Loading...
2007 03-01 Meridian Plannina and Zonina Meetina March 1. 2007 Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 1, 2007, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman David Mae. Members Present: Keith Borup, Steve Siddoway, David Mae, and Wendy Newton- Huckabay. Member Absent: Michael Rohm Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Sonya Watters, Amanda Hess, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call X Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup X David Mae - Vice Chairman X Steve Siddoway o Michael Rohm - Chairman (arrived late) Moe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for March 1 st, 2007. First item on the agenda, let's go ahead and call roll call, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Mae: Okay. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. This evening we have quite a few hearings that will be continued tonight. Basically, I want to go through for the audience right now and let you know that we have not made decisions as to when that -- what date they will be continued to, but the hearings that will be continued this evening will be Item No.5, which is Hart's Music Shop. Four and five. Excuse me. Which is Hart's Music Shop, which is AZ 07-002 and RZ 07-003. Then, Items 7 and 8, which is Belhaven Subdivision, which is AZ 07-001 and PP 07-001, will also be continued. Next item would be Items No. 9 and 10, which will be Doubletree Subdivision, PP 07-004 and CUP 07-002. And, then, finally number -- Item No. 13, which is Jamaica Me Tan, CUP 07-001, will also be continued tonight. What that leaves us, then, folks, to hear this evening will be the continued Public Hearing on Cold Springs Subdivision, which is PP 06-064 and the continued public hearings for Baraya Subdivision, which is AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062. So, at this time I would like a motion to adopt the agenda to reflect that all items discussed will be moved to the end of the agenda tonight and the first hearing we will hear would be Cold Springs Subdivision. And, then, beyond that would be the Baraya project. Borup: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 2 of 37 Moe: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 06-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 3,000 square foot storage building on .88 acres in the 0- T zone for St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building by St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store - 213 N. Main Street: Moe: Next item on the agenda, then, would be the consent agenda and the item on the Consent Agenda would be the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 06-041 for St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building. Any discussion on that or a motion? If not may, I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda as noted? Siddoway: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for approval of CUP 06-041. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Mae: Next item, then, would be the hearing for Cold Creek Subdivision. But before we start the staff report on that, I just want to kind of go over -- if you folks have not been in the Planning and Zoning meetings before, we will have the staff report and they will give the explanation of the project and whatnot. After, which, then, the applicant will have ten minutes to discuss the project as well. After that is done, then, the public will have an opportunity. There are sign-up sheets in the back if you haven't signed up. There is still time to do that. If not, after everyone has signed up we will ask if anyone else would like to speak and you will have three minutes to speak to the application. Not that there is a huge crowd tonight, so I donlt think there is anybody representing groups, so it would be a three minute per person after that. So -- and then -- 11m sorry. Excuse me. Belhaven will not be heard tonight. It will be continued. And we just don't know what date it will be to as of yet, but it will be noticed. Siddoway: You could call the clerk's office tomorrow to get the date. Watters: Commissioner Moe, it's scheduled right now to be on the May 3rd P&Z Commission meeting. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 3 of 37 Item 5: Public Hearing: RZ 07-003 Request for a Rezone of 0.38 of an acre from L-O to C-G zone for the property located at 1990 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop - east side of N. Meridian Road & north of E. Fairview Avenue: Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: PP 06-064 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 16 building lots and 4 common lots on 4.0116 acres within the R-4 zone for Cold Creek Subdivision by BSC, LLC - north of Ustick Road and east Ten Mile Road: Moe: Okay. Well, that is not definite yet. We still have to discuss it, but right now that's where the staff is saying it's at, would be the May 3rd hearing. Thank you very much. Okay. On that note, then, I would like to open -- or continue the Public Hearing on PP 06-064 for Cold Creek Subdivision and hear the staff report, please. Watters: Thank you, Commissioner Moe, Members of the Commission. The application before you is a preliminary plat request for Cold Creek Subdivision. The property is 4.01 acres in size and is currently zoned R-4. If you look at the map here the property is located on the north side of West Ustick Road, approximately a third of a mile east of Ten Mile Road. The property is bordered on the east by an orthodontist office, zoned R-4, but approved for office uses. On the west by rural residential property, zoned R1 in Ada county. On the north by Bridgetower Subdivision, zoned R- 4. And on the south by Ustick Road and Fieldstone Meadows Subdivision, zoned R-4. The site currently consists of vacant undeveloped land, as you can see here. Here is a copy of the submitted plat. The property is currently zoned R-4, which complies with the Comprehensive Plan map designation of medium density residential. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of 16 single-family residential building lots and four common lots on 4.01 acres of land. Four of the proposed lots do not meet the minimum street frontage requirement of 60 feet. The plat will need to be revised to meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-4 zone. A building lot may need to be removed to accomplish this. Proposed lot sizes range from 8,000 to 8,314 square feet, with an average lot of 8,058 square feet. The landscape plan that the applicant submitted. Approximately .22 of an acre or 5.37 percent of the site is proposed for common area, which will consist of a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Ustick Road, a 20 foot wide landscape strip over the sewer main located at the northwest corner of the site, and a planter island within the turnaround at the west boundary here. Elevations were not submitted with this application, because the property is being developed to be sold as build lots. Staff is recommending approval of the subject preliminary plat application with the conditions stated in the staff report. That's all staff has unless the Commission has questions. Moe: Any questions of staff? Siddoway: I have none. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 4 of 37 Moe: Okay. None at this time. Would the applicant, please, come forward. Carney: Yeah. I'm Ryan Carney with Lochsa Engineering, 1311 West Jefferson, Boise, Idaho. 83702. And I will stand to answer any questions of staff. Moe: Okay. Do you agree with the staff report? Carney: Yeah. I agree with the staff report. One thing that was discussed was the minimum frontage is not met on the configuration shown here. There is a potential of revising it and winding up losing one of the 16 for 15 residential lots and I would -- I guess my question or comment might be towards the processing of the preliminary plat. If we can make those revisions to staff's approval is there a reason we need to go back to P&Z or can we move to a Commissioner hearing at that point? Mae: Well, that would be something that we would have to discuss among ourselves. Carney: I guess, yeah, I was just wondering if it's -- Mae: I guess my point -- Carney: -- if compliance is close enough to what we are looking at. Mae: I guess my question I would have for you is you are, in fact, planning, then, to make the change on taking a lot out to take care of this problem? Carney: It's likely to address their concerns with the 60 foot minimum frontage that we are going to lose one of these lots, unless we reconfigure -- you know, the key road configuration is connecting to, I believe, it's Wilder to the west, which were shown in the northwest corner, and the road that goes into the adjacent subdivision on the south, we are a little tied there with the road the way it's laid out. And we needed to accommodate a fire turnaround on the north side. So, there is not a lot we can do with the road configuration to change to get those lot frontages up to the minimum of 60 feet. So, I would guess that there is going to be a lot removed. So, some of the densities listed and the number of lots listed will be different on a resubmitted plat. Moe: Yeah. You have four lots that don't meet that requirement right now. Staff, have any questions? Siddoway: I have one question. Lot 6, Block 1. This one right here is particularly ugly in terms of its geometry. And there is -- we have a plat that was for the February hearing that cuts this corner off here and still meets the dimensional requirements with this lot still being over 8,000 square feet. I'm just wondering if this is the preferred lot configuration or if -- if so why and -- but we do have this other earlier previous version that has that actually a little cleaner. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 5 of 37 Carney: Looking at that it seems like we could lose one of the lot corners. We can certainly address that in revised plat. I think it was an 8,000 square foot minimum. Siddoway: The version that we have that was submitted for the February hearing has a version that does look like that and this lot that this area would be coming from is still over 8,000 square feet -- 8,033 even within that corner. Carney: Just a brief history on some of the comments we got. There is a 20 foot wide track that is where the sanitary sewer is going to connect across the Ten Mile Creek there. To accommodate the minimum 8,000 square feet that Wilder Road connection was moved south a little bit, so those lots got smaller and they got reconfigured. They could work on that to make cleaner lot lines. I think we can get rid of one of those lot corners. I don't think we need more pins out there than that. Siddoway: Okay. That would be my only question. Carney: I think that's a comment that could be addressed I guess is my response. Siddoway: Okay. Moe: Just another quick one. As far as making changes and whatnot, what kind of time frame would it take you to do that? Carney: We could address this in a week's time and have it resubmitted to the staff. So, say a week from tomorrow it could be resubmitted. If not sooner, but -- Moe: Okay. Any other questions of this applicant? Okay. Thanks very much. Carney: Thank you. Mae: Okay. We have one person signed up. John Schafer. Is that right? Just before you get going, I would like to tell you I appreciate you doing exactly what it says, which is print, and I appreciate we can read this. That's good. Very much appreciate it. Siddoway: We do need name and address for the record. Schafer: Yes. John Schafer. I live at 22788 West Ustick Road, which is the R-1 property right next to the west side of the proposed subdivision. 11m not against development, because I know it1s imminent that it will happen, but I feel that the preliminary design is probably one of the worst designs I have seen for access to properties. Basically what it is is that narrow access road and odd shaped lots. To try to build a house on some of those lots that are in there would be almost impossible. But in order to accommodate the 8,000 square foot you can see how chopped up it is and trying to squeeze houses into this I feel is a very poor design. Trying to put 16 houses and four common lots on 4.19 acres is -- seems to be a little excessive. And I feel that what they have done is they have tried to squeeze as many lots in there just for as Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 6 of 37 much profit as possible out of this. I have concerns that the size of the homeowners association will not be able to maintain the common areas, frontage roads, landscape areas, fences that will be around the perimeter of the site. And that dues accumulated from the property values of the houses will not bring enough to maintain. You can kind of drive through the City of Meridian, you can see areas with this type of an area, it's just not maintained as properly as like would be next door to Bridgetowerls entrance in and things of that nature. Larger lots and homes with greater value similar to Bridgetower and surrounding properties would be more appropriate for a homeowners association as well for maintenance of the property and maintaining the fence lines. But there is almost -- I think almost a half a mile of fence around this, which would become homeowners association or the property ownerls responsibilities. And 1111 kind of get into the pictures there to accommodate that as well. The property will need to be elevated to accommodate the flood plane and we learned a hard lesson. When they developed to the west of us, which was the Hartford Subdivision -- and, basically, I will get into that and also with the pictures that you see there, I apologize for the quality, the colored pictures are a little better than the black and white. But kind of pursue that a little farther. Also if they do have to build a bench, what happened on the Hartford side, they just pushed the dirt over onto our property to make a berm in order to build a fence, in order to accommodate the flood plane, then, that becomes a maintenance nightmare for us, because we either have to maintain that slope or prevent the weeds from growing or whatever. And I donlt have a problem with that, but we are getting a little older in our age and, you know, you could put yourself in our position and understand what a maintenance nightmare it is to do a slope. That surface there. So, I guess thatls all the time I got there. But one thing I would like to add that the sewer easement that's on the top of the page there. Right there. Maybe that sewer easement be moved to the property line. I think that might accommodate that lot a little better for building sites. It's such a narrow lot that if it were moved to the property line between our property, which is to the west, and that first lot -- Moe: There is a pointer. You need to get on a microphone, please. Schafer: Oh, I'm sorry. Move that easement -- maybe move that easement to the west of the property line as well. That might make that lot a little bigger, rather than being a long skinny narrow lot to build a house on. Moe: Anything else? Schafer: The pictures that I gave to you -- I hate to take too much time here, but the first picture that you see there, that was Hartford Subdivision. This is along the -- it would be number one, listed number one on your page there. It's hard to see, but what this picture was taken of was when they built the mound out along the street, the contractor just pushed sand and gravel over into our lawn. That's approximately eight feet into our yard, with total disregard of our grass and our sprinklers in order build their sidewalk up there and it's pretty hard to see, but on the very left-hand side there they did come back and they did put a landscape block retention wall there and I would like to see that maybe on the other side as well. The picture number two is where the Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1,2007 Page 7 of 37 roadway on Wilder Street is into our property. They just kind of built it, pushed it into our lot. You can see where the fence line is now into the road and that's another five or six feet into our property as well. The third picture is, basically, just a different angle of that. And the fourth picture is, basically, the same thing, just taking a picture. That's approximately three and a half feet high at that location. I just don't want these things to happen when they develop on the other side. Once you have been through it you learn. Picture number six is showing the elevation differences between their property and ours. They used a two-by-12 against the fence post to hold the landscape material or the dirt, top soil. And, then, there is still approximately a foot and a half a fall from the bottom of that two-by-six down and that was in order kind of give us a retention there, which did help. But when you go to picture number seven there, it's a picture down the fence line and you can see the fence is starting to start fall over now, just because of the soil movement and just was an unstable portion there for a fence. And, then, pictures eight through the rest there are pictures of over at the fence line -- existing fence line over at the orthodontist, I think, something like that and you can kind of see that first picture you can kind of see looking back towards the LOS stake house, there is fences -- portion of fences that have been missing for over a year, going on two years now. Picture number nine is showing you how the fence is about to fall over and the berm and how the weeds -- you can't maintain the weeds, you can't burn the weeds, whatever, so -- but, basically, that's just showing you what kind of condition the fences are and how they are maintained on each side of us, so -- Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Schafer? Schafer: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I just want to summarize what it is -- you would like a landscape block wall between your property and the other one to handle the elevation difference? Schafer: Or something to that, just to stabilize that -- the fence line, so it's not falling over -- Newton-Huckabay: And, then, your-- Schafer: -- and a maintenance issue, I just don't want that, you know, two and a half, three feet of dirt of whatever it is, berm, that becomes our responsibility now to maintain. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Schafer: Because we do take pride in our property. You know, we keep the weeds down on the ditch line, which is the Five Mile drainage ditch, and so we do take pride in what we have on our property. But I just don't want to end up with a maintenance nightmare for us. And I don't object to them building next door, like I said, but it seems to me they are just putting lots -- a lot of lots in there for profit to make this thing pan out. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1,2007 Page 8 of 37 Newton-Huckabay: And that was your other request is to -- with the request to lose one lot, does that satisfy your concern there? Schafer: Yes. That would probably work. I just look at the configuration of these lots and how are you going to build houses on some of these lots, they are just -- I mean there isn't really a square lot there to try to build a house on and most houses nowadays are rectangular in shape or square in shape and you try and build in some of those lots, it's going to be either real skinny, narrow, long houses or -- it just doesn't look to me to be a very good a design. Moe: Well, oftentimes with the property itself not being on, you know, a nice rectangle, it's a little tricky for the developer as well. Schafer: Sure. Moe: I do have one other question and not to belabor it, but your picture number two shows that everything -- you're saying that the Hartford Subdivision went ahead and installed everything over onto your property? Schafer: That's correct. Moe: And that was done during them putting the subdivision together? Schafer: That's correct. Moe: And there was no discussions about them coming back and taking care of that at the time? Schafer: As a matter of fact, in picture number two, the gravel from the roadway was almost 14 feet into our property when they developed that and they built that. They came back and -- actually, what they did is they came back and cleaned the gravel up off of our property. But you can see that the asphalt roadway and the sidewalk, curb and gutter, still extends through beyond the property line. And I did have an issue with that at the time. Pushing it 15 feet into my property I was a little irritated about, but, you know, if you came in here and you tried to cut that off, they would have either had to build a retaining wall -- and this is kind of at the back end of our property, so it's not a visual and it's back behind some storage sheds. Mae: Okay. So, you didn't complain at the time? Schafer: Yeah, we did. The city finally made them come out and do it. Actually, the one up at the road we even had to threaten with a lawyer come out and get the gravel off of our property, because they weren't going to do anything about it. They weren't going to put a retention wall or anything, they just said that's your problem. But we also -- it was -- the record -- I hope that they would put a chemical toilet on the site, because the last time they did, the gentlemen that were working next door were coming over and Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 9 of 37 defecating in our hay stack and things like that. I just don't want that to happen again, too. And I think back, then, the public hearings, they were very surprised by that as well. So, those are just admissions that -- Moe: I can understand. Schafer: -- I would like addressed. Moe: Any questions? Borup: Just one. I can see the problem with the topography difference between yours and Hartford. This property to the west is still the same grade difference between -- Schafer: Yes. Borup: -- these properties? Schafer: Our property still has natural grade, because we built our -- Borup: So, this was a natural grade, too, then? Schafer: It is now. Borup: So, you're assuming they are going to raise the grade you mean? Schafer: That's correct. To get out of the flood plane. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Moe: Any other questions? Siddoway: I think that just covered mine. Moe: Thank you very much. Again, there was no one else signed up. If there is anyone else who would like to speak, please, come forward. Okay. There is no one that is coming forward. Would the applicant, please, come back up and respond. Carney: Yeah. Some of the remarks made about the lot configuration, I think we covered in the earlier discussion about what we are planning to do. We are not -- I believe the flood plain boundary is on the tract to the north, which is not owned by us. I don't know if that's a Nampa-Meridian Irrigation ownership City of Meridian ownership. So, there is no -- we are not going to be required to fill this to elevate it out of the flood plane and I don't know that I -- I don't have a picture -- a copy of those photos, which you will probably want to get to address the concerns, but I don't see that being a problem. And a comment about the sanitary sewer is something we can certainly address moving it to the western property line in that 20 foot tract to make a cleaner Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 10 of 37 combination of the lots at the northwest corner. That -- you know, because the specific concern was made, I can probably address that. I'm kind of just going off of memory from what he said, so -- what else was there? Moe: And you're developing this to, then, other builders to come in and take -- Carney: Yeah. The project is going to be sold to a builder, probably one. You know, I can't -- we have been -- they have been talking with a couple of people and they have no one specified out. We didn't really submit architectural drawings or elevations and architecturally and lot value wise is kind of what they are basing the anticipated homes to be built there. Mae: Any other questions? Borup: Just to clarify. You're not anticipating needing to raise the grade? Carney: I don't see raising the grade, because we are not in a flood plane. Borup: Okay. And your drawings indicate -- I mean at least what some of it -- that most of that -- the grade will be cut and so that's probably one of the -- Carney: The-- Borup: Well, 11m looking at the sewer layouts -- Carney: Oh, the above? Borup: -- showing existing grades and curb and gutters and they all look like they are going to be below the existing grade. Carney: I mean we are going to -- Borup: Most of it. Carney: It probably should balance, so I would anticipate it being, you know, pretty flush at the western edge as we are matching his project. Borup: That's what I was wondering. Carney: There shouldn't be any significant raising or lowering of the street. Borup: Okay. Mae: Okay. Borup: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 11 of 37 Moe: Before I let you go, I want to see if staff has comment. Watters: The subject property is -- Commissioners. Excuse me. The subject property is not within the floodway. The floodway lies just north of the property. It is in flood zone X5. Do you have any other -- Moe: The sewer easement moving, is that a problem? Cole: Members of the Commission, Commissioner Moe, to follow up on the flood plane comment a little bit. Moe: Okay. Cole: It's in a zone X5, which is a low level area -- low level ponding. In the case of a hundred year flood it just means there is some small ponding going on. With an X5 zone there is no additional certification. A lot of the City of Meridian is actually in an X5. Anything within a half a mile of a canal is in an X5. There is no additional regulations to building or constructing in the X5. So, when you say that he's not in a flood plane, technically he's wrong, but practically he's right. He is an X5, but you don't have anything else to do with it. If that makes a lot of sense to get around that. Sorry. As far as moving the sewer easement, that's not a problem for Public Works. They can definitely route the sewer any way they can get an easement through the NMID owned property to the north of them. So, however they can route it to get to their property, as long as they get the proper easements prior to construction is fine with Public Works. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Watters: Commissioner Moe, if I might add. The applicant is not proposing any fencing at this time on the west and east boundaries. Staff is requiring that they put in an open vision fencing along the canal there. But just addressing the gentleman's concerns here about the fencing, as it sits right now, unless they propose fencing in the future, the lots owners will be putting it in individually. Moe: Well, that brings up another question for me, then, and that would be what is the reasoning why staff doesn1t want to require fencing on the other sides? Normally we like to subdivision fencing prior to -- Watters: Commissioner Mae, Commissioners, the UDC does not require fencing around subdivisions. Typically applicants go ahead and install it, but the UDC doesn't require it. Mae: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1,2007 Page 12 of 37 Siddoway: SO, the fencing, we could have a -- looking at the street buffer along -- let's see, is this Ustick? You could have a different type of fence here than here and, then, here? Three different types of fences along the frontage, unless we require -- Watters: That's correct, Commissioner Siddoway. Borup: The subdivision covenants usually address the type of fencing, too. So, I'm not sure if that's being looked at. But there is normally standards in the CC&Rs. Watters: Commissioners, Commissioner Borup, we do not require a copy of the CC&Rs. Borup: I know. But I mean to answer the other question that -- as far as uniformity, that usually addresses that. Moe: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Well, Commissioners, we have no one to speak to it, so if I could get a motion to -- come forward and, then, the applicant will have another opportunity. Schafer: This is John Schafer at 2788 West Ustick Road. When they did Hartford to the west, at that time they had to elevate the properties due to a flood plane requirement, unless the flood planes have changed. They elevated that and had to import fills for that area, but I'm not arguing about this, but they did on that side. So, if they don't elevate their road and if we ever continue across our property, we would have an elevated road of three feet on one side and down a grade on the other side. So, that would impact us if we ever decided to develop it where we would have a road three feet higher on the Hartford side versus this subdivision here. Also, it was mentioned that against -- residential against agricultural ground, they were required to put fences in. And that came up in the Hartford Subdivision hearing as well. So, since we are still considered county property and agricultural, that they made them put a fence in the last time, so -- back when they did Hartford. So, that's just a couple of things I had to say there. Moe: Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to come up and respond to that? Carney: The -- maybe to address the elevation of the subdivision, you know, there is -- there is some reason, engineering-wise, other than simply flood plane mitigation, to want to raise the road a little bit. It's probably going to happen, I think. To address the relationship to the road to the east, you know, we would have to look at a potential alignment making the vertical configurations of the street that functions, as well as keeping the road -- I would prefer to match existing, for obvious reasons, as to not be detrimental to that property. If that road was designed on the other side of the property three feet higher, there is going to be an issue if they ever try to connect those with that vertical alignment. It will address that with the vertical design of this. What you have seen is a preliminary design. So, we are working with Public Works -- well, ACHD in this case. It has to fit and to address the neighbor's concerns, it should match existing Meridian Planning & Zoning March 11 2007 Page 13 of 37 grade without substantial -- you know, put the drain onto our property, too, so -- it can be addressed in the design of the subdivision. And with regard to fencing, it sounds like there is maybe a zoning requirement for fencing adjacent to agricultural property; is that the way quoted that statement? Moe: That's what he said. Carney: Okay. I -- you know, we are certainly willing to accommodate whatever with regard to fencing on that lot line. Moe: Okay. Siddoway: Is there existing fencing between you and Bridgetower at this time? In the photos it looks like there is a fence that may have some -- a missing section in it. Carney: I don't know there is a fence for that entire property line. I know the -- what they have dedicated to ACHD doesn't have a fence, the sidewalk just kind of ends, you know, three or four feet above a grade there and I don't recall. Siddoway: Because the photos I'm looking at from Mr. Schafer is -- appears that there is a fence, but it does have at least one missing section, so -- Carney: And that's the one adjacent to that orthodontist office? Siddoway: Yes. Right up here. Carney: Uh-huh. Siddoway: I can -- Moe: Here, you want to take a look at -- what number -- what sheet number is that? Siddoway: That was sheet number ten. You can see the orthodontist building in the background there. I know we are not deliberating yet, but I will throw out my preference. Since there is existing fence here that has some missing -- missing section or two, I'd prefer that they fill those gaps. It sounds like staff is already requiring some open vision fencing along the canal. I'd prefer to see the front have fencing that is consistent, so that we don't -- so that we don't run the risk of different types of fencing along the frontage and, then, this would be the adjacent side to Mr. Schafer's property and I'd prefer to see some fencing along there. Carney: We will again -- I agree with staff recommendation. Council recommendation and we can address that and resubmit it and make it a condition of approval, perhaps. Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 14 of 37 Moe: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. I do have a question of staff. In regards to the fencing between the agricultural and the residential with the county property, any point in that? Watters: Commissioner Moe, Commissioners, again, the UDC does not require permanent perimeter fencing around developments. However, if permanent fencing is not constructed prior to construction, then, we do require at least temporary construction fencing to be installed prior to release of building permits. The UDC does require -- and like I said before, a six foot open vision fence along drains, canals, creeks, waterways in general. Moe: Thank you very much. Well, Commissioners, what would you like to do? Siddoway: Move to close the Public Hearing. Borup: Second. Moe: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 06-064. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Moe: Any discussion? Siddoway: I have three items. The one -- the fencing I just described. The second would be a clean up of Lot 6, Block 1. And the third item would be addressing the frontage issues by removing one of the lots. And that would address my concerns. Moe: Okay. Commissioner Borup? Borup: Well, the staff report talks about the frontage issue, so I think that's already -- that's already addressed. It's up to the developer to decide how he wants to address that. You know, the uglier and more difficult the lots are to build on, the harder they are going to be to sell. So, I think they can work -- figure that out whatever is -- I have some concerns on required fencing. It's not in the Uniform Development Code. We -- and this is not an annexation, so, no, normally in an annexation we can put additional requirements on, but this is not the case. So, by doing that we are going beyond our normal bounds of what we -- I think have the authority to do. And, then, the final was -- what was your third? Siddoway: Third one was cleaning up Lot 6. Borup: Oh. Well, I guess I already addressed that. Moe: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, any questions or comments Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1,2007 Page 15 of 37 I should say. Newton-Huckabay: No. I have nothing to add. Moe: Okay. I guess I would, basically, go the same comments have already been addressed. And I, too -- I'm not -- although I would like to see fencing, I don't -- I just don't believe that that's something that we should put on this at this time, so -- Borup: I mean if that's something that needs to be, then, we need to look at changing the UDC. Newton-Huckabay: Didn't the applicant agree to the fencing? Borup: No. He said he would do whatever he needed to do to apply -- I understood he said he'd do what he needed to do to comply with the staff report. Mae: And that is what I understand as well. Siddoway: Or he was willing to do the fencing if thafs what the Commission desired, I think. Newton-Huckabay: Thafs what we heard, because I heard the same thing he did. Baird: Well, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I think I better jump in here. I agree with Commissioner Borup that it does go beyond requirements that you can impose. However, if you think that the developer offered it up, you can certainly take that offer. But because there are two interpretations here, if you are going to go that direction, I would encourage you to open up the hearing and get him to make a statement on the record as to what his offer is to voluntarily do something that you're requesting. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. I guess I would -- is there a motion? Siddoway: I would move to open the Public Hearing. Mae: I need a second. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Mae: It's moved and seconded to reopen the Public Hearing for PP 06-064 to have the applicant come up and address the perimeter fencing issue only. Carney: What I will say about the fencing to the western property line, should Commission find it a condition of approval for the preliminary plat, the applicant will propose that in a preliminary plat as -- I don't know how I would state that as a condition of it or indicate that it's on there. We could put it on there. I'm not going to say that we Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 16 of 37 will do any fencing required beyond UDC's fencing specifications, but if it's a concern to the neighbor and a concern to Council, it's something we will offer. Siddoway: I'd say it's a concern for me and if you offer it, we can add it, but it sounds like if you don't offer it, then, we won't. Moe: And you're speaking to the west only or the west and south? Carney: The west. The one that the neighbor had the grievance on, I guess. Siddoway: What about the frontage along the road, Ustick Road? Moe: That's the south. Carney: Yeah. The south. I guess I don't want to speak for the south property line at this point, due to there some landscaping frontages, improvements we are doing there. I guess I'm assuming they are going to do it anyway. Okay. Throw in the south as well. Frontage to Ustick for lot lines and the western property boundary are subject to fencing per Council's requirements and staff conditions of approval. Moe: Thank you very much. Siddoway: So, it's an offer to do the fencing on the -- Carney: It's an offer to do the fencing. Siddoway: Okay. Moe: Appreciate it. Carney: Is there any other questions? Mae: Are there any other questions? Siddoway: None. Moe: Okay. Thank you very much. Can I get a motion to close? Siddoway: I move to close the Public Hearing. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Mae: It has been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 06-064. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 17 of 37 Moe: Is there someone that would like to make a motion at this time? Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 06-064, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1 st, 2007, with the following addition: That fencing, perimeter fencing, be required along the west boundary of the subdivision, as well as the south boundary adjacent to Ustick Road. The second addition would be that they clean up the lot lines on Lot 6, Block 1. And I believe that the changes necessary for the -- to address the frontage issues are already addressed in the staff report. So, that's -- 1111 end with that as my motion. Newton-Huckabay: Second. Moe: It has been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council approval of PP 06- 064 with all additional items as noted. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign? That motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: At this time I would like to welcome Mr. Chairman to the meeting and I will let you take over now, sir. Rohm: Thank you. And I apologize for my tardiness. As I understand that we -- the next item on the agenda is scheduled to be continued. Mae: We are going to go ahead and do Baraya now and, then, we will go and continue everything afterwards. Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: AZ 06-061 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8, R-15 and R- 40 zones for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin Road and 280 South Slack Cat Road: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: PP 06-062 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 118 single-family building lots on 26.41 acres in the proposed R-8 zone; 216 single-family building lots on 38.26 acres and 1 school lot on14.98 acres in the proposed R-15 zone; 2 multi- family lots on 13.01 acres in the proposed R-40 zone; and 30 common lots for Baraya Subdivision by RMR Consulting, Inc - 3935 West Franklin road and 280 South Black Cat Road: Rohm: Okay. All right. Well, good. At this time I would like to open the Public Hearing on continued Public Hearing from January 4th, 2007, for AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062, both items related to Baraya Subdivision and begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 18 of 37 Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members. The application before you is the Baraya Subdivision. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 95.57 acres from RUT to R-8, medium density residential, for 28.17 acres; R-15, medium high density residential for 54.13 acres, and R-40, high density residential for 13.26 acres. The applicant has also submitted a preliminary plat for the subject property, which proposes 334 single family residential lots -- get that there. Okay. Twenty-eight common lots and one school lot in the proposed R-8 and R-15 zones. And two multi- family and two common lots in the R-40 zone. The subject property is generally located, as you can see on the PowerPoint presented here, south of Franklin Road and east of Black Cat Road. Right there. To the northwest there is the approved Silver Oaks Subdivision. There we go. Zoned R-15 and L-O. To the north, south, east and west are residential -- residential zoned properties under the jurisdiction of Ada county. Access to the site is proposed from three public streets that connect to Franklin Road and Slack Cat Road. A residential collector roadway, South Glen Canyon Avenue, which is right here on this slide. It's proposed near the east boundary of the property and divides the property along the proposed zoning designations of R-15 and R-40. South Glen Canyon Avenue aligns with the public street approved in Silver Oaks Subdivision to the north. South Fritz Way is also designed to intersect with Franklin Road and thafs over here. And provide additional access to the property. Capital Reef Drive is the proposed public street which intersects with Black Cat Road and that's over here. This public street will also serve as a primary access to the future school site. As previously stated, the applicant proposes 334 residential lots. The lots will range in size from 3,300 square feet to approximately 9,000 square feet and approximately 10.25 acres will be set aside for the future multi-family units over here at the east. The applicant has applied 16 percent of the site to meet the open space requirements. Amenities will include multi-use pathway along the canal. Parkways, two community park areas, as you can see right here and right here, which will include tot lots and a pool with changing room. Staff would like to provide the Commission with some background information on these applications now. In May of 2006 the applicant submitted annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications for this site. At that hearing the Commission recommended approval of the project. However, in July City Council voted to deny Baraya. Their basis for denial fell upon the lack of conformance of the proposal with the anticipated outcome of the Ten Mile specific area plan. The applicant requested reconsideration of City Council's decision to allow for redesign of the project and apply the Ten Mile standards and Council subsequently remanded the project back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The subject applications before you were again heard on January 4th, 2007, just a couple of months ago. Planning staff recommended denial of this project, as staff believed the project was still inconsistent with the goals of the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. At the hearing the applicant requested continuance to meet with planning staff to allow for redesign of the project to apply the Ten Mile standards. Staff believes the revised proposal before you this evening is more compatible with the goal and policies of the existing Comprehensive Plan, the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan, and the Unified Development Code. There are a couple issues to mention here. At the Public Hearing on January 4th, 2007, the Commission requested that the applicant revise the subdivision to conform to the Ten Mile specific area plan. The Commission also Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1,2007 Page 19 of 37 requested the applicant provide planning staff with sample elevations of the product type to be constructed and development guidelines for the future owners of the multi- family property. The applicant has stated the renderings of housing product will be available to staff and the Commission tonight. As planning staff has not had the opportunity to evaluate these elevations and the development guidelines, staff recommends approval of the proposed Baraya Subdivision only if the Commission believes the applicant's development and -- development guidelines are suitable and the building elevations provided this evening meet staff's design requirements as listed in the staff report. And that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions. Rohm: Are there any questions of staff at this time? Siddoway: Only one. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: I see on the notes under compliance with the Ten Mile plan, you have yes. So, do I understand correctly that staff -- the applicant has met with planning staff to review the plans based on the updated Ten Mile specific area plan and it's found to be in compliance? Hess: Chairman Rohm, Commission Members, Commissioner Siddoway, staff has met with the applicant and -- on January 11th, in fact, and we reviewed the submitted plans and we do feel that -- that the new plan does conform with the Ten Mile standards. Siddoway: And just out of curiosity, did you include long range planning staff that's working on the specific area plan in that discussion? Hess: Chairman Rohm, Commission Members, Commissioner Siddoway, again, yes, we -- we did meet with Peter Friedman, he is the comprehensive planning manager for the Meridian planning department and he is the one who develops those sample guidelines -- the design standards that are in the analysis section of the report. And he provided them to the applicant that day. Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. Rohm: Any other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Schultz: Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz, 2127 South Alaska Way in Meridian. It's a good thing I didn't come later. I thought it was going to be late tonight, but you guys went quick, so I'm hustling. It's good to be back and good to have a positive staff report after it's been about seven weeks since we were last in front of you and I know Mr. Rohm wasn't here, so I'm glad we got a full Commission here tonight and maybe just to bring us back up to speed of where we left off real quick. We did have some focus -- I know we kind of -- we worked together to get some focus for the lot -- left the last hearing on kind of an area of concern was just Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 20 of 37 kind of the area -- the R-15 area didn't have the mix or the type of housing and maybe density is one component of that, maybe alley-loaded was one component of that, and we took the staff report, the hearing, into consideration, went home that night and worked the next few days and kind of reworked two main points. One was we created a distinct R-8 zone, where as before we were all R-15, and that more closely matches the Ten Mile plan, which shows medium density here and, then, medium high around here and, then, high over here. So, we went back and created an R-8 zone to follow right through here and all we had to do was revise one little block and we hit it. I mean it was a pretty simple change to make that R-8. We went into this area here -- we used to have a bigger park, we split that into two. This has a nice tot lot, it has some slope. This is one of those areas we mentioned before that has some slope issues. We felt that would be more conducive to just leaving open. And we reworked this whole area to provide more townhomes. We didn't put any alley-loaded lots in at that time, so when we came to the meeting a week later, one of the first things on Mr. Friedman's list of Baraya design considerations was de-emphasize garages. We chose to do that. There is different ways to do it. You can do some side entries. We chose to do it with some alley-loaded in these three areas here, which is a fairly easy thing to do, but at the same time it really kind of changed the whole mixture greatly. In fact, we got 20 percent of our whole site is alley-loaded, which is -- we used to have zero percent in the last one, so that's a big change. We have got a lot more townhomes. In fact, I wanted to kind of -- kind of just to summarize our percentage of -- kind of cut off over here, but this will work. So, we have 87 townhome lots, 14 percent 100, 112, 18 percent, 50 foot lots, 60 foot lots. This is actually an old one. No. This one doesn't have the alley-loaded lots over here. So, if I wanted to put this one up. Essentially of the product types of townhomes, alley-loaded, 40 foot, 50 foot, 60 foot in front, not anyone type has over 30 percent. So, we have got -- and none of them have less than ten percent. So, we have got a good mix. You can see from this color exhibit we put together to kind of emphasize that mix and this is the zone boundary. It's got a great mix. I mean it's -- I mean it's something that from a production home builder standpoint, okay, it kind of slows us up, but at the same time provides good architectural differentiation, it provides good price point differentiation, it provides just a good wide range of mixes to appeal to a lot of different type of home buyers that may want to move in here in this area. So, we feel like from a mix standpoint it's exceptional and an improvement on what we had before. It truly is. Kind of jumping into the staff report, I want to kind of hit just a couple brief things. On page four there is an issue about seepage beds along these alley-loaded lots. Because we have a ten foot setback allowed in the front of those, which I like for alley-loaded lots, it creates a good architectural feel. There is a DEQ issue that comes up. We won't -- for seepage beds. We won1t put these seepage beds on those roads. So, as far as Public Works is concerned, we are going to mitigate that with our engineering design. I lost everything. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Mae: Just a real quick one. Do you have your elevations here? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 21 of 37 Schultz: I do. I do. That's part of my -- very shortly I will be there, the elevations. know you're anxious and we will get there. Moe: There you go. Schultz: I wanted to hit some points -- just so you know, the staff report generally is very thorough. We agree with 99 percent of the things in there. There is just a few key points I need to clarify. Along this regional pathway we built a pathway in there with -- under a licensed agreement between the city and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. It's a ten foot regional pathway. They donlt like trees in that. We are going to try to get threes along the back of these lots, but definitely they are not going to want them on the other side of the path up against the canal, because they get in there occasionally, have to clean it out, and that's why we did not show trees, because we have been through this before. So, we are going to do all we can to get trees in there, knowing that Nampa-Meridian may prevent us from doing that. I like trees if they will let us. And that's on page 13. We had some minor street frontage issues up on these lots here at the end of the cul-de-sac, which we could resolve easily with our final plat. Or even a revised preliminary plat for City Council and that's not an issue, we can -- we appreciate staff pointing that out. And, then, last, but not least, there was a condition we go meet with the police department, which I went and met with Lieutenant Stowe yesterday. We just got the staff report last week. We, basically, clarified in our landscape plan that there is open fencing along all pathways and behind these tot lots, which is probably just an oversight on our part, that's what we had intended. We didn't move -- there was a tot lot over in the corner we moved to the center, which he wanted. And he had some concerns about this road here and we agreed to work with ACHD on the stop signs on either side of this road, be two way, and this one will be a four way stop. I wrote a letter -- I don't know if that got into the record or not. And I will hand that in right now if it didn't. It's just a letter to -- back to Lieutenant Stowe outlining what we agreed upon and he e-mailed me back and said it will look great. As far as the elevations, one thing I found out in going to work with architects, they don't -- they move at their own pace, so we have a lot done, but we don't have everything done for this hearing, because they can't be rushed and they have three months backlogs and that's just how they work. So, I mean -- did we get the projector working? Unfortunately. Can I hold them up in front of the Commission? I'll be creative here. These are some pictures -- and these will be in this area here of the 50 and 60 pictures. These are by CBH Homes in the Ventana Subdivision. Brand new architectural renderings. They have got good emphasis, architectural differentiation, colors, porches. That's one. These are all on 60 foot lots. The difference is the two car and a three car, going between a 50 and a 60. So, that's the difference. These are attractive. These are attractive homes. They provide something different on every one of these. There is only so many ways you can do a house, but I think this is a good attempt at doing -- trying to break up the monotony that sometimes comes into our subdivisions. This is in Ventana up on the -- Meridian Road north of McMillan. Did you get them? Keep going from here on. And I'll leave these for the record after I'm done, just to enter into the record, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1,2007 Page 22 of 37 Rohm: One of the things that in the hearings down the road, you might bring those in pdf format or jpegs, because our folks can put those on the screen in that format. Might try that. Schultz: We just got these -- the renderings yesterday, that's why we were quick enough to get them in there, but I appreciate that advice. As another version, if you can go to the next one, please. Different use of architectural materials. I'm going to go over the Baraya design guidelines in the report that I know are here. We got handed these at our January 11 th meeting and we felt that we could comply with those. Siddoway: Matt, one thing I'm noticing is that all your elevations you're showing so far have some brick, stone, and/or stucco on them; does that -- Schultz: Absolutely. Siddoway: -- fall in line with what you're saying? Schultz: Absolutely. If we could go to the next one, please. That house there -- actually, the three car version -- and the two car would fit on a 40 foot wide lot. It could be a version of an alley-loaded lot, too, with some different variation. That is, actually, a little bit narrower house, a little more efficient, probably about 1 ,600 1,700 square foot. Cute house. I mean there is nothing wrong with it. I mean as we get a little smaller, we kind of lose opportunities to do lots of different things in the front, but I think it's a good attempt to breaking up, compared to some of the facades I have seen around the valley. If you could go to the next one, please. We are getting into the -- now, this -- we weren't able to get to the alley loaded renderings, but this was the town home concept. It's a work in progress right now. It's -- we are under contract with Hansen Design Group, Lars Hansen. He's an architect. He used to work for Eaglewood Homes. And try to provide some variation in color. We can even provide variation in some of the stone, stucco, within -- these are a four-plex attached unit that allows some efficiency in our design, allows different price points with -- and still allows the 30 or 40 foot backyard in how we have laid them out. So, we are still maintaining some private open space and that's something we sacrifice when we go to the alley-loaded, we lose some of that private open space. But everybody is different. Some people don't want that, some people do. So, what we provided within Baraya is a good mix of everything. And this is a work in progress. We are going to continue to refine this. I mean it's not going to get built for probably another year and the market is evolving and we are improving and we are looking for some feedback as well. I know everybody's got a different opinion on looks and what's good, what's bad and this is just one version of what we could do that we have been working on. We wanted to show progress and before Council we will have renderings of the alley-loaded, but we wanted to show you that we are working on it. Architects aren't and they are not easy to get going fast, like we move fast, so I think all in all, with our renderings, with our lot mix, with the conformance to both the existing and the proposed comp plans -- we have been at this for a year. We have been around the block two or three times now. But I think it's all been worth it. I think the fact we have got an elementary school site in the site plan is a good thing. I think the high Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 23 of 37 density, which is something that was asked that we provide design guidelines for, I guess we are hanging our hat on the -- it's going to have to come back through at least a Conditional Use Permit. They will have to subject themselves to the full R-40 zoning ordinance and the full Ten Mile area specific plan design guidelines, whenever those do get adopted. I think those are still in progress right now, if I'm correct. Right in there. It hasn't officially happened yet. But we are going to subject that high density portion to whatever everybody comes to a consensus on at that time. Right now we are kind of not sure what that consensus is, so ifs a little premature for us to say what's going to go in there exactly, but we know it will conform to whatever standards you have in place at that time when they do come forward with that Conditional Use Permit, which is probably a couple of years out, I would guess. It's not going to happen this year, probably next year at the earliest. So, I don't think we are trying to get anything by on that. We are -- you know, it's a blank slate right now in that area for the higher density. So, I'm glad we have a positive staff report. Last time we did nit have any conditions to act on. Today we do. And we have made some great progress and I'll stand for any questions. Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Schultz. Any questions for the applicant? Mae: Mr. Chairman? Rohm: Commissioner Mae. Mae: You spoke of -- that you had guidelines for design? Schultz: One of the things that -- I think it's in your staff report, if -- do you know what pages that's on, Amanda? Ifs in the staff analysis. She put it in here. Borup: Section 10. Schultz: Page 12. Hess: Page 12. Schultz: In the middle -- there was a -- and it's a reiteration of that and that was handed to us at the January 11th meeting by Mr. Friedman, your long range planner. So, as we go down, he says provide a variety of housing types. We do that. Provide a variety in design and avoid monotony. I think with our variety of housing types, along with some other architectural features, we are overcoming that. And as you go down it, the only thing that I think may be a little redundant is provide for pedestrian connectivity. I think we have done that in our site design, so to state it again may be a little redundant. And, then, develop guidelines for the future owners of the multi-family property. We can take a stab at that before City Council. Like I said right now, I think some of that stuff is up in the air and we are going to subject that section of our property to whatever guidelines everybody approves and adopts in the Ten Mile planning area revision, which is going through the system right now, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 24 of 37 Siddoway: SO, if we struck the bottom one, which is that you have to develop guidelines, could the rest be incorporated into a development agreement, in your opinion? Schultz: Absolutely. And I would expect that. I would expect -- I even think that pedestrian connectivity might be a little redundant, because, our site plan already provides for that connectivity and if there is any connectivity problems, weld like to just fix it in our site design, but I don't think we do. We have got ample connectivity, so -- so, yeah, I think within the development agreement it should say, you know, the high density section shall be subject to a Conditional Use Permit and be subject to the Ten Mile specific planning area design guidelines in force at that time and, then, that would cover it. Siddoway: One more question? Rohm: Absolutely. Siddoway: The area with the regional pathway, do you have any land that is outside of the easement or is it all Nampa-Meridian easement? Schultz: I was thinking about that today. You know, we did have site design. We were told we could put the pathway within the easement and we did. The lots that back up to that are, I believe, 100, 105 feet deep. And that's where the Ten Mile -- or Black Cat trunk is in the ground and the road's in front of it already, so we are kind of fixed on that alignment, but based on the easement that we granted last July and -- that thing's all the way to the freeway now and through the site. That road is fixed and -- but we have got plenty of room. And, like I said, we are going to push to get trees where we are not shown at the back of the lots here, not necessarily on the other side of the pathway, because I know they won't let us. We have tried in the past and it just hadn't worked. Siddoway: The section you referenced earlier on page 13 of the analysis, not the conditions of approval, I'm trying to figure out if there was a condition of approval that requires those trees and if so -- Borup: 1.2.14. Siddoway: Is it? Schultz: Yes. In here. It's Exhibit B, 1.2.14. It, actually, says on one side of multi-use pathways, which I did not notice until just now. So, we will put it in the west side, if we have to go to blows with the Nampa-Meridian to do it. We are going to push for it and they should let us. There is a five foot gap there, at least, that we should be able to plant a tree and it shouldn't encumber their ability to access that ditch and maintain it. So, we are going to push for that. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 25 of 37 Siddoway: SO, are you okay with the wording as proposed, then, since it's only on one side? Schultz: I am. Siddoway: Okay. Rohm: Commissioner Borup? Borup: That probably answers my question, then, you had went through several -- several items on the staff report and this was the only one that I saw that -- Schultz: Was a condition. Borup: Well, it was a condition that wasn't already addressed -- I mean that you werenlt already handling. Is that -- is that true? Schultz: Yeah. I mean -- and I even said lid do it if Nampa-Meridian will let me. But, yeah, that's the only one. Like I said, the staff report is very clean for me and we can comply with anything in there. Borup: So, what's your options if Nampa-Meridian won't? Schultz: Come back and beg for forgiveness from you guys and explain that we tried and show you our documentation and proof and -- Borup: Okay. Schultz: -- you know, that's all we can do, I guess, at that time. We are going to get after it right now with our license agreement and that will -- that process will determine if they say yea or nay. We will do it early, so it's not something that will hold up the final plat. We will do it now, even though our first phase is going to be in this area over here. Borup: Do you have a maintenance road -- on which side? Schultz: They are going to have it on the opposite side. They will have a maintenance road on the other side. It's not pedestrian accessible. It will be fenced off just for them. So, they should allow it. I really don't see them -- Borup: They should. Yes. Schultz: They should. Borup: Okay. That was alii had. Rohm: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 26 of 37 Newton-Huckabay: Not any questions per se. I don't really care for the rendering of the townhomes. The big garages out front. They also -- like the same thing, different color. The elevations of the home, they are fine. And the alley-loaded you don't have yet? Schultz: We don't have that yet. He's working on it as we speak. We will take your comments into consideration and we will revise those rendering of the townhomes as we go to City Council. I'm not going to -- I want to continually strive to evolve those things and that was, actually, a second generation. I told them the first ones weren't going to fly and he provided that and, well, okay, we will see how that goes. It's an improvement and will improve from there. I mean we just need to provide that feedback that you didn't like it and I will pass that on the first thing tomorrow morning to him. Newton-Huckabay: At all. Schultz: At all. You were very stern about it. Newton-Huckabay: And, then, I don't really understand the development -- staff did not include a DA provision which requires the applicant to develop guidelines for any future multi-family property. We didn't see that. You're proposing -- Schultz: I'm proposing, instead of making us provide those, that we condition that a Conditional Use Permit be required before any development happens and that that be subject to the Ten Mile design guidelines. Newton-Huckabay: And that's a fair compromise? Borup: It's more than a compromise, I think. Newton-Huckabay: It seems so to me, but I just didn't really understand -- Hess: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Newton-Huckabay that does seem fair. Staff's amenable to that requirement. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. All right. That's all I have. Other than I don't think the not having all the building elevations doesn't meet the request by staff, but -- Schultz: We tried really really hard. I begged him and tried and he just wouldn't budge. He gave me half of what I asked of him and I apologize for that and I asked three other architects and they have three month backlogs, so I mean it was the best I could do. Newton-Huckabay: But if the rest of the Commission is comfortable with moving it on what we have seen, then, I will -- it's neither here nor there. Borup: The thing you have got with the alley-loaded, you don't have the garages in there, so you have got a lot of flexibility in design and if they are consistent with what Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 27 of 37 they are doing on the others -- the alley-loads can have some very nice front elevations. When you don't have that garage in there you're not restricted in what you can do. Siddoway: I like them. Borup: You can do a lot. Moe: I think one of the main points that's been made is that he is looking at multiple components to put on these buildings, not just one -- one type of material and there will be a lot of blend to it, so that will help. Newton-Huckabay: My only concern is that townhomes, because it's a huge portion of that development and I would really be disappointed to see when it's built out townhomes similar to the renderings we saw tonight. Borup: These lots are how wide? Schultz: They are 30 foot attached, so 30 foot wide -- Borup: And you have got 20 feet of garage. So, you only really got ten feet to do something with, other than garage. Schultz: And you have seen some alley-loaded town homes and we are looking at that as well and as a feature evolution, but we have got a good variety of a lot of things in here and I guess that's -- in different price points and different architectural features and trying to balance all that out. We think we have got a little bit of everything and they are not that bad. Newton-Huckabay: They are not that great. Schultz: I'll try to do better. Newton-Huckabay: But I will go with the Commission on that. If you guys are comfortable with that, then, I will -- Moe: We still might have somebody in the audience that wants to talk. Rohm: Well, I have one comment before we open it to the public. Your renditions that you presented tonight, you know, I think that they point out that you're willing to have differing architectural blends with each structure that's built, but just because you present it, that doesn't necessarily mean that that's what's going to happen and I haven't heard you say -- make a commitment to all of the dwellings will have three different components to the facial street side. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 28 of 37 Schultz: You know, if Pete would have put that in here, I would have probably said okay. I'm just -- I'm going with whatever people want to define as the guidelines. I didn't know three was the magic number, or, you know, or four or five -- Rohm: And I don't know that I have a magic number, but the thing that I'm always concerned about is will these are -- the items that you presented for testimony, they are not a commitment to that, they are just saying, well, this is what we might do. Siddoway: I propose we make them a commitment to that as part of the development agreement. Rohm: Well -- and I kind of think that that's where 11m going with this, is I'd like to see a commitment to what specifically you are willing to -- to go with, not necessarily just the elevations that were presented. Schultz: And I agree. I think there is more opportunity to do things differently than what was presented. I mean just as good or better or whatever. And I understand your concern and it's a question I have for this Commission and the Council and maybe the City of Meridian as a whole. How do we make builders build exactly what we want and at the same time not spend too many staff resources analyzing every little building permit application that comes through to make sure it exactly conforms to a written design guideline. It's a complicated issue and I agree if you say you must do at least this amount of variety and put those in a development agreement, that's fair. That's fair. And it's a question to me. How do we -- I'm up here today and in the next three years my builder may do something that I didn't agree to and that's a concern that I have, it's a concern that you have, that I don't want to be misrepresented either. Rohm: Right. And so is it fair to expect two components or -- Borup: What's our definition of component? Rohm: Well, brick. Stucco. Brick-- Borup: I mean youlre looking at some type of masonry surface and, then, a masonite siding would -- would be two. What would be the third? Siddoway: Many of those had what looked like shakes or something along those lines, but not all of them. Schultz: It's a very hard thing to define in words. Borup: That's what I mean. It depends on the design. A lot of that depends on the design of the house. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 29 of 37 Schultz: It's very hard to write down and describe what you want. You know what you like when you see it. And it's hard to write that down, you know, and so it's a problem I have, that you have, and we all have in how do we define this. Rohm: Well, I guess I don't have a specific answer to that question, but what I was looking for, more than me telling you what I want -- Schultz: Uh-huh. Rohm: -- what I'm looking for is you telling me what you're willing to commit to in terms of multiple components within -- Schultz: Multiple materials types on the facia? Borup: I think what you're saying -- Schultz: You know, stucco, stone, and -- Borup: Yes. Stucco, stone, some type of masonry. Schultz: Brick. Borup: And, then, maybe something along the line of breaking up textures, so you don't have, you know, large walls of the same material in the front and you can do that and you wouldn't have to go beyond that and you can do that with -- Rohm: That's as far as we want to go. Borup: Yeah. Me, too. I think it's -- there needs to be some flexibility for the builder. Rohm: I don't want to be up here telling them how to construct their homes, but I do think that we want to give them a feel for what the overall -- Borup: I think we are all comfortable with the -- with the pictures presented, weren1t we? Rohm: Absolutely. Other than the townhouse. Borup: Yeah. Well -- and those weren't pictures, but -- and I think he -- in my mind I think you can rely a little bit on what a builder developer has done in the past -- on their past projects and how they have -- how they conduct themselves there, assuming that they are going to do the same in the future, if they have done what they said they are going to do. Schultz: Can I offer a solution? Rohm: Absolutely. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 30 of 37 Schultz: These Baraya -- the residential design considerations, which are part of the staff analysis, third line down says quality exterior, naturally appearing materials, architectural detailing -- we can add to include at least three materials, including, but not limited to stucco, stone, or rock on the front. We could add it to that. Rohm: There you go. If you're -- Siddoway: Stucco, stone, or brick. Schultz: Or brick. That's what I mean to say. Yeah. Brick. And, then, there is another one that says provided variety and design and use architectural elements to define entries. Windows should be designed to create shadows and give depth by protruding or being recessed. So, there is some more in here that we are willing to hang our hat on with that little addition to that one line I think would cover us, I hope. Rohm: That works for me. Thank you. Schultz: Yeah. No problem. Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: To the townhomes for just a moment. I have to agree with Commissioner Newton-Huckabay that it looks like a, you know, garage only development with the way they line up. What I'm wondering is could -- could we -- what if we added a requirement that the townhome garage be set at least five feet behind the living area and, then, the living area actually come up to the setback -- it's reverse of what you see now. Right now the garage is out front and the living area is recessed. What if you reverse those? Borup: That's one idea. Another idea I just thought of is what if -- we have got ample depth in our lots to modulate the depth of the front face as well and not have them all lined up the same. You know, we could offset -- have variation. I'll go back to Lars tonight -- I'll send an e-mail and I'II say, Lars, here is what we got. We want to put the living area in front of the garage, what do you think. Siddoway: With narrow lots I would prefer to see that ten foot living area come forward. If he has reasons why he couldn't -- Borup: Well, think about it. You have got ten feet. You need an entryway of four feet, so you got a six foot room. Schultz: I'm not an architect, but -- Borup: The living area that's left would be a six foot room, basically. Which is unusable. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1,2007 Page 31 of 37 Siddoway: Until you get to the back of the garage. Right. Borup: So, that's unusable. Unusable space. Schultz: I would -- I would recommend that you provide a recommendation that we work with our architect to modulate the front -- attempt to put the living space in front of the garage if we can before we go to City Council. And we will do that. I mean -- Borup: Well, I think you can, but you'd still only have ten feet to work with, assuming you want a front door. Siddoway: Yes. Schultz: You are a builder, so I know you know that. That's where the modulation comes in to maybe break that up. Siddoway: No additional questions. Thanks. Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Thank you very much. Schultz: Thank you. Rohm: There is not anybody else that has signed up to speak to this application, but at this time we will open it to the floor. And we don't have anybody else coming forward. Thank you. I think at this time a motion to close the Public Hearing is in order. Siddoway: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Discussion? Commissioner Mae, any final comments? Moe: I know this has been a long long process to get this done and I am glad to see that we were able to come to some understanding with staff and whatnot on this and we have had some good discussion this evening. I guess I would be one -- as far as the renderings that I saw tonight, quite frankly, I would have liked to have seen a little bit better job of that, the whole presentation part, but I understand your comments about the architects and what they get done, but I would hope for sure that when you go before City Council that you have plenty of information for them to look at at that point. But beyond that I think it's a -- you have done a good job to make the changes and Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 32 of 37 make it work and -- but I probably hadn't chimed in on the townhomes and I would agree with the other Commissioners, they need quite a bit of work. Thank you. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: I think I was pretty clear. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Newton -- Siddoway. No. Commissioner Siddoway. Siddoway: You know, I just want to be on the record saying that this whole Ten Mile specific -- the Ten Mile area is -- the Ten Mile specific area is something special, is what the Ten Mile specific area planning process has been about. I do commend the applicant in the revisions that they have made, their willingness to work with staff and the changes they have made to come in line with the design guidelines that are being developed. It has come a long ways. This is his third iteration -- his third major iteration and probably other minor ones in between. But I am favorable with the project. I would like to see us add a development agreement provision that addresses the design guidelines that we saw tonight, with the additional language that was proposed, and I think I will be ready to move on. Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup? Borup: Nothing more to add. Rohm: Fair enough. At this time I think we are ready to hear a motion. Siddoway: I will take a shot at it. Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff and applicant testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1 st, 2007, with the following modifications: Would add that a development agreement be required that includes the Baraya -- was it residential design guidelines? Is that the title? That were presented tonight. That -- I don't have a copy of them in front me, so I don't know which number it is that needs to have the addition of the stone, brick, or stucco. Thank you. Okay. The third item, quality exteriors, natural appealing materials, architectural detailing to include, but not limited to stucco, stone, or brick. I would strike the last requirement that states that the applicant is required to develop guidelines for the future owners of the multi-family parcels and replace it with a requirement that the multi-family lots will require a Conditional Use Permit and must comply with the design guidelines developed for the Ten Mile specific area plan. Finally, addressing the townhomes, I would like to request that the applicant work with their architect to modulate the fronts of those structures, so that it is not just a straight street of garages, to see if the -- to bring forward the living area, if possible, but to get some differentiation along that street line. And that would be the end of my motion. Moe: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1,2007 Page 33 of 37 Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 06-061 and PP 06-062, to include all staff report with the aforementioned modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Siddoway: Before we open those other hearings, can we just have some general discussion about dates? Is that appropriate? Rohm: Absolutely. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I did -- the second part of your packet tonight I did include a draft agenda for the next -- be four hearings are on there, so just to kind of give you -- there are four items on tonight that we need to find homes for and with the upcoming Comprehensive Plan amendments in April, April just doesn't look very good. So, the next meeting on the 15th, if I had to guess and we had all four of those, I think we could probably make it through those. There has been talk and has been our recent history we seem to have two or three or four that don't post or want continuation anyways, but if you put all of them on that date, you know, we probably will be able to get through them. The other option -- I talked to a couple of the Commission members beforehand -- there is a 5th Thursday in this month, the 29th. That is during spring break for Boise and Meridian school districts, I believe. Both during that time. So, I don't know if everyone has plans for then, if we even have a quorum, but just something to throw out there as another alternative. It probably wouldn't be a very long meeting. But just wanted to have you look at that and I personally believe that the four - - the four items, basically, have all put themselves in this predicament and I think we should treat them similarly and fairly and if we can't put them all on the 15th or the 29th, our next available hearing isn't until May. So, putting one of those over to May doesn't seem fair. But I'll leave that up to you guys to -- Siddoway: We do have one that has requested May; is that right? Hood: Yes. Yeah. Cold Creek has requested that they be continued to -- I'm sorry. Siddoway: Belhaven. Hood: Yes. I'm sorry. Belhaven. Yes. They did submit a request to 5/3. Siddoway: I would agree with that one. Rohm: As far as 11m concerned, I think we should put them allan the next agenda and the bottom line is we have had plenty of time to hear everything that is ready at such time that the hearing opens. So, to put the balance of them at the next hearing seems to be the best option from my perspective, but either that or move them all to May. And I don't think anybody wants to do that. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 34 of 37 Borup: If we don't make it through on the 15th, do we still have the option of the 29th? Rohm: Absolutely. Hood: You sure could, because they would all be noticed hearings at that time and any party thafs here knows that you're just continuing them for two weeks. Borup: So, I agree with Commissioner Rohm. Leave it on the 15th and, then, I think address it that night. Maybe that would be some incentive to move things along. Rohm: Right. The 15th of this month. Siddoway: You won't have Commissioner Newton-Huckabay and I to keep the discussions lengthy. We are both gone that night on the 15th. So, you would just have the three other Commissioners. Rohm: Does anybody have a problem with doing it just that way? Commissioner Newton-Huckabay, do you have any -- Newton-Huckabay: I will not be here. Borup: She likes it. Rohm: So, you don't have an opinion. Okay. All right. That seems to be the consensus, then, and if that works for the balance of you, then -- Siddoway: It works for me. Rohm: -- we can do it just that way. Okay. At this time I'd like to -- go ahead. Newton-Huckabay: Well, regarding the 29th, because I won't be here on the 15th, I want you to know my preference is not to have a meeting on the 29th. I cannot guarantee my availability, because it is over spring break. Rohm: I don't think anybody intends to have one on the 29th. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. Siddoway: We just want you to get through everything on the 15th. Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 07-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.42 of an acre from R1 to C-G zone for the property located at 1970 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop - east side of N. Meridian Road & north of E. Fairview Avenue: Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 35 of 37 Item 5: Public Hearing: RZ 07-003 Request for a Rezone of 0.38 of an acre from L-O to C-G zone for the property located at 1990 N. Meridian Road for Hartz Music Shop by Hartz Music Shop - east side of N. Meridian Road & north of E. Fairview Avenue: Rohm: Bingo. Okay. With that being said, at this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 06-002 and RZ 07-003, for the sole purpose of continuing these two items to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of March 15th, 2006. Mae: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue AZ 06-002 and RZ 07-003 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2007: AZ 07-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2007: PP 07-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22 single-family residential building lots and 5 common / other lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Rohm: 07-002 and 07-003. At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 07- 001 and PP 07-001, both items related to Belhaven Subdivision, for the sole purpose of continuing these two items to the regularly scheduled meeting of May 3rd, 2007. Siddoway: So moved. Moe: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items AZ 07-001 and PP 07-001 to the regularly scheduled meeting of May 3rd, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1,2007 Page 36 of 37 Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 07-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 16 residential lots (proposed to contain 64 multi-family units) and 3 common lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for Doubletree Subdivision by Ron Babneau - 11 05 W. Pine Street: Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 07-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi-family development consisting of 64 multi- family dwelling units (4 plexes) on 16 lots in an L-O zone for Doubletree Subdivision by Ron Sabneau - 1105 W. Pine Street: Rohm: At this time I'd like to open Items No. PP 07-004 and PP 07-002, for the sole purpose of continuing to the March 15th, 2007, regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Items PP 07-004 and PP 07-002 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 207: CUP 07-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an 11 ,000 square foot multi-tenant retail building on .75 acres in a C-G Zone for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren Blaser - North of East Fairview Ave and West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision: Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing from February 15th, 2007, of CUP 07-001 of Jamaica Me Tan, for the sole purpose of continuing to the March 15th, 2007, regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Moe: So moved. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue CUP 07-001 to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 15th, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Moe: Mr. Chairman? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 1, 2007 Page 37 of 37 Rohm: Commissioner Moe. Moe: I move we adjourn. Rohm: It's been moved to adjourn. Siddoway: Second. Rohm: And seconded. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:44 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPro~ \ ~ MICHAEL E. ROHM - CHAIRMAN