember that this was before you a couple of months ago in the configuration that you see on the screen. The m13in change between what you saw before and the project that is before you tonight is the addition of this area, which was formally an out parcel in the last version, has now been added to the project and certainly helps to square up the project and the roads within it. The other change is down in the southwest corner. They always had the office along Meridian Road. They have added a couple of additional office lots along Victory. This is the aerial photo of the area. Bear Creek Subdivision is to the west. A parcel that's owned by the Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church is to the north and you can see how they layout. The Bear Creek zoning is R-4. The zoning on the church property is R-8. This is the Comprehensive Plan. It is shown as low density residential, which is less than three dwelling units per acre. This is the site plan and plat for the project. As mentioned, it's on about 43 acres. There are 90 residential lots, 14 office lots that front along Meridian and Victory, and 12 common lots in the subdivision. We have asked in the staff report on page two that the applicant verify the revised density numbers for gross and net density, so we can get the correct numbers on the record, just to have the record clear that the density does match the required Comprehensive Plan density. The minimum lot size in this proposed subdivision is about 8,900 square feet. The minimum lot size in the zone is 8,000 square feet. So, in this planned development they are not asking for any reductions to the lot size. The only reduction they are asking for is to the lot frontage and I'll get to a change in that in a moment. They had requested 79 feet, but I think we are going to switch that to 76 feet tonight. The other part of the planned development is the use exception. They are asking for a use exception for those office lot areas and those areas are proposed to .be zoned L-O. Staff and the applicant has had a number of discussions this week since the staff report was printed and we have worked out a lot of the issues, so I would like to go through them quickly and let you know where they stand and go over the proposed changes. The first item for the Commission's consideration is on page four of the staff report, item E, when it is talking about the appropriateness of the office use exception. That is open for determination by the Commission and Council. I believe based on last -- the last time we were before you with this project it didn't sound like there was major objections to the layout of the office buffering the residential along the highway, but since this area had quite a bit of Meridian Planning & Zoning i'lovember"8,2004 Page 35 of 64 discussion during the Comp Plan process and -- I felt the need to raise the issue for both the Commission and Council to discuss. Item J on page five talks about ITD process that is also going on. The conditions of ITD are included in the report. They do talk about the various right of way widths that would be required along Meridian Road, which is State Highway 69. And the 70 foot right of way from center line would only be allowed if an internal frontage road is provided and I wanted the applicant to discuss their understanding of -- if that drive aisle that they have proposed through the project will meet ITD's requirement. They do have a variance process -- a variance in process with ITD regarding access, which they are proposing at their north -- northeast corner. It would be shared access with the church property to the north. It is staff's understanding that ITD staff is looking favorably upon that, but I wanted the applicant to address the Commission on the status of that variance request. On page six the only special consideration on the annexation is the use exception, as already described. On page seven, the special considerations on the preliminary plat. Along the -- Victory -- along Victory Road to the south the plat does not currently show the right of way to be dedicated. ACHD already has a prescriptive right of way, We would just like to see that cleaned up and, actually, have it dedicated to ACHD and the applicant is willing to comply with that. Number two. Open space. Since there was no open space calculation provided, we wanted the applicant to go on record tonight with the -- with an open space calculation. Five percent is required as a minimum, plus amenities, which I will get to in a moment. And I believe they stated in their response that they have eight percent. There aren't many large common lots. There is a proposed common area at this corner with a tot lot. There are small ones in the corner. The street buffer. The majority of their open space is going to be found in their detached sidewalk areas, which they are landscaping with street trees and they will be counting those towards their open space calculation. So, you can see the open spaces showing up here and there is a couple of common lots in the office area. On the plat this is Apia Street. The south end of this -- this terminus ACHD wasn't happy with and they asked the applicant to modify that. They have recently just submitted this showing the knuckle that ACHD would require. I just need to verify that since we don't have the exact dimensions of these lots, that the applicant doesn't need any additional modifications to street frontage in those areas and that they all meet the 40-foot cord requirement around that knuckle. Item number four deals with some missing easements, landscape easements, for the street buffer at the south end here and, then, around this out parcel and in the buffer between land uses, between the offices and the residences. As you can see, landscaping is shown on their plan, but the easements were missing from the plat and the applicant has agreed to add those easements. We also stated that we would like to increase the number of trees in that buffer between land uses, which you see right here, so that it does become a more effective screen. I believe the applicant is in agreement with that as well. Number five deals with a couple versions of the plat. It appears that I was the one with the old plat in this case. The applicant can verify this, but it's my understanding that the only difference between my plat and the plat that ACHD's report is based on is street names. So, this court up here, which was Napoli, is now called Apia, which is the same name as this street. This street here on my plan was called Devinci and is called Alfone in the ACHD report, which is the same name as the entrance. And, then, Staggerman, which ran east-west is now Fireweed. Item number- Meridian Planning & Zoning i'Iovembe~18, 2004 Page 36 of 64 - item number six, which is a brief sentence fragment, just needs to be deleted. The sentence that I was writing there was added into number four and I just forgot to delete that, so I apologize. Okay. In the site-specific conditions for the preliminary plat here this would be the only changes. In number five I have referenced the wrong lot number. It says Lot 25, Block 2. That should be Lot 4, Block 2. And, then, item number seven talks about working with ACHD to fix their report. " actually, just need a motion to modify my report and insert the correct street names. Just modifying those three street names should clean it up. Those are the only two changes I have noted in the conditions for the preliminary plat. Moving on to the special considerations on the CUP. The first item is the pathway. We went through in some detail at the last hearing the need for a pathway along the north side of Victory Road. The applicant has agreed to comply. The current plans depicted as an attached facility and we have asked them to detach it and stub it in alignment with the sidewalk in Bear Creek and the applicant has agreed to comply with that. Number two on page 13 is the amenities. We simply point out that the proposed amenities for this project are as follows: There is a micro-path connection between the residential area and the office area, with location dedicated for a future bus stop should Valley-Ride ever decide they need one in this area, we have one here. And, then, they have a couple of small open spaces on the north and south of this grouping of offices. Let's see. They have a tot lot proposed on this corner open space and I have a picture -- sorry to run through those. I'll come back to them. But this is the tot lot that they have proposed and entered into the record as their intent to provide on that property. They also will be doing the detached sidewalks and street trees throughout subdivision. As you can see, the landscape plan is broken into four, just looking at this you can see the proposed street trees and the parkway area between the curb and the sidewalk, We just ask the Commission to make the finding that these amenities as proposed are appropriate to the size and use of the development and staff does concur with that. Item number three on page 13 is the minimum frontage. It is -- it was requested that it be 79 feet and I pointed out that at 79 feet the -- these lots along the north side of Staggerman, now Fireweed, would have to take access off of Fireweed, unless we approved a minimum frontage down 76 feet, which would allow those houses to be oriented east-west. This lot right here at the intersection of Fireweed and Apia is less than that 76 and would likely need to orient to the south still under that scenario. Oh. Unless they can adjust internally and get 76 feet. Okay. Item number four is the street buffers. This is just a clarification that we want those street buffers installed with the initial subdivision improvements and that they should not wait for the office area to develop. We want those street buffers planted and approved and sidewalk constructed with the initial improvements and the applicant is in agreement with that. Number five is the actual office layout. We don't see any deal killers in this, but we do have some needed modifications to some of the planters. SSC wanted to meet and talk about additional trash enclosures. There are some areas in the south where we wanted some -- let me just find where - some additional back-out spaces in the parking areas and the fire truck turnaround, we wanted to cut that a little shorter. But we would propose that we can work out these items in this item prior to City Council. They are minor tweaks to the site plan and would not significantly alter what you're looking at tonight. Number six is cross-access. The small out parcel, it's down in this area. We would like to have cross-access through the parking lot of the office area Meridian Planning & Zoning ~vember'18, 2004 Page 37 of 64 to the north and the applicant has agreed to do that. Number seven asks the applicant to provide a parking count tonight, so that we can verify that there is ample parking for the use as proposed as part of the record tonight. Number eight deals with the use exception. Since the application talked about office commercial lots throughout it, we wanted to clarify that these are being proposed under the L-O zone and that it would be subject to the schedule of use control of the L-O zone as such and the applicant is in agreement with that. Number nine deals with the fire department comments. And just to run through these quickly, the first bullet talks about the fire department wanting some additional space around the two cul-de-sacs that have central islands in them. They are currently -- I don't know the exact dimension, but we need them to be widened t033 feet and I'll get to a slight modification to that in just a moment in the condition. ACHD had required them to be widened to 29 feet all the way around. The fire department said they needed 33 feet at least on the north side of each of them and, then, ACHD came back saying, well, if 33 is needed on the north side, they should be 33 all the way around. That's the long version of that. They wanted some change to the layout of the western most office lot, so -- to eliminate the long dead end and we can work with staff as we are finalizing the site plan with that one. The third bullet talks about some needed turnaround easements, one at the east end of Galvanni, which we are going to strike that condition and the fire department -- the fire marshal is in agreement with that. Then, we also need some type of easement on the large Lot 10 up at the north, so that the fire trucks have a way in and out there. There is a requirement for water supply, a master address plan, and this is one of the few sites in Meridian that actually has some grade, so the fire department will make sure that the roads were never more than ten percent. So, going through the conditions, there is only, actually, a couple of actual changes. The first one would be site specific condition number four at the bottom of page 14, where the minimum lot frontage we have at 79 feet now, would be changed to 76 feet. On page 15 under the fire department conditions, number three, the cul-de-sacs at the end of Napoli and Giovanni -- of course I'm going to change those street names to correct -- but they shall be widened to be at least 33 feet on all sides of the island. So, if we could just modify that sentence to be 33 feet, instead of 29. And, then, number four should just be deleted. And that is regarding the turn around at the east end of Galvanni. That is all the comments, changes I have and I will stand for any questions. Oh, let me finish running through the slides just for your benefit. This is the elevation that they have submitted for the character of the office park, going with the Italian theme, and the type of architecture that they would intend to have. These are sample elevations of the homes that they intend to build in the subdivision. The type of home. And, then, you saw the play structure. And I believe that's everything I have and I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Just one on the -- one of the fire department conditions on water flow. Siddoway; Uh-huh, Borup; I don't think we have seen that in the past. Is there something different about this subdivision that -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning i'Iovembef"18,2004 Page 38 of 64 Siddoway: Just the only -- that is a standard condition that they have on very large homes, particularly in rural areas, but even in urban areas they want to make sure that the larger fire flow is available for those larger homes. I think it's 3,600 square feet, including the garage. Borup: Including the garage. But that's not that large of a home. That's why I wondered. Siddoway: Yeah. Borup: So, is there adequate water flow there, Mr. Freckleton? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is several improvements that are going to take place with this development. There is going to be a new 12-inch line that's going to be brought up Meridian Road. The City of Meridian in this budget year had planned to build a 12-inch water line in Victory Road. So, we are going to be connecting up the pressure zone where Bear Creek is across the state highway and connecting into the existing lines where Observation Point is, And so we are going to be completing a lot of our grid out there and we don't have any problem. Borup: So, if there was a problem, this subdivision solves it it sounds like. Freckleton: It helps it, yeah. Definitely. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to add anything? McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. I guess I can just add a ditto to Steve, what he said. Everything was accurate. Steve and I did work that out. Everything that he asked you to change we are in agreement with. We are in agreement with the staff report as requested for modification. Steve did a really good job with this and I really appreciate his help on the 76-foot change requirement. Sometimes you lose the trees when you are in the forest. You got -- all these lots, actually, met the requirements; they all had 80 feet of frontage minimum. The problem was is we didn't have them fronting the right street, we had them all fronting onto Staggerman and the whole intent was to have those fronting on the north-south streets, so we appreciate Steve's comment on that. Just a few things I'd like to address that Steve asked me to address and I think I covered them a little bit in my letter, but I'll go ahead and address those again. As far as density is concerned for this site, Steve's calculation 2.5 units per acre is accurate and we are happy to adopt that, instead of 2.7. Both of those fall underneath the minimum -- or the maximum of three dwelling units per acre. We are more than happy to use staff's number for that. As far as the uses on the site, we are requesting an L-O zone, obviously, for the office uses and we are more than happy to abide by the schedule of control that would control what types of uses can go in there and expect those all to be office uses. Steve asked me to address the issues concerning lTD. Meridian Planning & Zoning f1ovembef18,2004 Page 39 of 64 Originally you received a letter from Chris Canfield from ITD saying district three supports this request. ITD takes their time on approving applications. They have what's called a super committee where all the big people at headquarters get together with the staff members from certain districts and they meet together. According to Matt Ward from the Idaho Transportation Department, they were to have met with the super committee this last week conceming the variance request and, again, district three is in support of this request. There is no place to the north that they'd rather have it and there is no place to the south they'd rather have the access and so they felt this was an appropriate place for that. Just a couple more things. You know, what we really attempted to do here is to try to dove tail with Bear Creek. Bear Creek has been a very successful subdivision, very nice homes. We have tried to match that in the latter phases to try to, you know, to have a lot of large lots. One of the surprises we had from Bear Creek, though, is the inclusion of the name Fireweed. It wasn't our choice to have the name Fireweed, it doesn't quite match with Galvanni, Alfone, and Apia and, then, all of a sudden we got -- we got word from Ada County that Bear Creek had decided not to use the name Staggerman and choose the name Fireweed and so we are stuck with the name Fireweed throughout the subdivision, even though it doesn't match with our Italian theme. But, hopefully, you all received copies of the application with the right names on that. In talking with Steve and other members of staff, the fire department had the one with the right names and ACHD had the right one and Public Works had the right one, so, hopefully, you all have the right one as well and, hopefully, Steve was the aberration -- the -- I guess the one person that didn't have it. Steve did a great job explaining what it is. I don't want to make it anymore difficult than what it is. It's a residential project and if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them, but I think Steve answered almost everything you need. So, if you have any questions for me, I would be happy to answer them at this time. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Zaremba: I have one, but maybe a couple comments first. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: I think it has greatly improved the project. I didn't have much problem with it before, but I think it's greatly improved the project to include what was previously a large out parcel. It gave you more flexibility and more things. My question on that would be, though, since you actually have increased the acreage that is within the whole project, I'm very much in favor of the L-O zone along Meridian. I visualize that within not too many years that southern section of Meridian Road isn't going to look too much different than Eagle Road, as Kuna grows and Meridian grows south. That's going to be a busy street and I think it's not only okay, but very appropriate not to have residences right up to Meridian Road. So, my question is if your whole project now is bigger, the 20 percent use exception could actually get bigger. I don't know if you have recalculated, but I'd even been in favor of -- if it worked in the calculation, to work that into commercial or L- 0 property. Is that anything you have thought about or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Nt>vembe,-~8, 2004 Page 40 of 64 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, we actually did increase the number of office lots from 12 to 14 with the addition of the additional acreage and it's these two lots down here. Originally those were residential units and we decided to add those there, because it actually works as when you come in to make that right turn to get to the office, to go ahead and have those on the right-hand side to be able to make a right-hand turn into those. So, we did add a couple of office projects to it. But to add any additional to it, we felt that we were really looking at the frontages for that. We didn't want to go two deep with it, because that would take away from the large lot, which we, actually, think that the City of Meridian has a great market for right now. Zaremba: Okay. Thanks. The other comment, now that it's called Fireweed, I guess. There must be an Italian word. Forenza Weed or something like that that -- McKinnon: I would have to work that out with Bear Creek, unfortunately. Zaremba: And it's Bear Creek that actually concerns me. Large development over here. If you make this connection through here to Meridian Road as easy as it appears to be made, I can see a large portion of the Bear Creek traffic wanting to travel that and I'm not sure there is a way to stop them from doing that, but my comment is I think it would be useful to have maybe a couple islands somewhere along here or -- you know, if you could do a slight meander, something that would be traffic calming. I kind of see that as becoming a raceway for not just your project, but the Bear Creek people that are -- see that as the shortest way to Meridian Road. Just a comment. McKinnon: Okay. So noted. Zaremba: I don't know if you can do that or not, but -- McKinnon: We can look into it. Borup: Are they looking at a traffic light at Victory in the out far distant future or has ITD even mentioned that? McKinnon: Oh, we have had a lot of discussion about that with ITD and this was actually second priority on State Highway 69. The first priority was at Deer Flat. And the reason for that is the high school with Kuna, because the high school is right there and they wanted to have some sort of traffic control at that point. But it's been funny, in talking with the different members of ITD, there is a lot of ITD and I have cornered a couple at the same time and the women said it's going to be Deer Flat and the other one said don't count on it, it will probably be here first, because of the growth. So, you know, the expected date for the Deer Flat was 2004. This was 2006. It c.ould go either way. It could flip-flop or both could be accelerated. Borup: And the reason I ask is I think what Commissioner Zaremba said, depending on the time of day and the traffic, it's probably not going to be all that easy to turn left at the entrance that you were talking about. It would be easier to go down to Victory. Meridian Pianning & Zoning fIIovemb8~'18. 2004 Page 41 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: It could really be easy to turn right at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon. Zaremba: Yeah. The people ingressing are probably going to use it more than the people egressing, but -- Borup: Right. Yeah. Zaremba: I'm just concerned that it's more traffic than your subdivision. McKinnon: The City of Meridian wants to see interconnectivity and I guess this is the -- that's one of the results that you have from that, but you would have decreased traffic on Victory, which is, actually, a problem street. That may actually be a benefit for the city, because there is that -- I guess it could be expressed there is nothing like that horrendous jog that it makes that drops off and it's not an easy thing to do and that may actually be of benefit to the city to have that ability to bring some traffic off of that. Zaremba: But I'm just thinking a way to slow them down, because they are likely to get moving through there. McKinnon: We will have to look at some mitigation for that. I appreciate the comment. Zaremba: Just a suggestion. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Newton-Huckabay: I'm just curious. Do we have any idea what is going to happen here? I mean I foresee this to be a little left over ugly piece of land that we are going to develop all around. McKinnon: You sure nailed part of that. It's pretty ugly right now. When we first started dealing with this project it was owned by Mr. Fehrman, who owned the property across the street as well, and he since has sold that to Tim Mussell and we have worked with Tim and, Tim, we'd like you to work with us on this project and you can come into it and he said I have got some other ideas, he's still playing with them, he have -- you know, he's been talking with ACHD about actually trying to straighten Victory and do some other things and so at this time he really doesn't have major plans, other than in the near future getting rid of the single wide mobile home that's there. It doesn't serve him a great purpose, other than some rental income. So, he may keep it there for a term for rental income, but with Steve's comment from staff that we provide a cross-access for that, eventually that piece is going to be an office and it will be part of this project. ACHD wants to see the access go away and if there is access through this project, they will be able to take access through our project off of Victory and back into that. So, it wi/I actually be a continuation of the landscape buffer in the future and probably a small office. Meridian Planning & Zoning Movember18,2004 Page 42 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: Well, that could facilitate the -- McKinnon: Yeah. Steve, can you go back to the -- there we go. Steve's asked for just a cross-access right here. Newton-Huckabay: Right. McKinnon: And we are more than happy to give that. That way he can come in and access the small office back here. This landscaping strip across Victory, plus the pathway can be continued and he will have a small office back there and that's what we envision happening in the future. I don't see a great future for this. On the Comprehensive Plan it's shown as low density residential. I don't see a great future for that. I think it's going to be surrounded by office, so it will probably go office. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Borup: Okay. Thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Freckleton: Mr. Chair? Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Members of the Commission, just one thing that I did want to put onto the record as we were talking about the water supply in the area. If the City of Meridian's project is ahead of this development's project and we actually fund and build that water line, we will be creating a latecomer's agreement for reimbursement of our line and I just wanted to put on the record that this project would be subject to repayment of their proportionate share our water extension and, typically, those will be calculated and be applied and charged prior to signature on the final plat for the entire number of dwelling units. Borup: Okay. Thank you. I think I already asked and there was no one else to testify and we had no one sign up. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearings on Items AZ 04-028, PP 04-038, and CUP 04-047. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MerIdian Planning & ZOning November 18, 2004 Page 43 of 64 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-028, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 18th, received by the city clerk November 15th, 2004. Thank you. And the only comment to the staff comments is on page six, item one, the use exception, it's the recommendation of this Commission that the use exception be allowed. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 04-038, again, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date November 18th, received by the City Clerk November 15th, 2004, with a couple of changes: On page seven, paragraph five, the confusion about various versions has been cleared up and staff will make their report comply with the names that other agencies have received. On page eight, the partial paragraph six can be delated. Also on page eight, under site specific conditions, paragraph five, in the first sentence the lot number should be changed to four, instead of 25. Irs Lot 4, Block 2. Paragraph seven, again, the correcting of the street names to comply with the report that ACHD and the fire department got will solve that problem. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Moe: I have one comment. Under the special considerations, were we not going to require the dedicated right of way in item number one on page seven? Zaremba: I may have missed that. Siddoway: It's already a condition. Irs condition number two. Moe: Okay. Siddoway: So, there is no change needed for that. Moe: All right. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Okay. We had a motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning & Zoning November'18,2004 Page 44 of 64 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-047, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of November 18, received by the city clerk November 15th, 2004, again, with a couple of changes. On page 14, site-specific conditions, number four, the first bullet, minimum lot frontage should be changed to 76, instead of 79 feet. On page 15 -- we are now actually under the fire department conditions. On page paragraph three, the names Napoli and Giovanni, apparently, are changing and those will be corrected. And the reference to 29 feet will be changed to 33 feet, so that it's 33 feet all the way around the cul-de-sacs. On the same page 15, paragraph four of the fire department conditions can be deleted. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? As a minor point, the name Giovanni won't change, but I'll get the name correct. The street names. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Then, we will remove that remark. The comment about 33 feet in paragraph three on page 15 remains. End of motion. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Anyopposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 04-045 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a beauty salon in the O-T zone for Rodney Shaul by Rodney Shaul - 116 East Pine Avenue: Borup: Next item is Public Hearing CUP 04-045. This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a beauty salon in the Old Town zone by Rodney Shaul at 116 East Pine Avenue. We'd like to open this hearing and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I'm looking for the file. Just a second. Borup: Okay. Siddoway: Oh, here it is. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I will be filling in for Craig Hood tonight on this application. You should have his staff report dated November 15th, received November 15th for tonight's hearing date. This application is by Rodney Shaul. It's to do a beauty salon at 116 East Pine, which is the property highlighted right -- just one lot east of Main Street. The lot to their west is along Main, is the one that has -- used to be Pizano's, now it's -- Newton-Huckabay: EI Tenampa. Meridian Planning & Zoning i'Iovember'18,2004 Page 45 of 64 Siddoway: -- EI Tenampa. Thank you. Not far from us here tonight. It's a -- just a 964 square foot home, so just under 1,000 square feet. The current zoning is Old Town. It is proposed for the salon as the only use. There would be no 24-hour occupants. It's difficult to see the aerial photo, but with the light -- the lights. Showing the property there. This is the site plan that was submitted with the application and based on the square footage of the building, which is just under 1,000 and 200 square feet per space required per ordinance, five stalls would be required for this site. On this site plan there are ten stalls currently shown, but those stalls are substandard and we would need to get some modifications to them, which I will go over in just a second. They are proposing to retain the existing driveway. It's a gravel driveway from Pine. ACHD is requiring that this access be abandoned and that they take their access from the alley in the rear. The applicant is appealing that decision of ACHD staff and has a hearing with the ACHD commission on December 1 st. So, that appeal hearing has not yet happened. Staff does agree with the ACHD requirement to close off the access to try and restrict the number of curb cuts along that road when there is an alley that the parking can be accessed from. I'm on page -- I think it's page two. Where is the page number? Apparently, the staff report has no page numbers. Does your copies? Okay. The -- I'm on the second page and I was just going over the first and second bullet or parking. The third bullet on the page talks about the requirement to pave the parking area. The area that you can see that's hatched in on either end is proposed to be a product called gravel pave, which would allow water seepage down through and it's not something that we have used in the past, but staff is supportive of its use in this area. It's a tight site to try and do some aboveground storm water detention and it -- the construction of it would be a dustless surface that we feel would meet our requirement to have it paved with a dustless material. So, I just want to point out that we are supportive of that. On the following page, the top bullet, talks about the requirement of the landscape ordinance for five-foot minimum landscape strip adjacent to -- adjacent to the parking areas. This proposed layout would have a one-foot strip adjacent to it and we are proposing that the minimum of five feet should be added to each side. The next comment in the second bullet on that page deals with the design of the parking stalls. Standard 90 degree parking stalls should be nine by 19. As currently drawn these stalls are 17 feet wide on the west side and the east side they are 16 feet long and seven and a half feet wide. We would like to see a minimum of five parking spaces that meet the minimum ordinance requirements designed on the site and as currently written would be required to revise the site plan prior to the next Public Hearing. Now, I'm going to throw out one option and I know the applicant has another one that I will also have available when he does his presentation. But if we were to get a five foot buffer with standard 19 foot deep stalls, you can fit three plus the handicapped stall for the fourth one, we are still one short, which could be located in the area of the -- the current driveway, if it were no longer a driveway, but was a parking stall. And, then, you could get a full 25-foot wide aisle and some more landscaping on the other side. That would be one possible solution and we thinking it's certainly feasible to get five full size parking stalls on here. We are not too concerned about that. But we do need to work on that layout. Down at the bottom of this same page, under landscaping, the main point there is that there are some significant existing trees along Pine and have -- and those trees should be retained and there is a condition to say that they need to be retained as part of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Novembe~18, 2004 Page 46 of 64 project. I'm going to skip a couple of pages over to analysis item H and point out that ACHD is supportive of access to the alley, but they -- ACHD has a requirement of the alley being paved. They are -- the paving is also part of their appeal to ACHD and the only point that Craig makes here is that regardless of what happens with the paving of the alley, which I guess we don't have. strong feelings about, because there was a waiver granted for adjacent property, the access to Pine should still be cut off. The only special consideration on this project deals with signage. We didn't have a specific maximum size to go from and since, as you know, Old Town doesn't have a specific table in the sign ordinance, we like to nail those down as part of the conditional use process. We are proposing that they comply with Table C in the ordinance, which is the L-O standards for wall signs and freestanding signs, but with the additional restriction that the maximum height on that freestanding sign be six feet. And the applicant does have some sample photographs of the type of sign that they intend to do and can enter that into the record tonight. Craig's comment at the end of that special consideration -- I believe the intent of what he's saying there is to say that we should review these -- the signage sizes tonight and if you're comfortable with the proposed restrictions that are in this ordinance, then, they can stand or we can have -- set up a situation where Council has to approve those. But I think we can probably reach some agreement on the next maximum sign size. So, I believe that's the only special consideration. It seems like the only issues to really work out is the layout design of this parking and how it relates the current access that they have off of Pine. So, I will get the applicant's pictures ready and stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I do have a couple. Is it ever otherwise? Just noticing that Central District Health asked the question if it's not on city sewer they are recommending denial and I guess the question is for Bruce. I assume it is on city sewer. And, then, my second question I think I have asked before and I never remember the answer. Beauty salons tend to have some kind of chemical waste that would be different than the normal residential use, Is there any kind of a chemical waste plan or does that just go down the drain with everything else? Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, the answer to the first question is, yes, this home is connected to city facilities currently. The second question is typically in a beauty salon the products that they use do go down the drain. It's something that our pretreatment department out at wastewater will evaluate and that's part of the permit process that they will go through and make an evaluation and address at that time. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. And, then, to Steve -- and probably to the applicant also, but just to comment on the parking situation. If we are looking for a standard parking stall of nine feet wide and the actual requirement for this building would be only five, the lot is 60 feet across, nine parking stalls would take 45 of that. You could have a five foot landscape buffer and a five foot landscape buffer and you'd still only be at 55 out of the 60, so one of the stalls could have an additional five feet to be a handicapped -- one of the five stalls and that would satisfy the requirement and probably take up -- Meridian Planning & Zoning fWvembef18,2004 Page 47 of 64 that's a lot of paving. If you put the stalls here and oriented them north and south, is that an acceptable solution to the city? I realize they are trying to get more spaces on there, but -- Siddoway: Yeah. It sounds like something that could certainly be looked into. The handicapped space would need to be a van accessible space; at least eight plus eight, which would be a total of 16. There was nine and five, we are up to 14. We are close. Zaremba: Yeah. Siddoway: We are within two feet. But it sound like something that could be -- Zaremba: That could even encroach upon the landscape buffer, maybe. Siddoway: Yeah. And we could have the applicant's engineer look into -- I believe there may be even provisions through ADA, as long as they are trying to meet the -- you know, those dimensions as close as possible, they may be able to do a six. I don't want to speak for ADA, but we will leave that to them, but they may be able to work that out. Yeah. Zaremba: And my next question. When the applicant is done with their presentation, will be are they really serious about needing ten or could they get by with the five that's required, so -- I'm done. Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Rohm: No. I'm anxious to hear the -- Borup: Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Shaul: My name is Rod Shaul, 775 North Ten Mile in Meridian. We bought this house for my sister and she is handicapped, so we understand the handicap issues. We are going to make it handicapped accessible with a ramp -- ADA ramp to the front. Our concern with the parking area is that she's going to have five employees, so if we fill the spots with employee, we have an issue with customers. So, we need as many spots as we can. So, that was the reason for the ten spots. Do you have a little pointer? The first I heard of the five foot buffer was last night at 8:00 o'clock, so it was a little bit of a surprise to come up with that. What we are looking at is the parking lot would actually be right here where the shed is and on the back. On this side is a house and a shed with a six foot fence. On this side is a six-foot fence that we will retain to this house -- to the edge of our house. There is no windows in this building and no windows that look at the property on this side. So, our five foot buffer is -- you know, again, a surprise to me as of 8:00 o'clock last night, but when I bought this property what I did is actually took a site map and cut this off on our computer of the city parking lot and laid it onto our spot. So, before I purchased the property I actually looked at it to see, you know, what the parking was going to be like and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning l'<Iovembe1'18,2004 Page 48 of 64 Rohm: It's looked pretty logical, doesn't it? Shaul: We said it would work, so -- I mean that was the research. Again, on the driveway, after talking to ACHD, we are allowed to have a right-in going in. Instead of just a driveway we are trying to get in and out. So, during the appeals process that's what I'm requesting is to do a right-in here to the parking area and exit through the alley. And that -- Ada County requirement is 85 feet from the intersection to the first parking -- or drive-thru, which is probably about this area. You're 57 feet closer on this entrance than this one is. So, a right-in seems like it would function and that was part of the idea when we purchased the property is make it work. Obviously, with five employees and we are filling the handicapped, we don't want all these people trying to park over here and walk across the street to get to this and have a safety issue and that is mentioned in the staff report, that there is safety problems there. I'm a firefighter, I understand, and I don't want to go on my sister or anybody else getting run over here, so -- I mean that's probably the big issues. We are retaining the trees. There is another tree right here you can't see very well on the plot and, you know, all we are looking for is to retain as much parking as possible and to make this thing work. The alley -- I go in all the time to clean this up and there is trash cans laying in the alley, there is now three cars parked on a daily basis right here with the tail end sticking out into the alley and I can get through with my pickup, but I don't know what an older person can do getting through this alley. So, I worry about the access coming in here. There is trash trucks, there is trash cans laying in it, so to guarantee that the spots will be used if we have to use the alley is a little bit of an issue. Other than by employees. So, I guess I will answer any questions if you have any. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Shaul: We will comply with the sign. Debbie Anderson is working on that with Idaho Electric Signs and she's submitted plans, but we haven't really got down to the essentials of it, so she will comply with it. Borup: The property to the east, is that a residential property, or do you know? Shaul: The property to the east is Kids Corner, I believe it's a kids clothing outlet. Borup: Okay. Shaul: We are the last residence on the block. Let's see. This is a candle shop and this is another business here. Borup: Okay. Any other-- Moe: I don't know that I have question for the applicant. I guess I would ask staff that based upon his presentation showing the right-in into that property, what does staff feel about that? Meridian Planning & Zoning i'Iovember18,2004 Page 49 of 64 Siddoway: Certainly a right-in situation is preferable over two way in and out. We are interested in access control along Pine and, you know, the right-in only may be -- may be the compromise. Just a question for Mr. Shaul. Are they -- is it a right-in, right-out or is it just a right-in that would be proposed to that -- the appeal? Moe: I'm assuming -- it looks to me it's a right-in and you go out the alley. Shaul: Correct. Moe: Because it's basically a one way. Shaul: Correct. One way in, one way out. Zaremba: Well, that's the way I would describe it as a one way and you can do either right or left into it, you just can't come out it. Shaul: Well, we would prefer to have it a right turn in. Zaremba: But how would you control that? If somebody were eastbound on Pine and wanted to turn in there -- Shaul: Well, I would assume that we would prefer to have a left -- or a right-in here, too, but you can't really control that, either. So, you know, other than she does have repetitive customers and once they find out, just like I have, that you can't really turn in there on a regular basis, then, you come from the other way. Zaremba: That's easier. Yeah. Shaul: So, it isn't like a new customer every time, they do have pretty much repetitive customers. Siddoway: One benefit to having a one way configuration is that the drive aisle width between the parking stalls can be reduced. It's no long 25 -- 25 feet aisle between stalls is the requirement for 90 degree, but if you got a one way with angled parking, that drive aisle can be reduced, which may help. Borup: Mr. Siddoway, I have got a question along that line. Siddoway: I'm sorry. Borup: Yeah. I have got a question along that park -- line of that parking. Had the -- that ordinance with the discussion of five foot buffer, how new is that? I assume that was passed after the city parking lot was built? Meridian Planning & Zoning l'Iovembef18,2004 Page 50 of 64 Siddoway: Yes. The ordinance was adopted in -- at the end of year 2000. The parking lot has been in existence long before that. It was re-striped after that, with the Generations Plaza construction, but it was not reconstructed. Borup: Okay. I was just referring to Mr. Shaul. Your comment is -- you saw how the parking was across there and that's what I was thinking, that it -- the ordinance changed. Shaul: Yeah. I didn't know that. Didn't have any -- you know, .1 just looked at what we had here. Borup: Right. That's a logical conclusion. Zaremba: While you're there, let me ask staff about alternate compliance. Could we trade maybe planting two extra trees in the front yard where they wouldn't be in anybody's way or -- I'm -- Borup: I don't know if the front needs any extra trees. Zaremba: It probably doesn't but, if I understand his discussion, if there is six foot fence on both sides and no windows looking at it -- Shaul: On that proposal we are putting the access for the handicapped ramp down the side with a four-foot walkway. We could put some trees -- a couple of trees on that side to help, because we will have an additional -- like a ten foot area there that has grass. Zaremba: As alternate compliance, instead of having to do the five foot buffer; is that a possibility? Siddoway: Alternative compliance is an option that the Commission always has, The standard requirement is for five feet adjacent to any vehicular use areas to just prevent ongoing areas of asphalt and to break them up and get some landscaping. There is no required buffer between land uses. So, you know, that would be something more significant along the lines of 25 feet or something if there was a residence and we would -- in the past what we have done in Old Town, we have regularly granted alternative compliance on buffers between land uses down to five feet, but I can't think of an instance where we have done no landscaping, if that makes any sense. Borup: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: My personal opinion is that it would be acceptable in this area. I mean I understand the ordinance was passed after the city parking lot, but it would be in the same spirit as the city parking lot and -- I mean, in all honesty, you're landscaping for the sake of landscaping because it's the ordinance. There isn't a lot of benefit that I see to ten feet of landscaping when you could have utility for the benefit of the business owner in this situation and it is the -- it's a very narrow piece of property. Meridian Planning & Zoning '!¡ovembef 18,2004 Page 51 of 64 Rohm: Well, especially along the commercial property to the west. This side here. It almost seems appropriate to have a five foot buffer on the east, because there is some -- it's almost a -- this property isn't as commercially developed as this. It's a -- what is it, a day care you say? Shaul: No. It's a kids clothing store. It's a retail store. Rohm: Oh. Oh. Excuse me. And this is a building, these are structures here? Shaul: Yeah. That's a shed behind the house. This is the house. Actually, the house right here and the shed is there and, like I said, there is a six foot and weeds long this side of their place. Rohm: Uh-huh. Well, maybe your comments that it's not necessary to have a five foot buffer on either side is appropriate. Newton-Huckabay: Well -- I mean I don't know. I would -- Zaremba: Part of the purpose of not having wall-to-wall pavement the application is already offering to solve by -- I forget what it was called, some asphalt treatment that was semipermeable. I mean the point is you -- where does the drainage go. But, you know, if you're going to have the margins of the parking lot be the semipermeable material that you can still drive on that water goes through it, apparently, that to me -- although it's not directed as decorative, solves the purpose of having a landscape border there. Moe: Then, I guess I would ask that question, then. If you, then, put some of the decorative rock in there, does that take care of the landscape buffer? We are using the decorative rock as part, you know, landscaping in other projects now, so I just ask the question. Borup: But they also have bushes and shrubs in there, too. Moe: Well, darn it. Siddoway: The ordinance requirement is for the buffer with one tree per 36 lineal feet and vegetative ground cover along the ground with -- and rock mulch, should the ordinance be acted on favorably by City Council next week, you know, they could use rock mulch in and around the plants, but the intent of the ordinance has restricted rock as the only use. Borup: The other thing that's different here is there is six foot fences on both sides, where, normally, if you have got adjoining properties and parking and -- you know, it is more visible, which is not the case here. Meridian Planning & Zoning ~vembef18, 2004 Page 52 of 64 Newton-Huckabay: What about landscaping similar to the city parking lot at the end? Rohm: I like that. That's a good thought. We are working with you on this, so -- no. No. No. Because I'm sure we will have more questions or at least request your thoughts on-- Shaul: Chad is, actually, the person that's worked on this, on the engineering standpoint, and he's contacted the people that do the gravel pave and he knows more about it than I do, so -- Rohm: Well, let's get you engineer up here and see what his thoughts are. Jones: Chad Jones. I reside at 2250 Grassy Branch, Meridian. I am employed with B&A Engineers in Boise. I'm working with Mr. Rodney Shaul. I guess to answer your question in regards to gravel pave, it's not real new technology, but it's new to the area. Gravel paved is currently being used at the corner of Myrtle and 13th in Boise in that new temporary parking area. I have worked with it a little bit with the city of Boise and that's about it. And I think there is only two applications in this whole area that it's been used at. I, actually, looked at another product called grass paved. Same principle. It's a porous drainage type of material that allows percolation of drain water to be stored -- storm water to be stored on the surface, perc down through, rather than going to a sub surface system or discharging to municipal systems. Kind of in the spirit of low impact development. To answer your question, as far as decorative rocks, you can get several different colors of aggregate. They are using it -- different colors in other areas, so you can get browns and blues or whatever you choose. But the spirit of it is it's a coarse aggregate that ultimately allows drainage to go down through. Rohm: I was kind of hoping that you might offer up a solution to the location and number of parking spaces themselves, if you had -- after listening to what's been spoken so far, if you had some alternate plan that - that might be presented here. Jones: Well, I think isn't there two stations in front of the business? That's what we are allowed. So, there is two there. And I think if we can get -- we need at least five for the employees, that's seven. So, an additional three, so if-- Rohm: Yeah, I don't think it's the minimum that you're struggling with, I think it's the maximum that you're trying to attain that -- Jones: I think we can do it with the space. The problem is is the five-foot buffer, landscape buffer, from the fences is really what we are struggling with. Rohm: Okay. I think Commissioner Wendy brought up a possible solution with putting your buffers at the end of the parking area, as opposed to along each side. I'd like to have you explore that a little bit if you could, Meridian Planning & Zoning Novembet 18, 2004 Page 53 of 64 Jones: We are open to work with staff to make this work the best possible way for the Shauls and the city. Rohm: Maybe we could take a break for just a moment and let -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, staff has a proposal. Borup: Okay. Please, Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: Hold on one second. Kind of difficulty to see. Let's see if we can make it show up a little better. Let me zoom in. What we were just trying to work out was how could this function as a one-way facility with access from Pine into the site. By doing a one way with your parking, the ordinance allows you to -- to reduce your 25 foot drive aisle to 17 feet and your width from the stalls in is only 18 feet, instead of 19, which gives you three and a half feet on each side or there is seven feet total left over. It doesn't get all the way to the five feet, but you do have three and a half feet on each side. It's probably not enough to do trees, but we could do shrubs or something in there. There is one idea. Rohm: And it looks like a good alternate to ultimately to only ended up with five, so this is better. We are working in the right direction. Siddoway: Yeah. And it's still dependent on ACHD granting the appeal on the access. Moe: Right. Rohm: That's a pretty good point, because if ACHD does not, then, this parking configuration wouldn't work at all, so kind of something we are -- Moe: Well, I guess I asked the question, then, are we not going to have to continue this hearing until we get -- Zaremba: ACHD's decision? Moe: Yes. Zaremba: Let me throw one more idea into the mix, though. If ACHD were to come back and say absolutely the access to Pine has to be closed, then, based on the thought that the clientele is repeat clientele and you all get to know each other and the employees get to know each other, what about going back to the orientation I was suggesting where everybody comes in the alley, there is five parking lots across -- parking spaces across, there is plenty of room to double stack them. Assuming that -- it probably isn't going to work out exactly, but the front cars are the employees and parked right behind them are the customers and I'm sure you all become friends if somebody had to move somebody else's car once, is the fire department going to have an issue with that or is that a solution? Meridian Planning & Zoning Ñovembef 18, 2004 Page 54 of 64 Siddoway: The issue is it would work for this use, but what happens when it sells and becomes something else? Zaremba: Can we put a limitation on that it has to go back to five spaces, then? Because that's all that's required for the size of the building. Borup: We have also over - over-rode ACHD's recommendations before in Old Town projects. Zaremba: Yeah. Old Town is unique. Borup: I don't know if -- I mean are we required to abide by ACHD on this type of situation? I mean this is not a -- this is a -- I mean this is an internal development, not -- you know, we are not affecting any major roads. Understanding that still Pine Street is under their jurisdictions, but -- Siddoway: I think that's a question for legal counsel. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would say -- I guess without saying what their -- what their recommendation is going to be, normally -- you're correct. Normally, you're not obligated to adopt the findings or recommendation of the highway district. You are free to make recommendations that are in conflict with the highway district up to point, depending on what they are. On this one I guess my initial response would be I think you're right, I think you could, if we are only talking about access points, but, again, I don't know. I guess I would be more comfortable in seeing what their analysis is and what their final decision is before being able to advise you that you could simply override that and recommend it otherwise. I think it's a legitimate compromise and at least our most recent experience with ACHD, I could see them adopting that right in only and allowing that access through with an exit through the alley and I mean I think that's a very viable option I think they will consider, but I don't think I can give you a better answer than I guess I'd have to see how they framed it, how they looked at it, whether or not they think we can override their decision. Borup: Well, I'm not necessarily advocating that, but along the same line, if they knew -- I mean if that's the way this Commission is going and ACHD knows that, that may have some influence on -- Zaremba: Well -- and along that line, the applicant is appealing the ACHD decision. Would it be valuable for us to say we support the applicant? Borup: That's what I was getting at. Nary: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba. Absolutely, I mean if you -- certainly that would be helpful to the applicant in their appeal, is that you have framed your decision and recommendation based upon a belief Meridian Planning & Zoning i'k>vembe(18,2004 Page 55 of 64 what's being proposed is a reasonable way to do that and, again, I think ACHD does try very hard to be reasonable in these decisions. I don't think it will hurt. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I'd also offer that I did receive a call this morning from one of the planning staff at ACHD asking for the city's opinion on this issue, because they said it would be important for the hearing. Rohm: Well, there you have it. So, I guess the final question, then, is can we make a recommendation to City Council for approval pending a presumed outcome from ACHD? Can you frame a proposed -- and just -- then, we wouldn't have to continue it. That's my point. Zaremba: And I would add if the appeal at ACHD is lost, then, work with staff before the City Council to have a configuration that only uses the alley. Rohm: And maybe that covers both sides. Zaremba: Yeah. Rohm: Yeah. We have a preference that the appeal works, but if for some reason it doesn't. Shaul: From what I understood with the conversation I had with Christy Richardson this morning, it sounded like it was appealing to her to have a right"in only also and what they have declined was a driveway -- on our drawing was a driveway. So, when I talked to her about a right in, it seemed more appealing to her anyway, so -- Rohm: Okay. I guess a driveway is -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, how do you feel about this -- this suggestion? Shaul: We could make it work. I would really like to have as many spots as we can get, you know, with -- with having six spots here, obviously, it's better than five. I wonder about being -- still being able to turn that and have the additional spot on the -- it would be the west side there. It seems like we will still have the width if we take the landscape buffer off of their, but -- I mean this is all I can get. I can work with this. It's better than five. Rohm: Well -- and I think that also the city parking lot is not that far away and maybe employees can use it and leave the spaces here for your customers. Something like that. Shaul: That was my initial thought when we looked at the property. Then, as I have worked on the property, if they leave at lunch, they probably won't get a spot, because it fills up through the day. In the morning it's fine, but it does fill up and it gets pretty busy there around the lunch time area especially. Meridian Planning & Zoning ~ovembef 18, 2004 Page 56 of 64 Rohm: I think this is about the best alternative that we can come up with at this juncture and so thank you. Borup: Yeah. Do we have any other testimony on this? We have got a portable microphone right over there, too. That one right there. Ward: I'm Tammy Ward and I have been making Meridian beautiful for about 25 years now and I have had my own shop for 17 years and they are not going to let me re-lease with them, because they are going to make all the building the dental offices and I had an accident and fell off a deck at my parents and I was paralyzed from the chest down and have worked very hard and have gotten lots and lots of more feeling back and the state bought me this stand-up chair and I'm trying to cut hair from it and it's worked really well. I just have to get my stamina better, so I can stand up longer in it. But I thought this house looked so cute to put a beauty salon in it and we do need as much parking as we can get, but the community has been good to me and I have tried to support them and I just hope that I will be able to walk again. That's my real goal. But I guess that's alii have to say. Borup: Thank you. Any questions from any Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we -- oh. G.Shaul: I wanted to talk as well. My name is Gary Shaul and I'm Rodney's brother, and just -- mostly I just wanted to give you a little history on the building. When we first came in and looked at this building or Rodney bought it, we came in, we hauled off probably ten big dumpsters full of junk that we piled there. So, this is -- it's a beautification project in itself and we probably had 40 to 50 volunteers working on this place several hundred hours now already, just -- just scraping floors, patching walls, running wires trying to get the thing back into shape to where it could even be usable. So, we really have done a lot of work here to try and make this city a better place by taking this over, so -- and what Rodney has already described to you is quite true, that we have picked up all this garbage and trash and weeds and stuff, old refrigerators are still there, we are hauling them out, but if you put in this buffer zone, no one see will see it, except for the people who park there at the beauty shop, because it will be behind the fences, there is one windows up against it, the buildings on the opposite sides -- especially on the east side is junk. There is an old junky garage there and there is a bunch of weeds. So, there is nothing there to beautify by adding this in there. So, that's my only statement. And we are just proud to help out. So, thank you. Borup: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay. Rohm: Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we close the Public Hearing on CUP 04-045. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning I'Wvembef 18, 2004 Page 57 of 64 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: I think the only question is what's the best way to make it work. Newton-Huckabay: I still -- I'm sorry, I think that -- I mean I realize it's not per the ordinance, but I agree with these folks, that landscaping it for the sake of landscaping it because the ordinance -- what really needs to be landscaped is the front of the building That's what the public can see, that's the face that looks out to the city. If we can recommend some type of alternate compliance, I would agree with that. Rohm: I, actually, think that a little bit of landscaping here and here and possibly even here where this drive aisle comes into the parking area as probably in pretty good keeping, because are -- that's not going to be parking and neither is that and so to have a little bit of landscape probably would address the issues somewhat and still leave the balance for use, Moe: But at the same time it's not going to increase the parking and that's -- the issue for them is parking spaces, as opposed to the landscape. And I agree, I mean I think, actually, staff did a pretty good job coming up with this rather quickly and I would agree, I don't know that you really need to have the -- you know, the three and a half foot buffer there on each side, but I think the other landscaping would be plenty. Borup: It could increase the parking if you had the 90-degree on the west side and the angled on the east side. Rohm: Ninety degree on this side, Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: Well -- and the applicant has supplied a drawing that does just that. Borup: Oh. That's right. Moe: But at that point you don't have 25-foot; correct? Siddoway: You would need to do -- to have 25 feet by the ordinance to be able to be successfully turn out at a perpendicular angle and, then, get moving in the right direction. Moe: You do lose that. Borup: Yeah. That's right. You can't get that in 60 feet. Meridian Planning & Zoning i'1ovember 18. 2004 Page 58 of 64 Siddoway: You could get that in without any landscaping, but if you're trying to maintain the three and a half that's there you wouldn't be able to. Rohm: If you -- along that theme, Steve, if we eliminated the buffer here and the buffer here and still required -- oh, wait a minute. If we eliminated it here and here, but still had the island here and here, would we be able to have the gO-degree spaces on the west? Siddoway: There would be room for it, but -- Rohm: That might be taking this a little bit further than staff wanted to go. Borup: Well -- and there have been instances -- Newton-Huckabay: I think we have already taken him -- Zaremba: Yeah. There have been instances where we allowed vehicles to overhang at least a sidewalk, if not a landscaped area. Siddoway: Where a gO-degree parking stall is adjacent to a five foot landscape buffer, usually -- or a seven foot sidewalk, we regularly allowed the depth of those stalls to be reduced to 17 feet. Zaremba: Because the front of the car -- vehicle can over hang. Siddoway: Allow the two-foot overhang. Correct. Zaremba: Well, I would propose that whoever makes the motion, that it be framed such that we support the applicant's appeal to ACHD for a one way right in. Newton-Huckabay: Why don't you just go ahead -- Zaremba: I'm not making, I just want to discuss it. And that pending the result of that, the applicant work with staff to resolve a combination of landscape alternate compliance and maximizing the parking. I think enough suggestions have been made that between the applicant and staff there must be an agreeable solution pending what ACHD is going to say, that I don't think we need to hear it again. I would be willing to send it on to City Council. It won't get calendared until ACHD has had its action and -- Siddoway: And it sounds like you -- in the alternative compliance are okay and almost suggesting that there not be trees required adjacent to the sides of the parking area; is that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 18, 2004 Page 59 of 64 Zaremba: I'm comfortable with saying there would not need to be trees. Whether there was a little bit of grass or small bushes or whether all of that was clustered at the end, instead of running along the fence line, you know, I -- Siddoway: We could look for other places on the site, like was suggested that we might be able to put some trees where they -- Zaremba: And I can be comfortable calling that alternate compliance and, you know, it's in the best interest of the city to keep this business going, as well as in their best interest and while I agree with us being a nation of laws and ordinances are important, I think there is sometime where flexibility is in the best interest of the city. Rohm: Okay. Good. With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-045, including all staff comments received November 15th for a hearing date of November 18th, with the provision that applicant's request for appeal to Ada County Highway District be incorporated -- the results of that appeal be incorporated into the solution here and once that has been resolved, applicant work with staff to develop an appropriate parking scheme that meets the intent of this discussion this evening. End of motion. Zaremba: I would only add that we do support the applicant's appeal. Rohm: Absolutely. This Commission supports the appeal of the applicant to ACHD. End of motion. Zaremba: I'll second that motion. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, before a vote's taken, can I point out two things in conflict in the site specific conditions just to -- so we can note them for modification. The first is in site-specific condition one that says it shall include a minimum of five foot wide landscape strip. You're proposing to alter that with the alternative compliance. And, then, in number three it says that the direct access to Pine Avenue is prohibited and that the gravel driveway shall be removed. It sounds like you're amenable to its use as a one way. Rohm: Yes. Staff's comments to be incorporated into the motion. Zaremba: Second accepts that. Borup: Okay. Did that clarify those two well enough? Rohm: I think so. Borup: Okay. We had a motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning N'ovember 1 8, 2004 Page 60 of 64 Item 14: Item 15: Item 16: Pubic Hearing: RZ 04-014 Request for a Rezone of 2.4 acres from R-4 to R-15 zone for Cedar Springs Place Subdivision by Plantation Place, LLP - southwest corner of North Meridian Road and West Ashby Drive: Public Hearing: PP 04-039 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 2 residential building lots on 2.4 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Cedar Springs Place Subdivision by Plantation Place, LLP - southwest corner of North Meridian Road and West Ashby Drive: Public Hearing: CUP 04-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a new 27-unit assisted living facility and 13-unit independent living facility in a proposed R-15 zone for Cedar Springs Place Subdivision by Plantation Place, LLP - southwest corner of North Meridian Road and West Ashby Drive: Borup: Good luck at ACHD. Okay. The last project is Cedar Springs Place Subdivision. Like to open hearing RZ 04-014, request for a rezone of 2.4 acres and open PP 04-039, request for preliminary plat, and open Public Hearing CUP 04-048. With all three hearings open we'd like to start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. I'm also pinch hitting for Craig here tonight and I will try to make this brief. I think that it's a fairly straightforward and clean application, so the property is located here at the corner of Settler's Park, which is shown in the purple, and Cedar Springs Subdivision to the north. Sundance is across Meridian Road on the east side of Meridian. This property was brought into the city at the same time as Cedar Springs Subdivision when Kevin Howell brought that through. I believe -- yeah, it was in -- the application states 2002 the final plat was approved. As you can see, the zoning today is the same as Cedar Springs. It's R-4. The property is in the Comprehensive Plan as medium density residential. The Comprehensive Plan states that at the applicant's request you can bump up one category in terms of density and they have elected to propose that and so they have proposed to go to the high density, which is R-15, which does allow, with the Conditional Use Permit, an assisted living type use. So, that is kind of how they got from an R-4 single family detached subdivision, which it originally showed this as a small little cul-de-sac with just single family lots off of it, to today's application, which is, you know, quite different than what was shown originally when this was brought into the city and was conceptually platted. There are three applications associated with it. That's the first one that we just talked about is the R-15 rezone. The second application is the preliminary plat and they are simply proposing to subdivide into two lots. This property has not been included in the final plat yet. It's section land, un-platted ground, and so this would clean that up. The lot line is generally here in the middle of the driveway where they come in and divides the property essentially in half with these independent living units on the west side and the assisted living facility on the east side, with its associated parking. And, then, the third application is -- number 16 here is the Conditional Use Permit and the reason for this is in order to place the multiple buildings Meridian Planning & Zoning i'lovembef 18, 2004 Page 61 of 64 on one lot and that's the independent living units, which are principal buildings on lot one there. So, they have in their application been very explicit with the drawings and with their amenities. The elevations are shown here of the 27 unit facility that has a combination of one bedroom and studios, as well as a dining room and some other gathering areas, maintenance, et cetera, and, then, this -- on the bottom here you can -- probably is the best elevation, you can kind of get a sense for the independent units. They do have three different types of independent living proposed. They have two attached, three attached, and four attached that they are showing a part of their project. All the materials staff looked at do compliment quite well and would be a great asset to this part of the community we believe. There were a few special conditions that Craig outlined in his report, but I think, to be honest, most of those were just kind of for your benefit to kind of give you the reason for the conditions themselves. I don't know that it's really necessary to highlight those. There is really no outstanding issues as far as compliance with the code. They are not requesting any exceptions to the ordinance. There is no variances involved. The landscaping is, actually, already here along Meridian Road and they are just proposing to keep that. So, you know, I think there is -- most of the issues have been dealt with. The one thing I will point out that the parks department, as you might have seen, stated that they were okay -- there is a concrete ditch that runs along the - in Settler's Park in the city property along the south side there and the applicant has talked with Doug Strong, the parks director, about removing that concrete ditch and he's comfortable with that. The main reason for that, they are proposing a couple of points of access from their property onto the pathway that runs through Settler's, if you have been out there, is a perimeter pathway that runs around the park and that would link up here to this project in a couple of spots. The fire department has asked for a hydrant to be located in the center here as well. They had a little bit of concern with just being able to get full access around the 27 unit facility and they wanted a little better approach in terms of fighting fire from the inside there, so I think I'll end staff comments with that. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to add anything? Pollack: Chad Pollack, I'm representing Peterson Staggs on behalf of Plantation Properties, LLP. Appreciate the kind words that staff made and agree with everything that is in the report and we'd feel free to answer any questions that any of you might have. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I just have one question. Did you have any of the people in the property around this development approach you with any concerns while you were drawing the plan up and -- Pollack: While we -- we had a neighborhood meeting, we had no attendance. However, we did have one person call and ask a few questions of the operator of their other facility and was agreeable to everything that was discussed. I don't think that the term assisted living was understood through the person calling, so once it was Meridian Planning & Zoning I'lovember 1 8, 2004 Page 62 of 64 explained to her, what the facility was, she was agreeable to it and, obviously, there were no letters sent again, so assuming that they understand and agree. Rohm: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Usually this type of development brings in a crowd. Rohm: Well, that was my point is there is nobody out here, except the -- Pollack: Well, I'm surprised a little bit myself that we didn't see at least a few people or have a few letters, but where this site is and the fact that it borders the park and is across the street and is well landscaped, bermed, and already has a fence around it, I just think that it's a great location for a facility like this and it's going to be a great compliment to the park and the community. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Did you notice the fire department comment that all residents must be capable of self-preservation? Is that acceptable? Pollack: It is. The type of care facility that this is is not what would technically be called a fLJII blown nursing home. The applicants -- or the people living there go to what's called a type three as far as their level of needing assistance. If you have anything specific, I have the owners of the property here who also run other facilities here in the valley, if you have any specific questions about those types of -- that type of comment. Zaremba: As long as you know that requirement is there and understand what self- preservation is, that's -- Pollack: Right. Zaremba: -- that's fine with me. Let me ask just one other question if I may. Can you put the elevations back again of the large building? This elevation I think says east and that would be the one facing the street? Pollack: Correct. Zaremba: It looks like there is visual texture in that there is some ins and outs to the wall, rather than just one straight wall. Pollack: Correct. Zaremba: And windows in it. Is there any color variation to it or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning i\\ovèmber 18, 2004 Page 63 of 64 Pollack: We are proposing a hard board siding on that side and with that we have trim around the windows and at the comers that will change color. There will be paint changes, but it will be the same material along that elevation. Zaremba: Okay. Sounds pretty good to me. Pollack: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. And I'm assuming we have no other testimony; is that correct? Okay. Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have close the Public Hearing on RZ 04-014, PP 04-039, and CUP 04-048. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Nary: Mr. Chairman, just as a suggestion, since on this particular project I didn't -- I guess I wasn't anticipating that -- the Commission doesn't appear to be making changes, other than what's recommended by staff, you can pass all of those projects in one motion if you wish. Rohm: That's pretty cool. Zaremba: Can we include adjournment? I mean can we put all four? Nary: You might want to separate that one. Rohm: All right. With that being said, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-014, PP 04-039, CUP 04-048, to include all staff comments dated November 15th for P&Z hearing dated November 18th, including all staff comments. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: You had to wait a long time, but it went fast once you started. Meridian Planning & Zoning rfovelnber18.2004 Page 64 of 64 Moe: Mr. Chairman -- Zaremba: But it's not 1 :00 o'clock. Moe: -- I move we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Meeting adjourned at 10:58. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:58 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ~:t. ~ --- / 1~IO5-- DAft APP~ \.we- f ,?"",.,-; \ \:\..SIALæ \"~. ......1$fW....:.......'..~. .'R ~ 'h o.;.._:..:..~ "'I'~' -..,~.