Loading...
2005 12-15 Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina December 15. 2005 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 15, 2005, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman David Zaremba. Members Present: Chairman David Zaremba, Commissioner Keith Borup, Commissioner Wendy-Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner Michael Rohm, and Commissioner David Moe. Others Present: Ted Baird, Tara Green, Craig Hood, Mike Cole, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Keith Borup X David Moe X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Michael Rohm X Chairman David Zaremba Zaremba: Good evening, everybody. Welcome to this regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, December 15th, 2005. We will begin with a roll call of Commissioners. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Zaremba: Next is the adoption of the agenda and for those of you in the audience that may have come to make comments on them, let me run through some news that I can give you early. Items four, five, six, and seven relating to Durango Springs, the applicant has asked to withdraw that application, so when we get to that our only action will be to accept that withdrawal. Items eight, nine, and ten relating to Ellensburg Subdivision, there are three different kinds of notice they are required to give and, apparently, the applicant failed to post the property, so proper legal notice has not been given. For that reason we will continue Ellensburg to our meeting of January 19th, 2006, without talking about it. Items 16 and 17, Bryce Canyon, as we came in we received a late request from that applicant to continue it to January 19th and we will do that. And Items 18 and 19 relating to Ambercreek Sub., the ACHD report is not in, we will need to continue that one and I will -- let's see. I don't believe -- well, I'll get to that in a minute. And also Items 20 and 21, Keego Springs, they need to talk to the school district and also get the ACHD report. So, we have a definite -- okay. Durango Springs will be withdrawn. Ellensburg will be continued to January 19th. Bryce will be continued to January 19th. And I propose that we re-arrange the agenda, so that we open the Public Hearing for 18 and 19, Ambercreek first, and discuss with the applicant for the sale purpose of discussing with the applicant it being continued to what date. Then, discuss Items 20 and 21, Keego Springs, for the sole purpose of discussing what date that will be continued to. And, then, continue with the agenda starting with No.4 after that. So, I would -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 2 of 26 Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: We are not, actually, going to have those -- are we going to actually have the whole -- that applicant's not going to testify on any of those -- Zaremba: We will move their place in the agenda and solve them first. They should be short discussions. Newton-Huckabay: And we are -- okay. True, because we are just continuing them. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Do I hear any objection to handling the agenda in that order? Mae: No, Chairman. I do have one question. You said 16 and 17 we are definitely going to the 19th on that? Zaremba: Yes. That was their request to put it on the second meeting of January. That -- we will get to that discussion, but that now makes January 5th extremely full and January 19th extremely full. Mae: That's my point. Zaremba: That's what the discussion on 18, 19, 20, and 21 involves. Moe: Got you. Zaremba: Okay. That being the case, the next -- let's see. I believe we had consensus that the agenda as adopted is -- as amended is adopted. Mae: So moved. Zaremba: Thank you. Second? Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: And let the record show that Commissioner Borup has joined us. We are all here. Item 3: Consent Agenda: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 3 of 26 Zaremba: Okay. The next item is the Consent Agenda and since we have no items, we will consider that to be done with. Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 05-055 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 35.33 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Ambercreek Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - North Meridian Road and West McMillan Road: Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 05-057 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 175 single-family residential building lots and 16 common lots on 35.33 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Ambercreek Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - North Meridian Road and West McMillan Road: Zaremba: Next I would open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-055 and PP 05-057, both Ambercreek Subdivision, and the purpose of opening it is to discuss when to continue it to. If the applicant would care to come forward and identify -- do you have an opinion? Nickel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shawn Nickel, 839 East Winding Creek Drive, Suite 201, in Eagle. I apologize for speaking out of turn there earlier. We worked really hard with ACHD to try to get them to speed up their process on the review of Ambercreek. Your staff does have their staff report and we will have a final approval next week from the highway district. We would request to be put on the earlier agenda in January. And it's my understanding -- we don't have any opposition. It's a pretty straight forward subdivision. So, I don't think it's going to take all that long. I understand your agendas are starting to get very crowded, but we would just request that it be on that date, rather than the latter. Zaremba: You held a neighborhood meeting, is that why you're saying there isn't much opposition? Nickel: Yeah. There was no one there. Yeah. Zaremba: And ACHD is -- you're comfortable with what they have done? Nickel: Yes. Zaremba: Commissioners, the question is do we want to add what sounds like it's going to be an easy one to January 5th? Rohm: I think that's a good idea from the standpoint that we will get it off the case. I don't have any objection to that. Zaremba: Is staff comfortable with that? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 4 of 26 Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I am working on putting the finishing touches on the staff report now, so we can put it on the 5th if you're comfortable with that. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Commissioners, I would entertain a motion to continue Items 18 and 19 to our regularly scheduled meeting of January 5th, 2006. Rohm: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, did you second? Newton-Huckabay: I did. I'm sorry. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. So, we will hear Ambercreek on January 5th, 2006. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman, at what point will that come into the agenda? Zaremba: We have draft agendas for that and there will be a final one done. I don't know. We have, generally, been leaving it up to the clerk to when they provide a new agenda. Moe: Okay. Zaremba: I'm certain we will have it three or four days before. Mae: Okay. Item 20: Public Hearing: AZ 05-058 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 49.95 acres from RUT to a R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell - 5910 North Black Cat Road: Item 21 : Public Hearing: PP 05-060 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 201 building lots and 9 common lots on 49.95 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Keego Springs Subdivision by Todd Campbell - 5910 North Black Cat Road: Zaremba: All right. Next I would like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-058 and PP 05-060, both relating to Keego Springs and, again, invite the applicant to discuss the continuation date. This is being continued because they need to settle some things with the school district and also ACHD. And if the applicant is not here, then, I would beg our professional staffs opinion of when they think the applicant might be ready. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 5 of 26 Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I believe the applicant submitted a letter requesting continuance to the end of January, 26th or 28th or something like that. You do not have a meeting on that date, so seeings how January 5 and January 19 are pretty full, the first meeting in February -- I think it's the 4th -- is probably the best date to continue these items to. Zaremba: Any objection to that? Sounds good to me. Okay. Entertain a motion to move Items 20 and -- to continue Items 20 and 21 to our first meeting in February. I kind of thought that was the 2nd, but let me -- we don't have a calendar that goes into next year, but whatever the date is the first Thursday in February. Moe: So moved. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Item 5: Item 6: Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: AZ 05-044 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 142.19 acres from RUT to R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road: Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: PP 05-047 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 510 building lots and 26 other lots on 102.2 acres in proposed R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs South Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road: Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: PP 05-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 151 building lots and 14 other lots on 39.87 acres in proposed R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs North Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road: Continued Public Hearing from October 20, 2005: CUP 05-045 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 631 single-family detached and attached residential dwelling units and approximately 149,084 square feet of office / commercial buildings, with reductions to minimum lot sizes, frontage and setbacks in proposed R-8 and C-N zones for Durango Springs Subdivision by Providence Development, LLC - West Ustick Road west of North Black Cat Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 6 of 26 Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Now I would like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 05- 044, PP 05-047, and PP 05-046, CUP 05-045, all of which relate to Durango Springs Subdivision and I would entertain a motion to accept the applicant's withdrawal of this application. Borup: So moved. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Keep going. That's pretty good. Item 8: Item 9: Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from November 3, 2005: AZ 05~051 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 12.84 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Continued Public Hearing from November 3, 2005: PP 05-052 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 4 common lots on 12.84 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Continued Public Hearing from November 3, 2005: CUP 05-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for multi-family residential units with a request for reductions to the street frontage requirements for Ellensburg Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - northwest corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Zaremba: We have handled three things. Shouldn't we be taking a break? Okay. I would open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-051, PP 05-052, and CUP 05-047, all relating to Ellensburg Subdivision and entertain a motion to continue those until January 19th, 2006, and remind the applicant to post proper notice. Moe: So moved. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 7 of 26 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Just a question. Does the applicant know they need to do that? This is the second time they haven't posted. They do know, hopefully? Hood: I'm going to assume that they understand that the City of Meridian requires the site to be posted ten days before the hearing. Zaremba: Okay. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: May I ask staff? Joe, you have handed these out. What hearing is this for? Guenther: I'm sorry. That's for Estancia. Mae: Thank you very much. (Inaudible discussion from audience) Zaremba: Let's see. We are not in a public testimony phase. Make your comment to one of staff members if you want and, then, we will -- all right. Thank you. Okay. Now, we are getting to the point where we will deal with public hearings that we actually are going to deal with and let me begin by expressing our procedure a little bit for those of you who don't come to our meetings very often. In all cases the applicant and our professional staff have already spent quite a bit of time together, so we begin by having our professional staff give us a short presentation on where the project is and what the project is and how it relates our Comprehensive Plan and our current City of Meridian ordinances. The staff is not advocating for the project, they are merely presenting the issues that we need to consider and letting us know. Following the staff presentation we do ask the applicant to provide us a presentation where they are welcome to advocate their project, but to also explain things that they think we know about -- we need to know about and to answer any issues that the staff has brought up that they can answer. And we give the applicant 15 minutes to make that presentation. That includes any staff that they may have with them of engineers or architects or other people. Following that is the time for the public testimony and we ask that you come forward and speak on the microphone, identify yourself with your name and address, if you would, please, for the record and since it was important enough for you to come, it's important that we hear you, so, please, only speak when you're at the microphone. That way we hear you and the recorder can get everything down. If there is a person who is a spokesman for a group that -- typically that would be the president of a homeowners association or somebody else, who is going to speak instead of a bunch of people, we do give that spokesperson ten minutes and, then, we ask the other people for whom he or she spoke, just to raise their hand and say they have been spoken for. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 8 of 26 That gives the information to us in a succinct way. Certainly, if you feel you have something to add, you can step up and say it. So, individuals we give three minutes. The spokesman we give ten minutes. And, then, during that time the applicant should have been taking notes on any questions that have been raised during the public testimony and we give the applicant a final chance to come up and we give them ten minutes to conclude, answering any issues that they can answer. And, then, theoretically, we close the Public Hearing and deliberate and make a recommendation to the City Council, where there is, again, a Public Hearing. So, that's pretty much the procedure. We have this handy light system over here. If the green light is on you have plenty of time to speak. When the yellow one comes on we ask that you start wrapping it up. And when the red one is on, please, conclude. We appreciate that. Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from November 3, 2005: AZ 05-046 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 31.72 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Estancia Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - 1990 East Amity Road: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from November 3, 2005: PP 05-049 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 103 single-family residential building lots and 7 common lots on 31.72 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Estancia Subdivision by Gemstar Development, LLC - 1990 East Amity Road: Zaremba: That being said, I will open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-046 and PP 05-049, both relating to Estancia Subdivision and even though these are continued hearings, we, actually, have had no prior discussion on them, this will be our first time actually talking about them and as I forewarned you, we will begin with the staff report. Guenther: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you said, this is an annexation for 31.72 acres, approximately, in the northeast corner of Amity and Locust Grove Roads. This is, essentially, a continuation of the Bellingham Park Subdivision, very similar lot sizes for their southern most lots, as well as they will also be cooperating with the Bellingham Park homeowners association for the clubhouse, community center, et cetera. With this there is 103 single family residential lots and seven other lots. The site is currently vacant, with the exception of two large homes and the existing building site for the farm, which is located just off of Amity Road. With the Bellingham Park Subdivision we did have issues with groundwater. I'm not going to address that too much, because the applicant's engineer has cited that this site does not have problems with groundwater, even though it is in proximity to Bellingham Park Subdivision. I notice the applicant's engineer is here tonight if the Commission wishes to answer more detailed questions of him. The subdivision does connect at two points to Bellingham Park Subdivision, one point to Locust Grove Road and one point to Amity Road. These are, essentially, the collector roads that are referenced in the staff report, which are designed for no access to the points that immediately take access to Amity and Locust Grove. The other point to the west -- or to the east side, which is located -- I believe this is Barkwall Road. We have asked that as a condition to be relocated up to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 9 of 26 the north to break up this block. It exceeds the standards for block length for the City of Meridian. The applicant has cited they are in agreement to that. They will do that. As well as ACHD is not in opposition to that move. With that there is two areas that will be sewered on this. The first half of the subdivision will be sewered back to Locust Grove Road, similar to the way the Bellingham Park Subdivision was. The second half of the project will be sewered through the future extensions of the mains in Ten Mile Creek, as well as through Bellingham Park Subdivision, which is still entirely under development. To be brief, this is a very homogenous subdivision, is the word I used in the staff report. Pretty much all 8,000 square foot lots with a low density residential designation. It does come out to approximately 3.25 dwelling units to the acre, which is significantly lower than some of the surrounding areas, but is what staff would expect of an area transitioning into larger lot sizes and more rural residential types of housing units, which would be across to the west side of Locust Grove Road. It is -- like I say, it's a continuation of the low density residential units that were put -- were provided in Bellingham Park Subdivision. With that there is one large open space lot that the applicant is providing, as well as they are going to be providing the parkway standards, which is available under them to utilize for their open space. The applicant has met all of the standards of the Unified Development Code for the City of Meridian. With that I'm going to detail a couple of changes to the staff report that were -- that we caught today, which is what Commissioner Moe was referencing earlier, which is the last two pages of Exhibit D, the Finding E in Exhibit D, which is the annexation is in the best interest of the city, has changed. It was a carryover from a previous staff report, which is why I included the entire pages two and three of Exhibit D. Those will be amended. Then, there is two small housekeeping issues. On page five of the staff report, the bullet point cited that says restrict curb cuts, in there the sentence does not make sense. It's missing the word collector road system, which would be the last portion of the middle sentence. So, the middle sentence should read: These collector roads are designed with landscape lots and oriented as to allow vehicular traffic flow at the collector road system, which applies to the two lots accessing the arterial and the minor arterial roads of Locust Grove and Amity. The other portion would be Exhibit B, page one-- Zaremba: B like Bravo or D like Delta? Guenther: B like Bravo. Zaremba: Thank you. Guenther: And in Exhibit B, page one, condition number 1.1.2, just towards the end of that condition it says: The sidewalks within the buffer shall be placed as to line up with the existing buffers in neighboring subdivisions. Currently there are no existing buffers, as this entire area is under development. So, that should be just read -- take out existing buffers and add the word sidewalks. So, that they will line their sidewalks up with the other developments in the area. Just to make a little more sense of it. With that -- I can repeat those if the Commission would like. If you have got all that, I will stand for questions. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B. And, again, I will stand for questions. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 10 of 26 Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? forward. Okay. We are ready for the applicant, please. Seemed pretty straight Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you. Shawn Nickel, 839 East Winding Creek Drive, Suite 201, in Eagle, tonight representing the Estancia Subdivision. Joe, thanks, you did a good job at kind of explaining everything. There wasn't too much detail. You're all aware of the Bellingham Subdivision that's located to the north of this. When that was done we provided stub streets to the south. This will continue on the street system within Estancia Subdivision. I like to use the word transitional more than homogenous. We did do away with our standard PUD for this development and did a straight R-8 -- or R-4 application that meets the code requirements. As you recall, we did have a clubhouse, pool, and other amenities within the Bellingham Park Subdivision. These two developments will have a consistent homeowners association, so those amenities will be used for both developments. In addition, we did provide a park within the Estancia portion that will have amenities as well. Everything else, as staff stated, is pretty standard R-4. We are in agreement with the conditions of approval as submitted and revised this evening and with that I'm just going to stand for questions. Zaremba: All right. Commissioners, any questions? Your agreement probably answers the question, but you're agreeing to rearrange the stub street to the other location? Nickel: Yes. Yes. I, actually, have got some plans I will give to -- I didn't want to give them to you tonight and confuse the -- but, yes, we will redo that stub to that location. Zaremba: Okay. That's the only question I had. Commissioners? Rohm: No questions. Moe: No, sir. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. While we are getting the sign-up sheet for people who wish to testify, let me ask if there is anybody here who is a spokesman that wishes to testify on this? All right. We will wait for the sign-up sheet. Thank you. Well, we have no one signed up to speak on this issue, so if there is anybody in the audience who has determined that they have something to say that they have not signed up for, you're welcome to come forward now. In that case, there is no need for a rebuttal from Mr. Nickel. I believe we are ready to discuss and proceed. Commissioners? And when I looked through it I didn't see anything that -- Borup: Pretty straight forward. Zaremba: -- that staff had already identified and the applicant has agreed to. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 11 of 26 Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I just have one comment. That it is very nice to see a straight forward application that falls within the parameters of a particular zone without having to make any adjustments. So, to that I applaud the applicant. Zaremba: I agree with you and appreciate that as well. So, that's very nice. I believe I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearings. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 05-046 and PP 05-049. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: But I don't have the comments written down to make a motion. Newton-Huckabay: Make the changes? Borup: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: I move to recommend approval to City Council of file numbers AZ 05-046 and PP 05-049, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 15th and preliminary plat dated August 24th, 2005. Zaremba: With two typographical changes and one insertion of a page? Borup: I assume that was part of my motion as in the staff report, but yes. Zaremba: The amended staff report. Borup: Yes. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: The written staff report and the presentation tonight. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 12 of 26 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Okay. I'd like to open the Public Hearing for -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just wonder. We had a lot of folks come in after we moved all those hearings around. You might make an announcement that this is our last Public Hearing tonight and everything else has been moved. Zaremba: Yes. Let me review and we are about to have a Public Hearing on Medford Place. Durango Springs, which was Items 4, 5, and 6, has been withdrawn by the applicant. Items 8, 9, and 10 relating to Ellensburg Subdivision have been continued. We will hear those on our meeting of January 19th, 2006. Items 16 and 17, Bryce Canyon, I believe it is, has also been continued. We will hear that on our meeting of January 19, 2006. Items 18 and 19 referring to Ambercreek Subdivision, we will hear on our meeting of January 5th, 2006. And 20 and 21, Keego Springs, has been continued to our first regular meeting of February -- and we weren't sure of the date, but it's the first Thursday in February. Borup: The 2nd. Newton-Huckabay: It was the 2nd. Borup: February 2nd. Item 13: Item 14: Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: AZ 05-042 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.63 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road: Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: PP 05-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential building lots and 8 common area lots on 8.57 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Medford Place Subdivision by Dyver Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road: Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: CUP 05-044 Request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for Medford Place Subdivision that includes reductions to the minimum requirements for lot size and street frontage by Dyver Development, LLC - 3335 South Eagle Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 13 of 26 Zaremba: February 2nd. Okay. So, the actual date is February 2nd that Keego Springs has been forwarded to. So, those are items that we will not discuss tonight, if they are the ones you came for. And we have now discussed Estancia and next is Medford. All right. I will reopen the continued Public Hearing for AZ 05-042, PP 05-043, and CUP 05-044, all relating to Medford Place Subdivision and we have discussed this one prior and there were a couple issues hanging, so we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I will give you just a brief overview. It has been a couple months now since this project was before you. The application is for annexation and zoning of 9.63 acres. The previous annexation request was for an R-8 zone for the entire property. As directed by the Commission and agreed to by the applicant, the applicant has submitted a revised annexation application to zone approximately half of this site to R-15, so they can put their four-plexes within that portion that borders Eagle Road and Victory Road. Excuse me. Did I say Eagle Road? Yeah. Eagle and Victory. Okay. There are 29 preliminary plat lots proposed, eight common lots. They have also submitted a Conditional Use Permit for 22 single family homes of the 29, so seven four-plex building lots. They are asking for reductions to the minimum street frontage and lot size requirements of the zone. I did want to note, though, that this application was submitted under the old city code and the lots do now conform to both of the requested zones. So, they would not need either one of those modifications if they would have just submitted after September 15th. So, did want to make a note of that. There is a single family home and some outbuildings, as you can see from the aerial on the site today. Those are going away and they will clear the site and begin their construction. As mentioned earlier, these were continued from October 6th and December 1 st and this property is designated medium density on the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed density is 5.8 dwelling units per acre. Just a couple of changes from that original submittal back in September, when it was supposed to be heard in October. Previously, there was a stub street coming off of -- I think it was just Street Three is what it's called right now, but there is the stub to the five acre parcel here was in this location. They revised the plat. The access out to Eagle Road has been shifted to the south and the stub now has moved more northerly and stubs to the property in that general location. Staff thinks that's a good location for the stub. This person can develop with similar densities, gives them enough lot depth, about 100 feet of lot depth in the future when they develop. I'm going to jump to the landscape plan real quick. There is a micropath also proposed to the future school site. There is a future elementary school site right here. That was one of the things that we worked with the applicant on on trying to get that change into the plans. And I'm going to touch basically real quick on the tot lots and open space areas. Originally, when the street was about here, they had their open space area kind of in this general location with a tot lot around there. They moved the tot lots up in between these two multi-family buildings, which is a great location, I think, for -- get quite a bit of use there at the end of this cul-de-sac and right in kind of the heart of the multi-family. The other one is down here in what functions primarily as a drainage lot, but there is some open space and, again, another tot lot area within that. There is about 20 percent of the site that's being set aside for open space. Just a couple of changes, I guess, that the -- that was Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 14 of 26 requested at the last hearing by the applicant and that had to do with elevations and the private usable open space. The applicant has submitted some pictures of the units. I guess the thing that was asked is how these are going to look from Eagle Road or what the different sides look -- how are these going to be faced internally. Are we looking at the side or the back of a building. So, I will put those up and let the applicant maybe talk a little bit about those. I just saw them for the first time myself about five minutes ago. We'll get those on the screen for you here. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions noted in the staff report and I will stand for any questions you may have. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Mae: No, sir, Newton-Huckabay: No. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Good summary. Thank you. And we are now ready for the applicant, please. Amar: Thank you very much. My name is Kevin Amar. Address is 36 East Pine in Meridian. I'm here tonight on Medford Place. And as you recall, we did discuss this project I believe on October 16th. At that time there were two issues. One question by this body and that had to do with the elevations and the look of the rear, not only the front of the structures. And the other one had to do with legal descriptions and the zoning descriptions. The zoning descriptions, as staff mentioned, have been corrected and are appropriate, as staff used those. So, what I will focus on tonight is the actual pictures and the elevations we have and try to answer those questions, unless you have more. I don't know that there is additional information, other than what was discussed the other day. And I can briefly go over the project also. But what I have given you here is an attachment of the front elevation, which you have seen prior. And, then, stapled to that and not stapled to that, both, are some examples of rear elevations that show the private usable open space, the deck space, and how those might look. As you have looked at the project itself, the front of those -- the front page of the stapled exhibit will be the portion that is seen from -- as indicated on this colored map, Street Two. And, then, the stapled and the attached -- the attached pictures will be seen from Victory and from Eagle Road. What that will do is show some different types of elevations that -- I don't anticipate all the rear will be exactly the same, as some of the floor plans interior will be a little different. But we are trying to keep a consistent front elevation, as I had indicated before, something that looks more of a house than a four- plex. So, the type of material will be either masonite or stucco or stone or -- we are proposing to do, obviously, more of an up scale type four-plex. I don't know that I really view these as four-plexes. These are more of a unit that can be seen and lived in and look nicer than I think what the word four-plex might draw to mind. So, I guess I can go over the project a little. I don't know if there is anyone in the audience that wasn't at the previous meeting, but I will describe the project a little bit. The entire boundary will be fenced. We have worked with the school district and we have worked with the city staff to provide a pathway, as staff indicated. We also added, with the change in the road Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 15 of 26 layout, as worked out with the neighbors. That change was instigated because of the neighbors from the property to the east. They did not want a stub road that lines up with their road. They were worried about the additional traffic. So, we did work with them and with ACHD and ACHD allowed us to move that further to the south, so we can accommodate those neighbors and some of the concerns of those neighbors and because of that there was no opposition at ACHD and we, actually, were able to work with them and have spoken with them. As I stated, the entire subdivision will be fenced. The landscaping on Victory, we are going to -- we were going to concentrate on the landscaping in front of the parking areas. Obviously, there will be landscaping in the front of the buildings also. But that was one of the concerns of the neighbors. They didn't want to just see parking areas, so we will concentrate more of the trees and the bushes and the shrubs on Victory -- I'll indicate it on this map -- in here with heavier landscaping in this area, so you don't look down and see a sea of asphalt. And that was one question of neighbors and that's something we said we could work out. Also, we would try to concentrate landscaping around the trash enclosure, which will be in the rear of the project closest to Victory, but with trees and different -- different obscuring things we can hide a lot of that from view. So, with that I'll stand for any questions. Zaremba: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Mae: Yes, sir. As far as your fencing, what are you looking at on the Eagle Road side? Amar: Both Eagle and Victory will have a vinyl fence. Moe: Vinyl. Six-foot? Amar: Six foot. Yes, sir. Mae: Okay. Zaremba: You may have said this and I didn't hear it, but the upstairs balconies and downstairs patios, are they approximately 100 square feet? Amar: Yes. Well, they will be required to be 100 square feet by city code. Zaremba: That answers the question of the private -- Amar: Yes, they will be a minimum of 100 square feet. Zaremba: Okay. Just a point. One of the reasons that I or we, I think, wanted to see the elevations that would face both Eagle and the other main street is to make sure they didn't look like the back of a four-plex. There is depth texture to these, but other than that there is not much visual -- and I'm just wondering whether it would be possible to have either some rock wainscoting or a different color of -- did you say this was going to be stucco? Up like six feet from the ground on maybe just the portions that have the bay windows, so that there is some visual variety? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 16 of 26 Borup: What I tried to find with these pictures -- and I'll answer the question. What I tried to find with these pictures was something that did look similar to a house. So, the rear of a house did have -- as you stated, it wasn't just a wall. A wall of windows. So, that variation. Zaremba: Most -- around here most new fronts of houses have some decorative element that comes up and I was hoping that from Eagle these would look a little bit more like fronts than backs. Amar: Yeah. I didn't -- I guess I hadn't anticipated that, only because if there were houses back there they wouldn't typically have -- the rear of the house wouldn't look that way either. Zaremba: Am I the only one that feels that way or -- Moe: No. As a matter of fact, that's -- you stole my question, quite frankly. But, basically, a wainscot is not going to do you too much good anyway, because you're going to have a six foot high fence that's going to take care of that, but I think some -- I would, actually, like to see a little bit of relief up above to where when you're driving along you're just not seeing the same texture all the way through. You made mention earlier that you're not sure exactly whether it's going to be stucco, whether it may be stone, whether it may be masonite, you know, the cost of all three of those are so much farther apart, I mean not knowing which one you're going to use, I'm going to anticipate you're looking at probably a masonite siding, as opposed to some rock work and whatnot. I think if there was rock work in there, you know, then, that's an element that would work very well. But not knowing exactly what you're going to use, it's kind of, you know, difficult to just look at this photo here -- and I do like the fact it's got relief off the wall, there is no doubt about that. It looks very nice there. But I think it would be nice to have some other relief other than just one plain material throughout. Amar: So, this is a different thing than I have ever contemplated. We have got requirements for the front of the houses, obviously, and those require some -- they can't all be one material, they have to be a variety of materials, either siding or rock or stucco. So, I guess the question -- and I will ask it back to you, so I can get some direction maybe from this. If we provide a different material -- you know, I heard one time maybe a few feet up and, then, I heard another time that might not be enough, because you wouldn't see it due to the fencing and some of the other things that's there. So, can I ask what you're looking for or is that appropriate at this point? Borup: Could I ask a question and maybe the applicant could -- Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 17 of 26 Borup: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Looking at the elevation grade -- and I don't know how much it's going to change, but it looks like almost all of the sides along Eagle Road is lower than the elevation of Eagle Road. Amar: Correct. Well, probably half of the side along Eagle Road and the entire side along Victory. About half of the side distance on Eagle Road it will match to the same elevation. Borup: So, for quite a bit of it you're only going to be able to see the top floor, basically, anyway. Amar: Correct. That is correct. Borup: I don't know if that comes into play with what -- Zaremba: That helps me move my request closer to what Commissioner Mae was describing. Some treatment higher up on the building. I think what we are dealing with here is -- is something that we have run into on some commercial properties that are now turning the face of the building inside the property and the back is to a major arterial. This may be one of the first times we have had this discussion on a residential property and when we talk about what faces the street, you're, of course, talking about the street that the address is on. Amar: Correct. Zaremba: Which is -- if you had houses behind these, we'd all agree with that. The issue is -- this is a major entryway corridor, major arterial, and as far as the people passing by, the back is the front. Amar: Sure. I understand. Zaremba: And I think the goal of Meridian is -- is to dress that up a little bit. Now, how you do that I'm not sure I want to steer, but -- Amar: And I don't know that I was expecting you to steer, I was just trying to have more discussion, so I could answer the question a little bit. Zaremba: Yeah. Amar: So, if we took -- I'm sorry if I'm interrupting. Newton-Huckabay: No. Go right ahead. Amar: Okay. So, there is, obviously, different levels to the rear elevation. There is pop outs and -- so, if we take one pop out, if you will, on either side and put a different medium on that -- let's use the example if we use hard board siding on the majority of it, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 18 of 26 then, we put stone, stucco, something different to break that elevation up, is that -- I mean that's something we can certainly do. Rohm: I think that captures -- Zaremba: That's the kind of a thing that I was imagining. Amar: We can do that. Take one different part of the building and put a different -- different medium on that, so there is a different look. Zaremba: That's in agreement with me. Does that sound good? Moe: Very much so. I don't want to sound like we are doing design review for you for esthetics, that's not it. But we are trying to make sure that as you're going down through the corridor of Eagle Road you're not looking at one plain surface all the way through. Amar: Sure. I understand. Mae: Realizing that after a few years landscaping is going to grow and trees are going to be there and you're going to get a totally different look. I mean I would anticipate even -- possibly even in a paint scheme you could probably take care of some of that, you know, as well. I just think what we are just trying to get to is we want to make sure it's just not plain. Amar: So, if I can ask a couple more. So, if we are talking about a paint scheme or a different type of material or a different use of the same material, you can do board and back, instead of the vertical siding -- or the horizontal siding, is that -- that's something we can look at? All of those? Zaremba: And as you say, probably just on the bump out section. Amar: Sure. Or the other -- either way. Just opposite. Zaremba: Something that's opposite. Amar: Sure. Yeah. Yeah. We can do that. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Borup: Especially on the upper floor, I would assume. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I just have a question. This is the back -- this is going to be the back of the ones you're building, is that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 1 9 of 26 Amar: This is similar to. Not -- these buildings have not been built, so what I did is took pictures of different rear elevations that have been built that could be similar and that could be fitted. But I couldn't find these particular buildings built anywhere in the Treasure Valley. And that's why you don't have one particular elevation, you have four. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Are you talking, then, about this one when you say you don't think it has enough variety or -- Zaremba: That is -- that's the one I'm looking at, but also the one that has the siding I think I would feel the same about. Just something to break that up, whether it's a different color or a different material for different parts of it. Newton-Huckabay: Do you feel that way about that one? Zaremba: That one to me is the most attractive of all of them. We are talking about the one that has shutters and rock. Amar: Yeah. And that one I took for -- it's probably more of a side picture. It doesn't have any -- it doesn't have any porches or anything on the rear of it, so that would have to change a little bit just to get your private open space. Zaremba: And, then, that's really all I'm looking for is a surface treatment like that. Amar: I'm going to draw on a couple of these, if you will allow me. Zaremba: Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may have a second -- Zaremba: Mr. Hood. Hood: -- while Mr. Amar is drawing. Just -- it's a little confusing. I hope maybe in your -- in the motion that's made tonight that it's specified, because I don't -- generally we will say we approve the elevations as submitted by the applicant. What's been submitted tonight varies quite a bit. I mean some of them have shutters, some of them don't. We have got siding. We have got stucco. There is different things here. So, there is really a lot of interpretation that could be had, especially on my part being staff and they submit a building permit and I'm trying to say, well, yeah, this one complies with this, but it doesn't comply with this one. So, whatever you want to see as far as materials or elevations or what -- those types of concepts that you want to see in these buildings, I would ask you just -- put those into a condition if you feel -- and if you don't want a condition at all, that's fine, too, but just -- I would ask that you don't approve what's been submitted tonight, because they all -- all of them just vary so much one to the next that -- well, if you like one, I guess, let's approve that one generally and make some changes to the other sides of it or whatever, but they are quite different. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 20 of 26 Zaremba: Thank you. Amar: As a comment to that, I think I'll try to come up with some wording that will help us. Zaremba: Okay. And you're presently drawing something that-- Amar: Trying to at least make an example so we have an idea. And if you don't mind, I will put these on the overhead and, then, we can talk about them. Zaremba: Thank you. Amar: So, what I tried to illustrate on these drawings -- these are the two that you have. This -- thank you. So, on this elevation or this bump out and this bump out would be a different medium and what I would propose is it would be -- I'll come up with wording. I'm not going to propose it yet, until I can figure out what I'm going to say, but this medium would be different, as well as this medium. Craig, if you can go to the lower one also. So, I did the same thing on here, where this has the porch on the side, we have got the opportunity to do those in the center with a different type of material and what I would say is material shall be -- consist of masonite, stucco, brick, rock, or stone, only that it be different than the balance of the rear of the elevation. Rohm: Providing contrast. Amar: Providing contrast. Rohm: There you go. Zaremba: That works for me. Amar: So, this one also has something similar. Zaremba: Same thing. Amar: That way there is something -- it still leaves the latitude to have some different look out there, but the end result it still gives us what we are looking for. Zaremba: Let me ask staff if you can accept those pictures as guidance? Is that close enough? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think so. I mean with the record that's been provided -- if you want to provide anymore details or a certain percentage of it has to be of a varying material or color -- I mean the more detail the better, but if it's what you're comfortable with, then, I can sure work with that. Sure. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 21 of 26 Zaremba: Okay. Amar: I would hope you're not asking percentages, because I don't even know how to calculate that at this point. Zaremba: As you have drawn, one single surface at each bump out is an alternate material. Amar: Perfect. Zaremba: And I think your drawing demonstrates that. Any other questions? Rohm: No. Zaremba: Okay. Actually, Mr. Amar is the only person that signed up to speak on this issue, but let me ask again if there is anybody in the audience that has discovered something they need to tell us about this project? Hood: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: Mr. Hood. Hood: I would -- just real quickly. I spoke with Bob Aldridge this week and I -- he asked me to just go on record stating that he is supportive of the project with the new road alignment down to the south, so I forgot to mention that in my earlier staffing, so I just wanted to say that I did talk with him today and -- Zaremba: I missed who you talked with. Hood: Bob Eldridge. He's -- I believe he lives across Eagle Road from the subject property. Zaremba: And he testified the last time? Hood: He testified -- yes. Correct. He was here last time and just said his comments still apply and he likes the new road configuration. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Well, I don't believe we need Mr. Amar to make anymore comments. Commissioners? As far as I'm concerned all the questions that we had last time that caused us to continue it have been answered. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I have one question. Zaremba: Commissioner Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: Are we recommending shutters also or -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 22 of 26 Zaremba: No. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Just-- Zaremba: Although we certainly wouldn't refuse them if they were put on some of the buildings. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: But that wasn't what we agreed to, I don't think. We are not requiring them. Newton-Huckabay: Well, the vein of the conversation just got a little convoluted for me, so that's all. Zaremba: Well, the pictures on which he drew have been entered into the record. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Zaremba: And-- Borup: So, as far as modifying anything, we are talking about the exterior changes that was discussed? Zaremba: Uh-huh. Borup: And then -- Zaremba: Do the elevations face a major arterial. Borup: Right. Well, I think the applicant talked about some extra landscaping on the parking area. Do we need to include that in there, too? Just landscaping per the applicant's testimony. Because I think that is a little bit different than the landscaping plan has. Zaremba: That sounded good to me. Mae: Go for it. Borup: I don't have the wording for the siding. Moe: I don't either. Zaremba: We can decide that. The first move would be to close the Public Hearing. Is there such a motion? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 23 of 26 Rohm: I'm capable of doing that. I will make that attempt. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we close the Public Hearing on AZ 05-042, PP 05-043, and CUP 05-044. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please, say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: My sense is we are recommending approval, we are just working out some wording. Is that -- Newton-Huckabay: Well, was it a whole -- another condition? Is that what you're wanting to add? Zaremba: Yes. And the question would be where would that be added? Would that be added to the CUP or the preliminary plat? Rohm: How about site specific conditions of approval? I have been going through this - Hood: Page three of Exhibit B would probably be -- it's 1.3.8, it looks like, is the last condition for the Conditional Use Permit, so that's probably the most appropriate location. Newton-Huckabay: 1.3.8. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members, I just -- 1.3.4 talks about the elevation. You could probably just modify that one or -- or pretty much need to start from scratch, but there is a condition there talking about elevations, so I apologize, but -- Rohm: How about if we just put incorporate site elevations provided by the applicant as condition 1.3.8. Zaremba: The elevations showing a variety of material. Rohm: Right. But those -- that is what the applicant submitted. So, as long as we take his submittal -- submitted elevations, then, I think we are covered. Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm, I think if you do that, that I would also ask that you just reference his testimony and I can work -- I can go back in and list off Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 24 of 26 the four materials that he said he'll do either this, that, or the other thing and get that in the condition as well. Rohm: Got it. Nary: Mr. Chairman, it might be assistance to staff that if you're going to use the photographs of the elevations as merely as an example, so, as Mr. Hood was stating, if another planner is looking at this, you're not thinking it has to be exactly like that, but that's just an example of what you're talking about, variety of style and texture and that type of thing. Zaremba: Thank you, Mr. Nary. I appreciate that. Rohm: All right. Cool. Zaremba: Okay. Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 05-042, PP 05-043, and CUP 05-044, to include all staff comments for the hearing date December 15th, 2005, and received December 8th, 2005, with the following changes. On Exhibit B, page three, add an item 1.3.8, the applicant is to incorporate site elevations -- incorporate site elevations provided by the applicant, which were included in his testimony and samples were submitted. Not that those will be specific to the buildings constructed, but to follow the samples as submitted. Newton-Huckabay: And will include -- Rohm: Oh. And will include items such as masonite, stucco, brick, rock, or stone. Newton-Huckabay: Sorry. Rohm: That's all right. I believe that's the end of motion. Mae: Landscaping. Newton-Huckabay: Landscaping. Rohm: I don't have anything on the landscaping. Zaremba: The applicant mentioned some additional landscaping. Newton-Huckabay: Extra landscaping on Victory and around the trash enclosure. Zaremba: Just say as per applicant's testimony. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 25 of 26 Rohm: Yes. That would be fine. Additional landscaping as per applicant's testimony. End of motion. Borup: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: AZ 05-054 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 94.05 acres of which 49.27 acres is RUT proposed R-8 and 46.30 acres is RUT proposed TN-R for Bryce Canyon Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 3935 West Franklin Road: Item 17: Continued Public Hearing from December 1, 2005: PP 05-056 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 475 single-family residential building lots and 62 other/common area lots on 94.05 acres in proposed R-8 and TN-R zones for Bryce Canyon Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 3935 West Franklin Road: Zaremba: Okay. Now we will open the Public Hearing for AZ 05-054 and PP 05-056, both relating to Bryce Canyon Subdivision and I will entertain a motion to continue those to our regular meeting of January 19th, 2006. Moe: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: And we have previously continued Items 18 and 19 of Ambercreek to our meeting of January 5, 2006. We have previously continued Items 20 and 21 relating to Keego Springs to our meeting of the 2nd of February, 2006. And, ladies and gentlemen, that is the end of our agenda. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 15, 2005 Page 26 of 26 Moe: Before we conclude tonight, I would like to point out that I appreciate your leadership this past year and it will be good see you still here in the seat, but we will miss you a little bit in your leadership from this last year. Zaremba: Well, I do thank you very much and I -- Borup: I agree with that. Newton-Huckabay: Yes. Zaremba: I congratulate the new chairman and vice-chairman and we will look forward to your leadership as well and I'm glad I will be able to participate and I would also like to wish everybody a Merry Christmas. Moe: Same here. Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:02 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APP ATTESTE'