Loading...
2006 07-20 Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina Julv 20. 2006 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 20, 2006, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm. Members Present: Michael Rohm, David Zaremba, Wendy Newton-Huckabay, and David Moe. Members Absent: Keith Borup. Others Present: Bill Nary, Sharon Smith, (Craig) Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Jenny Veatch, Justin Lucas, Amanda Hess and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay 0 Keith Borup X David Moe - Vice Chairman X David Zaremba X Michael Rohm - Chairman Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission to order and begin with the roll call of attendance. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Rohm: And I'd like to start with the adoption of the agenda and there are a few changes to the agenda this evening and before we adopt it I would like to just make note of the changes that will occur as we work our way through the agenda. The Public Hearing for the annexation and zoning of Silver Springs Subdivision will be continued to the 17th of August. The annexation and zoning for Trilogy Subdivision will be continued to August 31 st. And the annexation and zoning of South Ridge Subdivision will be continued to September 7th. Those three items, including other attachments to those projects, will all be heard on those dates. So, if there is anybody here tonight to those items, they will not be heard tonight. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? We are not going to be opening the South Ridge at all for discussion as stated in the staff report, we are just going to open it and continue it? Rohm: Open to continue it, yes. Newton-Huckabay: With no discussion? Rohm: That's correct. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20,2006 Page 2 of 34 Rohm: Okay. With that being said could I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Moe: So moved. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-015 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for retail use as determined by Development Agreement for Meridian Gateway - Walgreens by White-Leasure Development - 1601 S. Meridian Road: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-018 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a daycare facility for 6-12 children for Shelley Fournier by Shelley Fournier - 2567 N. Black Bear Way: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to move liquor license from 127 E. Idaho Avenue to 126 E. Idaho Avenue for Top Shelf, LLC by Douglas and Stephanie Beehler - 126 E. Idaho Avenue: Rohm: Okay. The first item on our agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have three items on this and the first one is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP for Meridian Gateway at Walgreens, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP for Shelley Fournier, and the third one is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP for Top Shelf, LLC. Could we get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Moe: So moved. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20. 2006 Page 3 of 34 Item 4: Continued Public Hearing from July 6, 2006: CUP 06-019 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct 10,072.5 square foot addition for company offices, truck, equipment and material storage facilities on 3.68 acres in a C-G zone for H & H Utility Contractors, Inc. by H & H Utility Contractors, Inc. - 225 West Franklin Road: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from July 6, 2006, for CUP 06-019 related to H&H Utility Contractors, Incorporated, and begin with the staff report. Hood: Mr. Chair, thank you. Did you want to run through maybe just real quick the hearing procedure that you usually do at the beginning or-- Rohm: Well, you know, I think I'll do that. Hood: If not, I can proceed, but-- Rohm: That's all right. I'll do that. And we had just talked about this about five minutes ago. Basically, for those of you that do not attend these public hearings on a regular basis, the procedure that we go through is, first of all, we have the staff present the project as it relates to city code and the Comprehensive Plan. Once the staff has made their report, then, the applicant has an opportunity to sell the project to the Commission, point out the strengths of their project, and once these two presentations have concluded, then, anybody from the audience has an opportunity to get up and speak as well. Once that portion of the procedure is concluded, the applicant has an opportunity to speak to any concerns brought up by other testimony and once that's concluded we will close the public hearing and theoretically render a decision tonight. There are occasions that we would continue it, but, generally speaking, if we have taken all the public testimony, we will decide the direction of that project at that time. With that being said, I will turn it over to our staff with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you mentioned, this is a Conditional Use Permit for H&H Utility Contractors located on the south side of Franklin Road, just west of Meridian Road. The subject site is currently zoned C-G, as are most of the properties around the subject property. There is the trailer park to the east and some other residences and the apartments further south of those along Meridian Road. Here is an aerial view of the subject property. It has -- the site has recently been used as a car dealership. Actually, I think there were two car dealers that were -- that had their license on this site. The applicant is proposing to convert this site into an equipment rental service outdoor storage and their commercial office for their building -- for their business. Here is the proposed site plan. I think I'm going to -- it pretty well speaks for itself. I'm going to touch on a couple of things, I guess, in the staff report. One is the landscape buffers. As I mentioned, there are residential uses to the east, which is down on the site plan here, but to the east there are residences. A variance was previously approved on this site to allow that buffer along this property line adjacent to the parking lot to go down to ten feet. Staff is recommending that additional Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 4 of 34 landscape materials be placed within that substandard buffer, the variance approved buffer, to provide a better screening of the residential uses to the parking lot on this site. Also, along the frontage of Franklin Road a 20 foot wide landscape buffer has been constructed and previously reviewed and approved by the city as well with no changes, but I thought I would touch on the existing land use there to the east side. In the staff report it is talked about there are gates to the back side, essentially, of the storage side of the use here. The large parking area will be paved, striped with parking, planters are installed, all landscaping, et cetera. Then, when you get to the backside of the gates, this will be at least improved with recycled asphalt or some other dust abatement material to keep the dust down within that storage area. I think the only real issue -- I did talk with the applicant just before the last hearing. I have not touched base with him in the past couple weeks. The only thing that 1'm aware of that was an issue is the perimeter fencing. There are -- some of it is existing. There is an existing chain link fence with slats adjacent to the RV park that is just to the south of this site. They are proposing to install a six foot solid fence around the perimeter of their storage area. The staff report in condition 1.3 of Exhibit B talks to constructing a six foot tall solid fence around the perimeter of the outdoor storage area, which the applicant is proposing to do. It goes on, though, to state that no equipment shall be stored above the screening fence and all equipment shall be fully screened from view. That's the part that the applicants discussed with me. I think they have a fleet of trucks -- I can't remember how many is in the feet, but they stand somewheres in the neighborhood of 13 feet tall, just their trucks. In this zone you would be allowed to construct up to an eight foot tall solid fence, screening fence, and that's allowed by ordinance. I'm not quite sure how you want to approach the storage of the fleet vehicles any differently than the materials that are stored on site, but that is just a concern. I'm sure the applicant will touch on that some more for you and I just wanted to get you thinking about it anyways. They are converting some of the existing buildings. There is an existing building here and I think I have got the -- yeah, this is the -- the front view. So, if you are looking at the site from Franklin Road straight on, this will be an addition that they are building to -- on the north side of that existing building for some office and some shop area. There are some other existing buildings and future proposed buildings on the site. I think [ will let the applicant maybe touch on some of those if they choose. And I will stand for any questions you may have. Rohm: Thank you, Caleb. Any questions of staff? Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: Caleb, basically, in your summary -- you may have already touched on this and I might not have heard you, but it is noted that along with them operating their business here, they are also going to have an equipment rental area in this facility as well? Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moe, that's not exactly true. What they do is they rent - - they rent their services out more than anything. It's not an equipment rental facility, it, Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 5 of 34 essentially, functions more like a contractor's yard. However, they are kind of a hybrid use that mixes a little bit and we -- the director has determined that this is an outdoor storage sales rental facility and those are a Conditional Use Permit in this zone. So, not for sale necessarily to the public or for rental to the public, but some in between use. Moe: Okay. I just wanted some clarification there based upon a rental facility that we had here a few meetings back and the restrictions we put on that project. So, thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? McKeegan: My name is Patrick McKeegan, I'm the architect representing H&H Utilities in this Conditional Use Permit that's before you and representatives from H&H are also here and would like to reserve some time for them if they want to embellish any of my comments. As indicated, the -- H&H Utility is a heavy utility contractor. Their primary customer is Idaho Power, so all those big trucks you see driving down the road with the booms on them and stuff, that is, basically, what they -- what they do. The good news is they are busy enough that most of those trucks are not here. It's kind of hard to drive those allover the state and bring them back every time, so most of those are left on site. The only vehicles and equipment that are really left here on the stuff that is not currently being used. So, at any given time you're not going to have a yard full of 60 vehicles, you're going to have, you know, three or four vehicles, maybe a few trailers and that sort of thing. The reason I'm bringing that up is in regards to the height issue is that if you think about how tall a six foot fence is and you think about other things that would be behind that, a standard four wheel truck is over six feet high. So, in theory, we couldn't even have a four wheel drive pickup there. What we would propose is to keep - - when we do have material or trucks that are there, that would be an excessive height, is to keep those away from the perimeter of the building and store them up -- or perimeter of the site and store them up closer to the buildings and stuff. You also see on there that we are proposing in the future some enclosed storage for those -- for those vehicles, just basically when they are there, to keep them out of the sun and protect them in the winter, so they aren't getting iced up and that when they are there. We don't know if that's going to become an absolute. It's basically we are going to see how the project develops over time. We wanted to bring in -- I advised the clients that if they wanted to do it, it was a good idea to bring it before you, so at least it's there, it's on the table, it's been acknowledged and we don't have to be coming back and asking for things on a piecemeal basis. I'd like to address some of the -- the conditions of approval as it relates to the application and the first one is item 1.2 concerning the landscape buffer to the residences on the -- on the east. We were just out at the site before the hearing began, because I wanted to refresh myself of what was actually there, because my recollection when I was out measuring where the trees were and where that fence was, is that I was in some pretty dense stuff and if you go and look at the property, if you go to the property and you look towards the east from our property, what you will find is for about the first two-thirds of that front area where the residents are, where the current parking lot is, is there is already on their side -- on their -- there is Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 6 of 34 already an existing six foot wood fence. On the other side of that wood fence they have planted mature vegetation that is anywhere from -- you know, I'd estimate from ten to 12 to 14 feet high. On our side of the fence all along there we have planted vegetation -- or the previous owners planted vegetation, which is now in a mature state. So, you have pine trees you have evergreen trees that are literally reaching their -- you know, they have six or eight years of growth on them and they are actually starting to touch each other. So, to come in and put any additional trees between them, they are already at, you know, 20 feet on center. To put trees in between those are really not going to be of any benefit, because they won't grow and that. Because we are putting in the -- the six foot wood fence, we'd request that, you know, we might put in some lower landscape materials, but, again, it's not going to benefit the neighbors, because they have so much landscaping on their side and they have a fence on their side that they really aren't -- it isn't really going to -- to benefit or screen them. So, we would just ask that maybe we have some flexibility to work with staff on a one-to-one basis on what they determine is appropriate and fair once we get the -- once we get the fence up and they can look at the other side of the -- of that fence and see what's already there. And so we aren't -- you know, I don't want to put in any plants that are just going to die or just putting in plants to have plants in there. What's there I think is mature. We don't show them at full maturity here, they are really much larger than what's there. These things are probably -- you know, most of them are four to five inch caliper trees that are -- you know, have a canopy of 16 to 18 feet. Regarding the parking lot and all of the -- and the landscape islands and that, we are showing 38 parking spaces on site. We are only required to have 21 and so what we would request is that we be -- just provide the minimum amount of parking. We really don't even need that many, because the people -- they come -- usually they are going to work where the equipment is and not coming to on site. They may come to pick up materials and stuff, but, generally, they are driving their personal vehicles to the -- to the work site and, then, working and, then, going home. There is not going to be even a need for it. We will never use the 21 vehicles on the site. So, we have requested the condition be modified to where we can -- we provide the 21 spaces that are required by the ordinance and we landscape those in accordance with the ordinance and, then, the rest of the lot would just remain the vacant stripped area. To that means, the -- on the west side there is two islands showing there. There is, actually, a third one that goes back beyond where the existing fence is and we would request that we be allowed to leave that fence back where the face of the existing building is -- I'm going to point that out. Which is pretty much along this line. There is an existing -- there is an existing planter here and that would give us 18 spaces along here and the landscape -- the landscape planters there are eight foot six inches wide and already have trees in them and, then, we just provide two spaces in front of the building for our -- one for our handicap access and, then, one for a visitor's space and we would put some landscape islands there. Again, there is a -- we don't want to, you know, have to build the islands for the -- just because we are adding additional parking. We don't want to run -- have the expense of doing that. The six foot tall solid perimeter fence, that's really not a problem. We are already extending that down the -- down the east and the west property lines. What I'd like to do is give an exhibit that shows a photograph that was taken today of the back area and, then, once you've had a chance to look -- I'm going to circulate that, then, you can -- I'll discuss that. What that Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20. 2006 Page 7 of 34 photograph shows is our chain link fence -- existing chain link fence in the foreground and, then, there is about a six foot wide irrigation canal which is overran with brush and shrubs and that, which is not on our property. And, then, beyond that is the fence that was constructed by the RV park behind us. Because of the difference in elevation that fence for the RV park -- it actually sits about -- in relation to our elevation the top of that actually sits about seven to seven and a half feet above our grade. It's probably six feet above their grade. But you can look through and you can see where they -- they built up that part of the property primarily to -- I think, probably, to hold any irrigation water and also for their drainage. As you can see, that fence already has vinyl slats in it. What we would like to propose is on the -- on that south property line -- is in lieu of taking down our chain link fence and, then, building another wood fence or solid vinyl fence, which is going to completely encase the weeds that are there, would be is to allow us to take our -- our fence down, tile the drain ditch -- enclosed drain ditch and, then, get the weeds out of there and have something that we can -- that we can maintain and the vinyl fence, again -- it's about seven feet above our property. It would, then, provide screening from the -- from the residential side. Again, just a way of not having to build redundant fences and having this no man's land in the middle that is going to become a -- could potentially be a problem in the future and we think that the vinyl slats will, you know, provide the same intent as the wood or the vinyl. Just wanted to clarify item 1.4 is that they are going to do routine maintenance on their vehicles, which is things like, you know, lubrication and oil filters, stuff like that, but it's not a service shop in the sense of they are not going to be, you know, even changing -- they are not going to be changing tires, they are not going to be replacing batteries, they are not going to be taking parts off and rebuilding components. If they -- these trucks are leased and they are very expensive. If they need that stuff done they will send them down to a shop and have it done. This is just for like routine stuff, washing them off and the routine things like you do on your automobile, but it's not intended to be a service garage or anything like that. The final thing I would like to address is the -- under fire department -- fire department comments, I was out before the hearing measuring location for the fire hydrants and stuff and what we found is directly across the street from our property there is a fire hydrant. However, if you measure from that fire hydrant down to our property, the 400 feet mentioned in the item 3.7 ends up between the back of the two existing buildings. So, what we'd like to do is we are going to -- there is the statement there, it says on site fire hydrants and main shall be provided where required by the code officials. So, what we would like to do is we are going to meet with the fire marshal and see if he -- if he wants us to place one on our side of the street, which would, then, place -- would give us the 400 feet to the back of the furthest building or if he will let the ones that are there go. But I just wanted to let you know that we are -- we have read that and we are acknowledging it and we are going to work with the fire marshal on the location of that. And at this time I'd stand for any questions or -- do you have anything you want to add? And I will be available for questions after Mr. Heath. Heath: My name is Gordon Heath, 9700 Cartwright Road in Boise, Idaho, is where I live. And Janie and I own H&H Utility Contractors. I just wanted to say that on the fencing, we have a lot of newer Idaho Power type trucks, they have digger derricks with booms on them, they are all white, and they do stick above the six foot fence. That's Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 8 of 34 one thing, we just wanted to make sure that you understood we are not piling things or doing anything else. When we pull a truck in there, you can see the top of it I'm sure and we are constructing a new six foot fence around the property now. Actually, six and a half feet. And the other thing -- if you understand that. Then, the other -- the only other issue I had about the ditch in the back is that that ditch is dead. No one on the other side is using it anymore and there is pressurized irrigation over there and that other ground is going to be developed and so the water runs in our lot. So, if we didn't have that ten foot distance between us and the next new fence and we could maintain that and control those weeds. We can't get in there with anything now and it runs over on our place. So, that's what the picture was for. And thank you. McKeegan: Okay. Anybody have any questions? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Mr. McKeegan -- McKeegan: Yes, sir. Zaremba: -- the area between the two fences, do you know who has ownership of that? McKeegan: We have not done a survey on our property. It's appears from where all the fence lines and everything, that our fence line is probably set in about a foot into our property. If you look at the -- at the residential trailer court next door -- Zaremba: Uh-huh. McKeegan: -- at that location their fence projects to the south about a foot and, then, heads -- and, then, heads east. There is a fence that goes from that location that goes - - that goes south and, then, approximately six to -- I didn't measure it -- six to ten feet is where the park -- the fence for the new RV heads in an east-west direction. And I am presuming that they just placed it there because they did not -- the irrigation ditch was there and they didn't know if it was on theirs. I don't know if it's been surveyed. But we are -- based on how -- we haven't surveyed it, so I don't know exactly where it is at. Before we probably did anything to anybody else's property we'd probably want to -- want to find out if it is an easement or if it is part of our property or if it's their property and, then, they grant us an easement to go on there and maintain it. But I certainly -- we just found out about this. Zaremba: If something needs to be done and can be done, you would do it? McKeegan: Yeah. We'd work with them and meet with them and do whatever we need to do. I'm sure they won't complain about us getting rid of a fire hazard behind their -- behind their fence. And if it turns out to be that it's on our property, then, it's an issue. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 9 of 34 Zaremba: But if you can get an easement for it and maintain it, that would probably-- McKeegan: Yeah. Zaremba: If it keeps water off of your property, that's probably worth it to you. McKeegan: Exactly. Yes, sir. Zaremba: Second question, if I may. And perhaps Commissioner Moe was going to ask this, but we were thinking the same thing about the property down street that is a rental and I think I have heard that you are going to have vehicles that have lifts and things like that, booms or whatever. McKeegan: Yes, but they will be -- Zaremba: Cherry pickers or -- McKeegan: Yeah. They will be in the down position. Zaremba: The restriction that we placed on the other property was that they must be retracted at all times when they are -- McKeegan: Yes. Zaremba: -- on the site and would be comfortable with that same restriction? McKeegan: Okay. I'll have Mr. Heath -- yes, that would be acceptable, although, you know, occasionally we would have to raise a boom to unload something and that, but it wouldn't be like where you have a lift thing up there with a flag on it that says -- Zaremba: If it's physically in use I think that wouldn't be a problem. McKeegan: Right. But normally it's not -- yeah, they would want to keep them down -- locked down anyway, so I don't see that being a restriction. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Then, one other question. I forget whether you mentioned item 1.7 in the planning department requirement, conditions of approval on Exhibit B, but it says that the -- material shall be used and said that the applicant will propose what they are going to use during this hearing. McKeegan: Or with the CZC submittal. I'm sorry, 1'm not being flippant, but I -- I just actually noticed that tonight when I was -- before I came here and we hadn't had a chance to talk about it, so we were -- we haven't looked at our options yet, but I think we -- Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 1 0 of 34 Zaremba: You're aware of that requirement? McKeegan: We are aware of the requirement and we will agree to do what we need to abate it. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Commissioner Moe, did you -- Commissioner Zaremba took your question. He's like that, I tell you. Okay. Thank you. McKeegan: Thank you. Rohm: There is no others signed up for this project, but at this time if there is anybody that would like to come forward and speak, now is the -- now is your time. Seeing none, discussion? Moe: Caleb, I'm curious of your opinion in regards to the landscaping on the east side in regard to the explanation. I mean I assume you guys probably didn't go out there and look at it before you -- you did go out there? Okay. Was that coming from the city forester or whatever for requirements or -- Hood: No. The UDC requires that on this site -- and you can take into account, you know, other properties when buffering a property, but it requires it to be on the more intense site. There is nothing saying that the trailer park can't take down the landscaping that's on their side and, then, you're left with materials. It is fairly dense. I guess this condition -- it probably only entails a couple few arborvitae. The way the code reads is that at maturity you need to have a full screen to your property line, essentially. So, it's a pretty fairly full landscape buffer along there. Granted, it's been awhile since I have looked at it, but if the applicant was out there today and it's going to take -- we don't want them to die either. I mean we are not looking for a temporary -- throw some trees in here and they are going to kill each other off. I mean we want a permanent screen for that site with landscaping and I don't think it's anything too cumbersome. Like I said, it may just entail just a couple of additional plantings and we are there. What I do have a little bit more heartburn over, if you will, is the -- them wanting to change the site layout and only do 21 parking stalls and some of those being behind the gate and really changing the flavor that was proposed with this Conditional Use Permit. In the C-G zone we are kind of -- we are right on that line, I think, of saying you're not a contractor's yard, this is what you are, and you can even go in here. Now, with wanting to, you know, not even improve the parking lot that's adjacent from Franklin Road, a major street through the city, I have some real concerns over what's been proposed here during testimony tonight know the site plan -- no revised site plan has been provided to staff, it's just something that at this hearing they are proposing to do and, again, I have some serious concerns over that request. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 11 of 34 Rohm: SO, are we to conclude from that that you want them to put the number of parking stalls that were part of the original proposal? Hood: Mr. Chair, it's not necessarily the number of parking stalls, it's more the improvement made to the front of the building and if it's 37, 21, 50 parking stalls, the number of parking isn't important. What is important, I think, is that we can get a user that can come -- should they stay -- I hope they stay for many years here and they are very successful. But should they leave, that we can have another C-G user jump in there and not have to construct a new parking lot, that it is constructed so that someone else that maybe does need a couple more than what's required by ordinance, which I think anyone will tell you is very very low, you aren't going to find any commercial users that are providing one per 500. But you can have a site that is transferable in the future should they decide to leave. And, again, with Franklin being so visible, I think that's -- that's an important aspect to this site. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Caleb. Would the applicant like to come back up, please? And it can be you, Gordon, or your representative, it doesn't make any difference. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, can I make a comment first? Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: I would like to see also a revised site plan, because as he went through his explanation of what would or wouldn't be there, I wasn't really able to follow and visualize that. So, although I'm very much in favor of seeing something go into this particular -- where this car lot used to be, I would like to get a little better visual on what they are talking about regarding the parking proposal, because I'm not seeing it when you're just discussing it. Heath: Really, I don't see anything in that drawing that we don't already have, to be honest about it. One deal here. I believe that's the only divider that's missing is this -- and, then, these two, I guess. So, it's probably not a big deal. It wouldn't be a big deal to put them in, it's just -- we got an acre of parking and we don't have that many people parking there. There already is good vegetation stuff -- this is a fence where there is good vegetation. We are putting up a new six foot fence around here, between us and the bar, and there is vegetation and already planters in here last from the people. This doesn't extend probably out this far, but other than that it's -- I think we could live with it. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. What I was looking for there is a commitment from the applicant that they would go ahead and go along with the findings of the staff report as it related to the parking and it sounds like they are in agreement with that and so I think the issue of the landscape buffer to the east is maybe a little bit less in question, but I think -- again, the fact that there is an existing buffer there currently and as long as they fill in those gaps between the existing trees, so that at such time that it's fully matured, that that would be Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 12 of 34 a complete screened buffer, I think that it works for me. Any other discussion? Commissioner Moe? Moe: Not really. Quite frankly, I -- the project is very nice. I'm glad to see something different going in there. I think it's going to be a definite plus to the neighborhood over there. The only other thing I would make comment on, I guess, Caleb, is -- and when the discussion came up on the fire department under 3.7, that will be a code official from the fire department making that call anyway, it's not -- so that will be done at that point; correct? Okay. Other than that, as per the staff report, I would be in favor of this project. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any final comments on this? Newton-Huckabay: Just to clarify the landscape plan, it looks like the landscape plan we have -- or the actual landscape will look like the plan. Rohm: Would you be comfortable with the applicant working with staff to fulfill that requirement? Newton-Huckabay: Yes, I would, because 1-- oh, I did have one other question. On the front -- the addition of the building, the one that's there now is particularly tall. Is this addition as tall as the current building. It isn't, is it? McKeegan: Patrick McKeegan. Yes, it's the same height. The top eave line is the same eave line as what is there. It just seemed to us to make sense to keep that eave line, rather than trying to drop it down and have that little band of metal stuff to deal with. It's a cleaner way to flash off the roof and everything to prevent -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I'm thrilled. I think that big metal yellow gold building is very ugly. So, thank you. Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I actually have a question for Mr. Hood and that is the closer I look at this landscape discussion -- I'm on Exhibit B, paragraph 1.2, the third bullet. Landscape planter shall be added to and modified within the proposed internal parking lot. Are you meaning what would be south of the fence or -- by internal I'm thinking not the area along Franklin. Hood: I believe -- and -- Zaremba: My first interpretation -- we were only talking about the Franklin fronting parking lot, but the word internal would lead me to think differently. Hood: A couple of things are going on here, I guess. First, the planters are okay. What isn't there -- a tree is required in this area here. The other thing -- and I can't remember Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 13 of 34 if this is the case or not, but the new planters need to be five feet wide inside curbs and I think there is enough of -- I'm sorry, the scale I just can't see well enough. And I know they come spaced apart -- there is plenty of planters. I just -- like this one here -- these ones here I think are substandard and don't contain a tree. So, by ordinance a tree would be required in those as well to kind of call out the planters and to break up that asphalt paving and so -- Zaremba: Well, I think as both you and some of the Commissioners have said, I support that, but my question actually is trying to clarify both for myself and the applicant, you don't mean planters and -- Hood: No. No. Zaremba: But that's what I was thinking of as internal. Hood: I'm sorry. Zaremba: That's not what we are asking for. Hood: In the parking lot area. I'm sorry. Zaremba: Okay. Hood: So, everything from in front of, essentially, the gates. Zaremba: Okay. Hood: And the building. Sorry. Zaremba: Works for me. Rohm: Okay. Thank you, Caleb. Could we get a motion to close? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-019. Moe: Second Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-019. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: I will take it, you can correct me if you wish. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number CUP 06-019, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 6, 2006, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval. On Exhibit B, paragraph 1.3, I would add a Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 14 of 34 sentence to the end of that saying that all lifts, extensions, risers, et cetera, shall be fully retracted to their down position while stored on the premises. Then, in paragraph 1.7 on that same page, I would modify the last sentence to say: The applicant shall work with staff to find some agreeable dust abatement and will finalize that before the CZC submittal. And I further move to direct staff to propose an appropriate findings document to be considered at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing of -- not this one. Newton-Huckabay: What about item 1.4? The applicant -- when it clarified that they do intend to do routine maintenance and et cetera? Do we need to make a change to that? Zaremba: Okay. On 1.4 -- Newton-Huckabay: Craig said we were okay. Zaremba: I would add to that -- in automotive terms there is a difference between minor maintenance and major maintenance. If we said -- if we added a sentence to that that said minor maintenance may be conducted. That doesn't include repairs or -- Hood: It would make me maybe a little bit more comfortable if it says on the fleet vehicles or vehicles -- the intent behind that condition is they are not bringing in other things -- Zaremba: Outside business. Hood: Correct. So, some language like that. Zaremba: All right. So, on paragraph 1.4 I would add a sentence that says it is permissible for them to do minor maintenance on their own vehicles. Is that what you were thinking? Okay. If that's acceptable, then, finishing the motion: I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on August 3rd, 2006. Moe: Sir, would you also note that the hearing was continued to the 20th of July? Zaremba: Oh, yes. The reason for changing that date is that this hearing was continued to this date from an earlier hearing. Hood: Mr. Chair, maker of the motion, can I ask one point of clarification. The applicant asked me to ask you -- the fencing along the north boundary -- and I guess it's kind of an odd time to do this, but I didn't chime in on that, so -- there is no required buffer between those uses, they are both zoned C-G, so by ordinance there would not be any required screening fencing to that site. So, if the applicant's agreeable to possibly entering into a license agreement with Nampa-Meridian or is willing to do what they can to keep the weeds down, however, you want there, I don't -- that was their question is Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 15 of 34 are they required, because the condition right now requires a six foot solid fence on their property line. So, just to address it, anyways, would be -- Zaremba: We are talking about Exhibit B, paragraph 1.3, which says construct a six foot tall solid fence around the perimeter, meaning the entire perimeter. We didn't discuss that. I personally would be willing to go with the applicant's suggestion. If they can discover that they own it all or if they discover somebody else does and they can have a maintenance easement or something like that. I have no problem with them taking their fence down. Moe: I have no problem if, in fact, they do that other property that -- Zaremba: Or can get a maintenance easement. Moe: Exactly. Zaremba: If somebody will let them maintain it, even if they don't own it. Okay. So, let's incorporate into paragraph 1.3, the first sentence, construct a six foot tall solid fence along the east and west perimeters of the outdoor storage area. New sentence following that sentence exactly, applicant may remove the existing chain link fence across the south boundary and maintain the area from there to the neighbor's fence, if either the applicant can find that they own that piece of property or can get an easement to maintain it from whoever does own it. Then that paragraph continues on with what's already there, plus the sentence I added at the end. So, the question is do we need to restate the motion or can I just add that to it? Rohm: I think that it should have been captured in -- in its entirety, so I think we can move forward. Zaremba: The intention is to have all of those elements that were discussed included in the motion. Rohm: Could we get a second? Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we approve CUP 06-019 to include all staff report and the aforementioned amendments to that staff report. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you for coming in. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rohm: Before we open the next Public Hearing there are people here now that weren't here when we started the meeting and there are three projects that are going to be continued and they are Silver Springs Subdivision to August 17th, Trilogy Subdivision to Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 16 of 34 August 31 st, and South Ridge Subdivision to September 7th. So, anybody that may be here to hear anyone of those three items, they will not be heard tonight. Item 5: Public Hearing: MCU 06-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit Modification for residential home built two feet into five foot setback (sold prior to discovery of mistake) for Fulfer Subdivision No.5 (Lot 4, Block 5) by Russell Dunstan - 2593 W. Ditch Creek Drive: Rohm: With that being said, I'd like to now open the Public Hearing on MCU 06-001, Conditional Use Permit modification for Fulfer Subdivision No.5, Lot 4, Block 5. And begin with the staff report. Veatch: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This application is for a modification of a conditional use. It's located here on Ditch Creek in the Fulfer No.5 Subdivision. The exact address is 2593 West Ditch Creek and it's Lot 4, Block 15. This is a residential area. The home here has already been built and it was discovered after several inspections had gone through and passed, that the applicant had been given the wrong plat. The plat that he was given was a 76 foot width and the house specifications were built to that and, then, it was discovered later on that it is a 74 foot width and so the house has been built two feet into the five foot setback. The original Conditional Use Permit was through Havasu Subdivision back in 2003 and City Council approved that. It is, though, within your jurisdiction to modify that CUP without it having to go back, then, to City Council. I just wanted to clarify that. The applicant will be also applying for a vacation of the easements of that two feet and the neighbors have submitted a letter saying that they are not opposed to the encroachment into the setback between the home. It still meets fire code for the building department as it stands. And if you have any questions I will be happy to answer them. Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just one and this may include Mr. Nary possibly. On page two of the staff report, paragraph 5-B, you made it clear that this Commission can hold a Public Hearing and approve it, but I would like Mr. Nary, who is our legal department, to clarify that we can change the wording. Veatch: This actual sentence was carried over from a previous report and so it may be modified or completely eliminated. Zaremba: Okay. With Mr. Nary's approval, I would modify the end of that sentence to say a Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. I'm watching him for a nod of the head. Hood: I may well -- while legal counsel is reviewing that, the first part of that sentence I think is key, because it refers to a miscellaneous application, which this is not. So, if you're going to modify it, you should modify the first part of it, too, to say a modification Meridian Planning & Zoning Jury 20, 2006 Page 17 of 34 to a Conditional Use Permit, because that is, actually, referencing another type of application altogether. Zaremba: Let's make that change, too. B is changed to say a modification to Conditional Use Permit at the beginning and the end is a Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Nary: And, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, that probably is the critical amendment, because a development agreement would have to be amended by the City Council, a Conditional Use Permit does not. The implementation of the Uniform Development Code allows this Commission to, then, make those final decisions on Conditional Use Permits, so, therefore, you can hear this and make that modification. Zaremba: Great. I appreciate that. I just didn't want somebody to read the record ten years from now and say we didn't do it right. Rohm: Okay. Good. With all that being said, would the applicant like to come forward, please. Dunstan: Hi, I'm Russell Dunstan on behalf of the owners, the Keltons, and myself, I'm going to ask that you guys would approve this and answer any questions you might have. Rohm: Could we get you to state your address, too, please? Dunstan: Oh, I'm sorry. 17 South Dewey Lane, Nampa. Rohm: 1'm not sure I have any questions. It's a pretty cut and dried application for -- Dunstan: But I'm here anyway. Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Dunstan: Thank you. Rohm: Is there anybody -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? I'm comfortable with staff's assessment. The building was built in good faith and that the applicant and owner shouldn't have the penalty of having to move it. I'm in favor of approving this. Rohm: Okay. Before we move forward, is there a Russell -- Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 18 of 34 Rohm: Are you Russell? Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. Zaremba: I'm sorry, I didn't wait for public testimony. Rohm: Well, that's all right. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. Thank you. You're on, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I have said my opinion. Rohm: Okay. Good, Then, could we get a motion to close the Public Hearing, if nobody else has comment? Zaremba: So moved. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: Moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on MCU 06-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number MCU 06-001, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 20, 2006, with no modifications to the conditions. I further move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate findings document to be considered at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on August 3rd, 2006. Rohm: Could I get a second? Newton-Huckabay: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, wait. Zaremba: We may have discussion. Newton-Huckabay: Did you have to like strike the -- Zaremba: Well, the change that I suggested isn't in the conditions -- Newton-Huckabay: Oh, it's not a condition. Zaremba: -- for the applicant. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, got you. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 19 of 34 Zaremba: Really, just in the documentation. And I believe that change has been made, so -- Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the MCU 06-001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 06-029 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed - south side of McMillan Road and west of Locust Grove Road: Public Hearing: PP 06-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential lots and 4 common I other lots on 9.88 acres in a proposed R-4 zone Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed - south side of McMillan Road and west of Locust Grove Road: Rohm: Thank you, sir. Okay. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06- 029 and PP 06-029, both for the sole purpose of continuing them to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 17th. Could I get a motion to that effect? Newton-Huckabay: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we continue AZ 06-029, PP 06-029, to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 17th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Item 9: Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 06-028 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.43 acres to an R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) zone for Touchstone Place Subdivision by Horizon Development - 1187 East Fairview Avenue: Public Hearing: PP 06~028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2 residential lots (proposed to contain 48 Multi-Family units) and 2 common lots on 4.43 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Touchstone Place Subdivision by Horizon Development - 1187 East Fairview Avenue: Public Hearing: CUP 06-021 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi-family development consisting of 48 multi- family dwelling units (8 plexes) on 2 lots totaling 4.43 acres in the Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 20 of 34 proposed R-15 zone Touchstone Place Subdivision by Horizon Development -1187 East Fairview Avenue: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-028, PP 06-028, and CUP 06-021, all related to Touchstone Place Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Lucas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. As stated, this application refers to a parcel located on Fairview Avenue, south -- south of Fairview Avenue. It's about approximately 1,300 feet west of Locust Grove Road and it's currently zoned in Ada County, R-1 M. It's an L-shaped parcel, so it has a small access on Fairview and, then, goes back and gets large in the rear -- to the rear of the property. As you can see, it's mostly surrounded by land zoned R-8 in the city limits, but there are also a couple parcels that are adjacent to this property that is zoned C-G and also the property across Fairview were also zoned C-G. The City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel as -- in the commercial district, but -- and the applicant's requesting a zone of R-15. The commercial district in the definition in the Comprehensive Plan does allow for multi-family development in the commercial district for the Comprehensive Plan, so staff finds that it is consistent with that definition. We can move on to the site plan to get a better idea of exactly what the applicant is proposing. Here is the -- we will start -- actually, this is the -- the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat includes two buildable lots. As I said, this is a multi-family development, so there is only two buildable lots with multiple units on each lot. The access is off of Fairview Avenue and it continues through this -- through the two lots and connects with the existing Sandlin Avenue in the Danbury Fair Subdivision. We can move on to the site plan to get a better idea of what is proposed here. The applicant is proposing 48 multi-family units in eight-plexes, so it would be six eight-plexes on this site and each of the eight-plexes proposes to have -- well, all but one of the eight-plexes has underground -- or garage parking on the bottom floor and, then, detached garages for -- to make up for the other parking. And the -- one of the eight-plexes is, actually, only three stories and it has all detached parking and that's the one in the southern most piece of the property. In general staff looked at the design and it's favorable for this area and the only issues that came up as we reviewed this application were -- the first was an issue of setbacks, which on the northernmost property in the -- the lot -- the lines adjacent to the C-G zone on the north, the applicant was proposing a four foot setback and staff found that -- as consistent with the UDC, that a ten foot setback would be required on that -- in that location. And on all other property lines that setback is met or exceeded. The other issue that staff calls out in the report is a perimeter fencing being required along all exterior -- along all perimeter property lines where it is not currently fenced. As stated earlier, much of this property is adjacent to residential properties that currently have financing. So, we, obviously, wouldn't -- that would suffice. But in the areas that are not fenced we do call out for fencing on those areas. I think the applicant may also discuss that the -- there was a property boundary dispute on this -- on this site that has recently been resolved and so there may be some adjustment to the actual acreage at annexation, but that will be resolved before it goes to City Council. And I stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 21 of 34 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, just an observation if I may. The materials provided by the applicant indicate that the entry road to this project would be South Jericho Road. It does align with North Jericho Road on the other side of Fairview, but in Meridian Franklin is, actually, the dividing line between north and south, so even on this property it would be north -- North Jericho Road. In the staff report that appears on page four, paragraph L, page 11, private streets at the bottom and Exhibit B, page one, paragraph 1.1.6. And, then, throughout the applicant stuff that this would, in fact, be North Jericho Road. Lucas: Chairman and Commissioners that change will be made in the staff report. Rohm: Okay. Thank you for that observation. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please? Whitehead: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, hello and good evening. For the record, my name is Sabrina Whitehead and I'm here of behalf of the developer Horizon Development and Briggs Engineering. My business address is 1800 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. 83705. I am here before you this evening concerning our annexation, zoning, Conditional Use Permit and preliminary plat for a 48 unit multi- family development, which will be Touchstone Place. Before I begin my presentation, we do still have an issue concerning lot lines. That will be addressed before we have City Council and the developer will kind of speak on behalf of any questions that you may have. Unfortunately, I wasn't there from the beginning, so I would not be best to answer any questions you may have. The current zoning is R1-M within Ada County and we are requesting the zoning of R-15 to medium high density. We feel that this is a great location to have medium high density for the City of Meridian with commercial adjacent to the north and to the south of the property having zoning R-8. We feel it's only a logical transition to have R-15 between single family residences and commercial. As staff has commented on page five of the staff report, they believe that there is a strong argument for saying that the policy set forth in the Comprehensive Plan supports multi-family residential use on this site. Now, while the Comprehensive Plan supports multi-family for this area, it should be noted while this a multi-family development, this development we are going to have it as a condo. Therefore, it will not be rentals, it will be individual homeowners. By having this development be retained as condos it is also going to help allow the City of Meridian to offer its citizens a wider variety of housing options. Instead of having the traditional yard and garage, you're offering the citizens kind of a different lifestyle opportunity for Meridian. Our development not only offers many amenities, such as green space, meandering walking trails, community clubhouse, bike racks, playgrounds, and designated barbecue and patio areas, it is also going to allow the residents of Meridian a great quality of life. Now, I'd like to note the developer has taken great time and consideration with the layout, as well as the product and quality of the buildings themselves. Originally, the developer was planning on having two story four-plexes that would be placed around the perimeter of the subject site. We held a neighborhood meeting on January 5th of '96, this year, and the neighbors concerns were the following: One, having the houses so close to their own Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 22 of 34 homes. Two, privacy, wanting a six foot solid privacy fence. Karalee -- I'm going to mispronounce her last name -- BJau -- is that correct? Okay. Suggested nonwood, since it distorts, and she's wanting to see fencing that would be solid and secure for her dogs, as well as berming and landscape around the perimeter just to provide privacy to the residents. The developer took all these concerns into consideration and went back to the drawing board. He revised the layout to provide a landscape buffer, garages, and service drives, placing the homes separated from the residents a total of 62 feet, instead of the original 25. The developer also modified the four story condos that is adjacent to Stonehenge Subdivision to a three story building, instead of four story, helping to secure the privacy of the residents. And if we could maybe take a look at the layout, I can just point out those changes that we had made. As I noted, these are all going to be four stories and I believe this is where the -- the carport, car sales -- car sales place is. Over here we have all residents, as well as down here. This is where we have all the R-8. The developer decided to change this four stories into three stories with having the service drive garages and, then, a landscape buffer to help buffer and secure the residents privacy and I just measured this today and it's a total of 62 feet. As well as having a landscape strip buffering here with fencing to secure the privacy for these residents as well. On April 6 of '06 we held another neighborhood meeting with the revised layout and it had much more favorable responses in comparison to our other layout. The 48 unit layout will be offering two to three bedroom units, with each unit having a two car detached garage. This development is also offering diverse architectural characteristics by including features such as offsetting walls, recessed entrances, sloped roof, and a variety of building materials that allows this development to have a character and multi-dimension. Now, not only does this development offer options in architecture, it's offering a great variety in landscaping, with both entryways landscaped, including landscaping throughout the entire development for our open space. We are hoping that Touchstone will be a highly desirable place for residents for the City of Meridian and, just to summarize, we feel that this would be a great opportunity for another alternative housing option. We have reviewed the staff report. We agree with the recommendation and agree to meet all conditions and I will stand for any requests and I thank you for your time. Rohm: Thanks very much. My question is is it the intent of the developers to build all the units at one time or is this going to be one unit -- Whitehead: I'll have to defer that to the developer. I'm not sure on that. And he will speaking, so -- Rohm: Okay. Any other questions of this applicant at this time? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 23 of 34 Zaremba: Ms. Whitehead, just to get a scope of the boundary problem where you're discussing where the boundary line is, are you discussing feet or tens of feet or how big or small is that problem? Whitehead: It would just be -- and, again, I can't really delve into all the issues while the developer can. We have been in discussion with Gordon Anderson, he was the surveyor that was supposed to have remedied the problem and when we last checked with Ada County, the record of survey actually gives us more land than what we have. And so our attorneys are in contact with their attorneys. They promised me -- well, they promised me it would be fixed for my hearing tonight, but they promised me that it would be fixed by City Council for sure, so -- Zaremba: I guess my question was directed at -- it's not really enough land change -- Whitehead: No. Zaremba: -- that you would redesign the project? Whitehead: Oh, no. No. Zaremba: Thank you. Mach: My name is Jeff Mach. I live at 7129 Snohomish, Boise, Idaho. 83719. Just want to touch on the property line adjustments that took place. Approximately 16 feet would be on the west side of the property line on Jericho, which at this time will not affect us in any way on this project. Like Sabrina said, they -- at this point they gave us more land once again, but it was a fence line agreement from the '40s and when we were preparing to proceed on this project all of a sudden it came up, so we had to adjust the three parcels approximately 16 feet, because they encroached into the car lot, which at this point I believe it's -- all parties agree, we just need to get the legal description. Do you guys have any questions on the development I can answer? Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Rohm: I think that's it. Thank you. Mach: Thank you. Rohm: Would Karalee Blau like to come forward, please? You signed up and this is your opportunity to speak. Blau: Oh. Okay. The firsttime I -- Rohm: You need to state your name and your address. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 24 of 34 Blau: Oh. Karalee Blau, 1595 North Penrith Place in Meridian. The first layout I saw these were two story condos. I didn't realize they were doing four stories. My house does border the entryway, but all the houses down my street will be subject to those four story buildings along that -- the east side of that strip there. I'm just concerned -- you know, they are going to put up fencing and screening and that, but, you know, it's not going to take the five years or ten years to build these buildings and in the meantime all the neighbors are still subjected to four stories. I mean that's two stories -- those are all one story houses bordering in Danbury Fair, those are all one story homes. There are no two story homes touching that property line. So, I'm just -- four stories seems a little extreme to me and I know that they are going to be here in droves to complain when they find out, so -- but that's my big concern is just -- I saw two at the beginning and now they are four and 1'm -- they are getting bigger. Rohm: Thank you very much. Lorinda Williams. Williams: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Lorinda Williams, I reside at 1456 North Sandlin in Meridian, on the corner, just kitty corner from this development, in a home that my mother owns that I have rented from her for the last seven years. I have four children. My concerns are about congestion, traffic, and safety. We have a lot of people racing from Pine on Stonehenge through to Fairview already. The traffic control people, the animal control folks bring out their little portable trailer with the radar speed indications on it on a regular basis at our request. But there are lots of kids, lots of pets, people strolling in the neighborhood in the evenings and I see people going 60 or 70 miles per hour in the evening, early in the morning, when kids are walking to the buses. So, I'm concerned about traffic congestion and safety for our kids at bus stops. I'm also concerned about our property values. My mother did buy this home as an investment. We have a lot of student loans, so we can't buy right now, so, we have been in this home for seven years and we consider it our neighborhood. So, I'm concerned about the impact of development and I am glad it is not rental property. I'm glad that it will be condominium ownership. But I would like to see the affects on our neighborhood mitigated. There will be problems. I know there will be. The fence that aligns it now is an electric fence, a horse fence. It is not a solid fence. Most of those homes adjacent do not have back fences. They have been open to horse pasture for the last seven years that I have been there. So, those are my concerns. I would be willing to talk with the developer with some ideas. I'd like to see speed bumps in our subdivision, but we don't seem to have the priority that some of the newer developments do. We are single family starter homes and a lot of change going on right now. I believe in high density development. I don't think we should keep spreading out towards the Oregon border, but I'm very concerned about the implications from my neighborhood, our schools, and our kids. So, thank you for your time. Rohm: Thank you. Greg Vastobin. Vastaben: Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Greg Vastaben. I live at 1101 North Shreveport Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. That is in the Danbury Fair Subdivision, this R-8 zoning that borders the project. I'm also speaking as the treasurer Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 25 of 34 of the homeowners association to voice some of the other concerns that have been raised to us by homeowners in the subdivision regarding this project. Our concerns are related to two main areas. One which is traffic and the other which is site and visibility of the project and its affects on the neighborhood. First of all, for traffic, we are concerned about the continuance of South Jericho into Sandlin, which would, then, connect the subdivision to the neighborhood. We have heard in the past that the city plan does encourage these kinds of neighboring developments to be attached to provide better egress and path for the cars. However, we have had projects that were built adjoining to our subdivision where they did not take advantage of the stub streets and that has provided a lot better containment of additional projects or different housing and this extra traffic, which could be a problem of people coming into the subdivision or using the subdivision to cut through to get to Pine or other locations south of our neighborhood. The one major concern is the fact that there will be 48 units in this project which will be -- could be an increase of 48 cars getting out and coming back during the rush hours. Currently the only egress for this section of the neighborhood is just slightly to the east of where this will be, which is the exit of Stonehenge onto Fairview where there is no traffic light, makes it very difficult for people to get out of the subdivision, especially if they are going west against the flow of traffic on that street. So, a concern would be that these would add an additional load to that street and more trouble for the neighbors -- or for the homeowners to get in and out of the subdivision. In addition to the fact that as has been previously mentioned that there are no speed bumps or any other types of speed deterrents in our subdivision and Stonehenge is the primary access from two points -- or two of the three entrances into our subdivision, so it tends to be a street that is frequently speeded on and we would like to limit any new problems on that road. Additional concerns has been -- has also been previously mentioned that these will be four story properties butting up against single story homes. I do appreciate that the developer has made an effort to move the home -- or move these buildings as far back as feasible from the existing single family homes, but I would like to mention that the businesses where they did mention that it was a nice transition from the commercial to residential and I would disagree with that in that most of the commercial properties along Fairview in this area of Meridian are all single story buildings. So, what you would see when this project would be complete would be single story buildings along Fairview, which would be -- which would have behind them four story apartment buildings and, then, a drop right back down to single family homes. So, I don't see that as a nice transition. I do understand that we need more high density in Meridian, but I do think four stories is an extreme amount and would not provide a good transition between the two other zoning areas. The positioning of the buildings does seem to be well suited to preventing balcony-type issues where you have people on the second or third floor looking down into neighbors' yards and we do appreciate that those -- that the larger buildings are going to be back towards the commercial areas as noted in this item. But, again, the one building that is close that is still three stories and it is perpendicular -- I mean it is lined up with the property where all of those units would be, then, looking down into the neighboring backyards. We do see that they have mentioned some landscaping, I believe, on -- here where we see on the lower -- on the south border between the garages, which is something we do appreciate that there will be some kind of a landscaping break. However, I do notice that on the east side of this Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20. 2006 Page 26 of 34 where we have the south Jericho entrance there is no visible landscaping for trees or anything else, other than the described fence that would be any kind of a break between the traffic and the noise of people coming in and out of this development along these people's backyards. Another concern I have is that as people are coming up and down this main corner, the south -- the corner here from Jericho onto Touchstone Way, that as they do that at night, all of their -- all the headlights will be swinging back and forth across this fence. If it is any kind of a flat fence or something that is not solid, there would be no break there for the homeowners. Another concern that I have with the -- another apartment complex that was built next to the subdivision, the Pen Station Apartments, that those buildings were bordered with mercury vapor lights, which are on every night all night, and there was no effort made by the developer to put in any kind of screening or any kind of light abatement on these to prevent those lights from shining into everyone's backyards and windows all night all the time. That has been a constant grievance for those homeowners along that border with this other apartment complex. So, we'd like to hear some commentary about how the parking lots or the buildings would be illuminated and if there would be any efforts made to prevent those from bothering the neighboring homes, if we do see -- if you look at how Wal-Mart was put in, all of their street lights along the R-8 development on the side are all screened to prevent any of that flood lighting from reaching into the neighboring properties. To conclude, I would also agree that there is very few homes that have any kind of an existing solid fence and it would probably be preferable for all homeowners if the entire project was encircled in a new consistent fence, rather than having a mismatched fence based on which homeowners have fences or not. I mean I'm sure there could be an agreement made with the existing homeowners as to how those fences could be replaced. And one final comment is that we have had problems in our neighborhood and our neighborhood parks caused by nearby residents. For example, the Pen Station Apartment Complex, we have traced several vandalism and damage claims to people that do not live in our subdivision who have come in, because it's a nearby accessible park with amenities, slides, and swings. And we would love to hear if there would be any way to provide protection for our interests. We do believe that it would be wonderful if the Sandlin entrance is not connected where this subdivision -- or this entire complex would be its own little area with its access out to Fairview and not be joined to our neighborhood, if that would be possible. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. One comment to your testimony. We do have ordinances in the City of Meridian that addresses the light issue and just as the Wal-Mart development screened all that lighting, so that it doesn't spill over to the adjacent property, this development will be subject to that same lighting ordinance that you have seen on the Wal-Mart site. Vastaben: Could I ask, then, if that ordinance would -- or should have been applied to the Pen Station Apartments complex when it was put in? Rohm: I don't know when Pen Station -- Vastaben: It's been probably four years. Is it six? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 27 of 34 Rohm: Six years ago? I'd have to ask staff, but I know that our current ordinance addresses that issue very clearly. Vastaben: If the current ordinance was in effect at the time, would there be a means to readdress this issue with that development? Rohm: Absolutely. Vastaben: Okay. Rohm: And you can stop by Planning and Zoning and I'm sure they can give you that information. Might even be able to answer that tonight. I don't know. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that section of code regarding lighting and not spilling onto adjacent properties or the right of way is fairly new. It's newer than Pen Station is. I can't remember exactly when it was enacted. It was enacted under the previous Meridian City Code, not just with the UDC, but it was a text amendment done to the Meridian City Code. I just don't know that ordinance or when it was adopted. It's fairly new, though. But, yeah, if this gentleman wants to come in we can sure talk. Someone could even call the developer and if there is something they can do to hood those lights, shield them somehow, so they are directed more down. If you want to come in, though, we can talk to you some more. Vastaben: Great. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? Okay. With that being said, would the applicant like to come back -- come up? Okay. Mach: I was listening to their concerns here and -- Rohm: Could you restate your name, please. Mach: Oh, I'm sorry. Jeff Mach. And, for starters, you can see in our elevations here these are not starter condos. We are planning to put granite counter tops, hardwood floors. I have been building homes around here for the last four years and we build an Energy Star home, we are certified Energy Star builders, and we plan to carry those into this complex here. I also heard about the speeding and street issue. If you can put the plat up there. See, we have a crosswalk -- the other site plan. I'm sorry. A crosswalk right there in the center where -- at the S shape. We have already planned to raise that, which would create a speed bump. Now, the -- some of the garages -- the access onto the road we believe is going to eliminate -- Rohm: Right here? Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 28 of 34 Mach: Yeah. Right there. By having the accesses come from the back of these units, we believe it's going to create -- eliminate some of the issues they have with the cars speeding around there. We have an access to the -- I'm not sure how this thing works. There it is. And we figure that people are going to go out Jericho that way. We also have people from the subdivision that will use this as an access to Fairview. Now, with the S-shaped road there, we definitely believe that people are not going to be doing 60 through there, if anything, it's going to slow people down. Now, the concerns with people looking into yards, we started this project as a four-plex project with a 20-foot setback from these -- the houses along this fence line here and here, which -- with the concerns of the people living in the subdivision and them being mainly rentals, we put together this project, spent a lot of time, and by having the garages here, which would be a buffer to these houses and being 63 feet -- and I think Sabrina mentioned 62 feet back, we exceed any setbacks that are required on this project. As you can see we have buffered all the way around here with the garages here, here, and with the three story units the line of sight into their backyards, which they showed at the neighborhood meeting, was less that the two story unit with a 20-foot setback and I explained -- that was the number one concern at the neighborhood meeting and I had it all drawn up and showed them the line of sight was less. And with 62 feet back versus 20 feet looking in the backyards, this is a much more desirable project. The required fence -- I believe we are required to put a fence in on this project and I'm sure it will be put in as a vinyl fence. The lighting -- there is no parking lots here and these units along here -- these units, the garages are approximately 34 feet deep, which also offers, you know, a place to -- for the sportsman to park their trailers and things like that, keep them off the roadways, which -- I mean in most cases most houses don't have a garage and storage like this. So, once again, this project becomes a more desirable project and that's why we went to a four story unit. I think that's about -- answers about all the questions. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: As far as lights -- I have read this a few times. Do you know your height on your three story and four story? Mach: The four story is 42 feet high and the three story -- sorry, I don't remember. Moe: You did not address the east side of Jericho as far as it just being a fence, no landscaping or anything; is that correct? Mach: Over here? Along here? Moe: Yes. Mach: Oh, that would be a fence there and landscaping all along there. You can see that's -- it shows it up there, it's a landscape buffer. There will be required trees there. And you can see that. Right now it's grass and we are going to use it for drainage. We Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 29 of 34 are going to have some drainage in there and, of course, we will put some -- whatever we can fit in the area at the time. Moe: Okay. Rohm: Any other questions for this applicant? Okay. Thank you. Mach: Thank you. Moe: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question of staff, if I might. Rohm: Absolutely. Moe: Commercial buildings, what's our height limits on commercial buildings? Lucas: On commercial buildings? I believe the height is -- it's per the zone. Are you referring directly to the height limit in this development or the -- Moe: Yes, I am. Lucas: Okay. The height limit in this development is 40 feet. He said 42. That's a -- we need to clarify. The revised elevations he had submitted are 39.5. So, 39.5 is the correct height for the four story complexes in this -- in this development. Moe: But if it went commercial it could be 40-foot high? That's what I'm trying to get at is -- Lucas: If this was zoned C-G, they could go up to 65 feet high on this site. That's the answer. Moe: No more questions. Rohm: No more questions? Thank you. Discussion? Commissioner Zaremba, any comment? Zaremba: Yes. To begin with, let me comment on the fact that this is going to be condominiums. I realize that that's a fairly new thing in this area, that there aren't very many examples locally of condominiums. I have either lived or worked in many areas where it is a familiar product and they work out very well and I'm surprised there haven't been more of them here. I'm surprised this is one of the first. I think we have had one commercial condominium project or two, maybe. I think this is our first residential condominium project. Some people sometimes have heard that there are big problems with them. Almost exclusively the ones that have problems are existing apartment buildings that have been apartment buildings for a long time and somebody converts them to condos. Those are very difficult. But when they are built to begin with as a condo, as this project appears to be, I think it can be a fine addition to the city. I am Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 30 of 34 concerned about many of the things that the neighbor brought up, but I do feel that with the distance of the setbacks and the garages, that the applicant has addressed them to my satisfaction and I think this would be a fine addition to the city. Rohm: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any comment? Newton-Huckabay: Actually, I forgot to ask the developer what their -- I was just curious what your target market is, who are you marketing this type of development to, if you could -- Mach: Excuse me. What was the question? Newton-Huckabay: What was your target market for this type of home? Mach: We have two bedroom units, which are flats, and we have two bedroom townhouse style, which -- with a loft. And, then, we also have three bedroom townhouse styles. So, we kind of spread it all over where it could be, you know, a family in there, the professional couple, want an office, and have a loft area upstairs or, you know, the single mother that's raising, you know, kids on a single -- our target price at this point we are looking at approximately 200,000 to about 239,000 for the townhouse style. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I was just curious is you're marketing families-- Mach: Family development. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Mach: We have -- there is a clubhouse there. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Right. Okay. Great. Thank you. Rohm: Okay. Any other questions? Newton-Huckabay: Actually, I may have missed it in the staff report. Was there like -- is this a development where there is a homeowners association that takes care of all of the -- okay. Rohm: From the audience the applicant said yes. It appears as if the discussion's pretty much over. Could I get a motion to close the public hearings? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearings for AZ 06-028, PP 06-028, and CUP 06-021. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 31 of 34 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on AZ 06-028, PP 06-028, and CUP 06-021. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, discussion. I don't remember anything that would modify the staff report. Am I remembering correctly? Newton-Huckabay: I did have one, Mr. Chairman, if I may? Rohm: Absolutely. Newton-Huckabay: Item 1.1.7 was the six-foot high solid fencing shall be constructed along any portion of the perimeter property lines that are not currently fenced. I agree with Mr. Vastaben that a consistent perimeter fencing of one material would look better, even if you are replacing some of your exterior fencing. So, I would rather see a consistent fence around the entire thing, a new fence, myself. I would like the rest of your opinion on that. Zaremba: That's a good point and if I remember correctly, the applicant did mention that they intended to put a continuous fence. Newton-Huckabay: A continuous fence and replace -- okay. Zaremba: Yeah, we would change the sentence a little bit. I would just take any portion of out -- the words any portion of. Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners-- Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. Along the perimeter property lines period and take: That are not currently fenced out. Lucas: I also wanted to include that staff processed this application and wrote the staff report as a multi-family development and the fact that it will be -- is planned to be converted into condominiums is not mentioned in the staff report, so that -- or the development agreement as proposed. So, that may be something that, from the discussion, you may want to consider. Rohm: Boy, I -- personally, I kind of think that the structures kind of stand for themselves, as long as the lay of the development addresses the primary concerns of the neighborhood, whether it's an apartment or a condominium doesn't change it's reference to the adjacent property. Just leave the application as it is and if they condominiumize it, all the better. Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 32 of 34 Zaremba: That would be my opinion. It's fine as a multi-family unit and if it's condominiums that's even better. Rohm: Right. That makes sense. Zaremba: I don't think that changed the form or function of it necessarily. I'm happy to hear that's what they are planning. Newton-Huckabay: I would just suggest that for the sake of the public that just gave testimony, we might address the four story question. I know, myself, personally, given that most of it's moved into the interior and the line of sight that the four stories -- I don't believe -- I don't believe that they would be an invasion, being able to look down into somebody's property, from my own experience, and these elevations are great, they are a lot better than a lot of four-plexes that we see. These are going to be a -- a nice home, I believe. Care to add anything? Rohm: I think that pretty well captures the discussion related to the height of the development. Thank you. Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, if we are ready for a motion, I'm ready to propose one. Rohm: I think we are ready. Zaremba: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-028, PP 06-028, and CUP 06-021, as presented during the hearing of July 20, 2006, with all the conditions in the staff report for July 20, 2006, with one modification and that is Exhibit B, page one, paragraph 1.1.7, the first sentence shall be modified to read: Six foot high solid fencing shall be constructed along the perimeter property lines. Period. That's the only change. End of motion. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-028, PP 06-028, and CUP 06-021. All those in favor says aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: AZ 06-032 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.31 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Trilogy Subdivision by Conger Management Group - south side of Chinden Boulevard and east of Black Cat Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 06-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 148 single-family lots and 14 common / other lots including 2 private street Meridian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 33 of 34 lots on 28.17 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Trilogy Subdivision by Conger Management Group - south side of Chinden Boulevard and east of Black Cat Road: Rohm: Thank you all for coming in. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for AZ 06-032 and PP 06-032, both for the sole purpose of continuing them to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of August 31 st, 2006. Could I get a motion to that effect? Zaremba: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 06-032 and PP 06-032 to the regularly scheduled meeting of August 31 st, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Mr. Chairman, the boards they presented tonight, are they to take those? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I believe we have all those in a smaller version. They are just blown up. So, we do have hard copies of the same thing, just an eight and a half by 11. Moe: Just checking. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-031 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 290.87 acres from RUT to an R-8 (Medium Density Residential (115.91 acres), R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) (69.92 acres), TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) (51.36 acres), TN-C (Traditional Neighborhood Center) (34.65 acres) and R-2 (Low Density Residential) (26.02 acres) for South Ridge Subdivision by James L. Jewett - south side of Overland Road between Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 06-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 233 lots including: 206 residential lots, 11 commercialf other lots and 16 common f open space lots on 290.87 acres in the proposed TN-C, TN-R, R-8, R-4 and R-2 zones for South Ridge Subdivision by James L. Jewett - south side of Overland Road between Linder Road and Ten Mile Road: Rohm: All right. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing of AZ 06-031 and PP 06-031, both related to the South Ridge Subdivision for the sole purpose of continuing to the regularly scheduled meeting of September 7,2006. MerIdian Planning & Zoning July 20, 2006 Page 34 of 34 Moe: So moved. Zaremba: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 06-031 and PP 06-031, to the regularly scheduled meeting of September 7th, 2006. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we adjourn. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:45 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) AP~J~O _ dHAEL ROHM - CHAIRMAN